Occasionally an opinion piece is written about the Volt that comes out negative. These are unconventional pieces as the vast majority of journalistic work paints the car in a positive light.
The Wall Street Journal has just published an article by editorial board member Holman Jenkins that was particularly harsh.
The author takes note of GMs financially difficult position and CEO Wagoner’s claim that consumer automotive shifts are not transient but likely permanent.
He writes:
GM’s leaders are not nuts, and yet to pour hundreds of millions into a race to launch an electric car, the Chevy Volt, guaranteed to lose money on every unit sold, begins to seem a peculiar strategy for a company in dire liquidity straits.
He writes “at best, the Volt will be an affluent family’s third car” and contends it wont be usable by city dwellers.
He goes on to attack GM’s claim that the ICE will get 50 mpg during battery charging as “hallucinatory” and makes the “guess” that “the car will be lucky to get 15 mpg under gasoline power.”
He perceives the Volt as having limited flexibility being a 4 passenger car, and derides its environmental benefit claiming use of electricity as a fuel is akin to “playing Three Card Monte with energy inputs.”
Finally Jenkins goes on to make his main point that GM, “justif(ies) the costs and risks of the Volt as a way of changing GM’s image in the minds of consumers and politicians.”, and that “the Volt is GM’s vehicle for making a bailout of GM politically acceptable.”
What do you think?
Source (Wall Street Journal)
This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 2nd, 2008 at 10:25 am and is filed under Politics, Public Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (10:29 am)Since GM is not the only automaker to go down that race, I guess a lot of them are just playing a political game.
As long as the car is being build I don’t really care about what one journalist have to say, even more when it is more a rant then something carefully researched.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (10:31 am)As my mother always says, “Consider the source.”
Next case.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (10:41 am)I was going to get all annoyed and post a well reasoned response backed up by research and data. I’ve decided to just ignore this man entirely.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (10:43 am)I suppose the WSJ is trying to be “fair and balanced” by having Holman Jenkins on the board. You know, a group of smart well informed business professionals, and then Holman.
Frankly, he must be one of the advisors to Ford, with their PHEV attiude of, wait til someone else does it, let it get popular, and then we’ll work on one.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (10:43 am)Two bullet points from the article:
“…and yet to pour hundreds of millions into a race to launch an electric car, the Chevy Volt, guaranteed to lose money on every unit sold, begins to seem a peculiar strategy for a company in dire liquidity straits”
“Never mind. GM executives are not nuts. They justify the costs and risks of the Volt as a way of changing GM’s image in the minds of consumers and politicians. To commit a pun, the Volt is GM’s vehicle for making a bailout of GM politically acceptable.”
That is the heart of the article…and it seems reasonable. The 15MPG part about the ICE was just dumb and takes credibility from the read.
Side note: The Volt probably is an affluent family’s third car, if you can shell $45K for a 4 seat sedan. No one that is honestly hurting from gas prices will be saved by it.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (10:43 am)The man knows what he is talking about he RIDES THE SUBWAY EVERYDAY TO WORK. This is proof positive that the educational system has failed. SOME HACK COMES OUT WITH AN ARTICLE AND HE DOESN’T HAVE A CLUE WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT. Yes consider the source clueless in New York.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (10:46 am)It’s a shame that WSJ does not insist on checking hard facts, even in opinion pieces.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (10:47 am)Holman Jenkins thinks he’s pretty smart. Time will tell, but it if he’s wrong he’ll look more stupid than GM does right now. What does he think GM should be doing? Trying to sell the public on existing technologies? Trying to keep sell them SUVs?
Of course GM wants political and PR mileage out of this, but that idea isn’t mutually exclusive from the fact that the VOLT is a good idea whose time has come. I agree that if the VOLT can’t reach it’s benchmarks it may not be a success, but if that is a foregone conclusion, what’s the point of trying anything new!
It’s often prudent to be a bit of a skeptic (nothing new is easy), but I think this guy crosses the line into self indulgent badmouthing.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (10:47 am)I would also like to mention, posting a topic like this, then saying “what do you think?” is akin to going to a NRA convention and saying, “Here’s a idea, lets ban guns? How about it?”
Your illiciting a response from a question where the answer is all but assured. You should run for office.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (10:53 am)To me this writer sounds like the schoolyard kid who argues something without the facts.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (10:56 am)Apparently, the Wall Street Journal is not aware of several things:
1) Petroleum (gasolene) is NOT a renewable resource.
GM is not out of line. They are seeing the handwriting on the wall and wisely reacting to it.
2) There are limited supplies of petroleum and we can already see the end – not now, but coming.
3) The exhaust from gas burning cars is polluting the atmosphere and increasing the greenhouse effect.
4) The exhaust from gas burning cars smells bad.
5) We have to KICK THE PETROLEUM HABIT!
6) The technology for producing electric cars is NOT science fiction. It is doable and doable NOW!
7) The general public is becoming aware of all of the above items and is beginning to look for alternatives.
9) Five years from now we will wonder why we ever used gasolene.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (10:56 am)>> (he) makes the “guess” that “the car will be lucky to get 15 mpg
>> under gasoline power.”
Guess again.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (10:58 am)I think the guy is smoking something.
A plug free Volt iteration would solve the city/apartment dweller problem and (with less battery) would be less cost prohibitive to us “non-affluent” people.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:02 am)I haven’t posted in a long time but read this wonderful site every day. I couldn’t pass this one up.
In regards to the WSJ article, my comment is, you have to consider the source!
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:04 am)While the WSJ has some valid points (at $40k and only seating 4, it is not a car for the masses, and city dwellers may have a hard time plugging in)…. the author loses major credability using the old flawed argument….
“…. an EV just moves the tail pipe from the cars to the power plants”
That argument only works (and barely) if the consumer is living in an area where most of the electric power comes from the oldest and dirtiest coal fired plants. Even then it’s partly flawed because just moving the pollution from congested cities to the burbs will save thousands of lives and health problems.
However the reality is that for most Americans, with the current mix, EV’s are much cleaner. On top of that, our power grid is getting cleaner and cleaner every year. It’s easier to control pollution from a few thousand power plants than it is from 100′s of millions of tail pipes.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:07 am)It’s easy to just dismiss this, because he’s totally lacking in facts and is just spouting some anti-GM BS.
Instead I’d rather break the article apart a bit.
1st point – Volt won’t get 50 mpg on gas, and he specifically mentions urban settings.
Counter: That’s totally wrong, especially for urban settings. One of the largest values of the new batteries GM is commissioning is that it accepts charge quickly. That means that reclamation braking could be set up over 50% and even if the car was hitting mid-30′s it would boost up to 50 mpg with the braking. Counter 2: The car is going to be very small, a four seater with good aerodynamics that will boost the efficiency.
City driving will be MUCH better mileage than highway, no doubts about that point.
The 2nd big point is that GM wants a bailout and this is a way to spruce up their image to the point that they can sway politicians. I think there might be some validity to this half of the argument. I know it’s made me upgrade my opinion of GM.
The last point is that they’ll lose money on each car. 1st, we don’t know that they will lose money. 2nd – even if they do they won’t have to rebuild tooling and manufacturing so the main expense of development will become less with every car produced. The Prius started out losing money and now is a big winner.
This was a frivilous and poorly researched article, even for an editorial, and belongs in an office water cooler chat and not in a major newspaper.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:07 am)Sounds like someone is shorting the stock… From a high of over 13$ yesterday to 10$ today makes a good case…
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:10 am)Only 10 people answered this so far. Interesting…
I view this mainly as a reaction to GM stock being the lowest it’s been in what, 40 years? WSJ readers are not any different than anyone else…they want to read what conforms to their opinion. And their opinion is that quarterly earnings are more important than long term outlook, and right now GM ain’t got any. So the article is about “throw the visionary under the bus and get back to making ME money. NOW.”
Problem is, the thirst to maintain quarterly earnings is EXACTLY what produced GM’s current stock price, AND the recession we are in. It produced GM’s stock price because they never got off their reliance on big engine cars and SUV’s. And it’s dumped us into a recession because the financial sector got addicted to sub-prime loan returns.
I have no love for Toyota, I’ve never owned one. But the fact that they could make and sell more Prius’s if there were more than 24 hours in a day is, I’m sure, a savory dessert.
here’s the kicker…if oil really is going to stay over 125 a barrel for the next 5 to 7 years, GM will have won the issue. If it’s a bubble and oil returns to 80 bucks a barrel, GM did not accomplish much.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:10 am)The author’s comment calling GM “… a company in dire liquidity straits”… may not be far off though…
CNBC reports that Merrill Lynch downgraded (from “buy” to “underperform” and setting a $7/share price target) GM today, and their analyst believes GM needs to raise $15B(illion), and that bankruptcy is not out of the question. More info at http://tinyurl.com/69s3lv
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:13 am)From the article:
“With each hectic advance in the development process, the expected sticker price to consumers has gone up. ”
He did get one this right.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:15 am)I just thought it was funny that he guessed 15 mpg. I don’t see how anyone would figure a 3 or 4 cylinder running only part of the time could possibly get 15 mpg.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:15 am)Also from the article:
“The company has already started signaling it expects Washington to provide a whopping $7,000 tax credit to Volt purchasers.”
I would rather see the government spend its (my) money this way than on some future war over oil.
———————–
He included a picture of the concept. Gosh that car is gorgeous.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:16 am)Sure GM has liquidity challenges. That aodesn’t make the Volt the wrong car. It is in fact the right car at the right time — well, maybe 18 months late, but still ahead of the competition. GM has accepted the challenge of finding a way for people to get off imported oil for 40 miles. That’s a great start. 4 of 5 Americans could be all electric with the Volt. The government should be begging them to take money to get the car on the road as an economic and security step.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:18 am)I have been checking this site almost every day for the past month or so and find it the most current, factual and balanced source for information on electric vehicles and electric storage technology. Lyle, I really appreciate what you are doing here. Keep up the good work.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:22 am)Given that this guy works for the Wall Street Journal, you would think he might have heard about September 11, and terrorism in general. Hmmm, maybe a car like the Volt would help there.
We will never win the war on terrorism as long as we are paying for both sides.
We need to stop importing oil ASAP.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:25 am)I would put it to him this way…
“Mr. Jenkins,
Your article failed to mention that over seventy percent of Americans use their cars forty miles or less each day. You failed to mention that, for those folks, stopping to fill up at a gasoline station will no longer be routine. You failed to mention that, with over a half a billion dollars going to the war in Iraq each day, which most folks believe originated to secure our supply of foreign oil, by avoiding future confrontations, the federal government can easily afford $7000 tax subsidies for alternative energy vehicles like the Volt. You failed to mention the expected growth in domestic jobs which will come about as a result of the developing need for large scale production of lithium ion battery packs. You failed to mention that the vast majority of vehicles on the road today contain exactly one occupant. You failed to mention that all new technologies have high startup costs, followed by dramatic price reductions as manufacturing capacity ramps up. Mr. Jenkins, you failed to mention quite a few things that lend clear support to the decision taken by GM executives when they put their company’s future on the line and committed to producing the paradigm changing Chevrolet Volt. Well informed, thoroughly researched, fairly considered journalism, your article is not! Which causes me to wonder if you really believe any of this, or if something else dominates your thinking.”
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:27 am)Third car?!?!? What is this guy, NUTS? This is going to be my # 1 & only car! Sizeable garage wired for power??!? You mean you can put power in your garage, oh man I never knew! This guy’s full of new ideas!!! 15 MPG!?!?! Ya, my lawnmover gets better than that! And with gas going down to $2/gallon by 2010, we’ll all be fine!
Let’s move on to some REAL topics, …. like getting off of OIL!!!
Aaaaw, LOVE that concept look!
GO GM, GO VOLT !
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:34 am)The only people who like change are wet babies.
Take Care
Arch
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:34 am)Wow. This guy might actually be correct.
I took a look at one of Honda’s largest work generators:
http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/products/modeldetail.aspx?page=modeldetail§ion=P2GG&modelname=EB11000&modelid=EB11000K1A
It is rated at 9500W, runs for 4.4 hours at the rated power, and has a capacity of 6.9 gallons. That works out to 41.8 kWh for 6.9 gallons or 0.165 gallons/kWh.
For 8kWh the Volt will apparently get ~40 miles city and ~25 miles highway. To generate 8 kWh with this Honda generator would take 1.32 gallons. That works out to 30MPG city and 19MPG highway.
Can someone check my math and confirm? Anyone know how this Honda generator compares with others in terms of efficiency? ( I checked one of their smallest models and it was about 5% less efficient).
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:35 am)Folks, I strongly suggest folks also post comments on the WSJ article right to the WSJ site’s own comment forum for the article…. http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?t=3155
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:42 am)I read Mr. Jenkins opinion pieces frequently. In the bigger picture he frequently takes the anti-position on just about any topic he writes about. I think this is his style to stimulate the broader conversation. If you don’t poke holes in your assumptions every once in a while, you could lead yourself astray.
If you read the whole article he takes an economists view of the rechargable electric vehicle. If an ICE generator supplying a battery to drive an electric motor was more efficient than an ICE drivetrain, it would already be in production. I think it just demonstrates that GM still has a great deal of convincing to do both to the car driving public and the investment community.
In my opinion, even if GM is trying to sway favors from the government, the technology and learning they developed from this exercise is valuable. I believe in enlightened self interest!
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:43 am)Alas, GM has gotten itself into a situation where it is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t.
If it runs out of cash and bellies up before E-Flex becomes commercially viable, it is stupid for wasting the liquidity on this future project.
If it saves the cash and doesn’t do the project, it will be stupid for bellying up a bit later when it has no competitive products to sell in 2011.
Time is clearly running out. I think that Merrill Lynch just sounded the 2 minute warning. As we discussed the other day, might as well throw the Hail Mary and hope for the best. As we always used to say, “Might as well go out in a blaze of glory.”
#22 Rashiid Amul:
Amen brother, preach on!
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:54 am)Like I was saying the other day. GM must be “spot on” when the Volt comes out. No stupid or major problems. Because people like
Holman Jenkins are going to have a field day if there are problems.
I know GM knows this. They talked about it at VoltNation.
But an article like this helps to drive the point home.
Noel #32. Right you are. Damned either way.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:56 am)Hmmm, so this is the WSJ’s opinion? or at least one of their editorial board member’s opinions….it makes me think of that old saying that compares opinions to a certain area of the human anatomy….
I also wonder what the portfolio of this editorial board member looks like?
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:56 am)$45K? Where did that come from?
Last I heard we were looking at just under $40K, and maybe $5K less with a tax incentive.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:58 am)Is the Volt just a P.R. tool?
We’ll see by how many are actually made and what GM ultimately sells them for.
I don’t think the Volt is a P.R. tool because GM realizes that if they don’t follow-through on electric cars (range-extended or not)…
they’re dead!
Jul 2nd, 2008 (12:03 pm)All this speculation about GM’s fortunes is just that. If GM doesn’t try to do something different it will go bankrupt. So when GM goes bankrupt if it builds the Volt is not a concern. The true sign of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. With oil in such high demand the writings on the wall for most big gas guzzlers. Again Wall Street points out the obvious but with no solutions.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (12:05 pm)Folks, lets not get hysterical. It is an opinion piece. You know the saying… opinions are like &^$%#^ we all have them. I do not believe this will be a plan for a GM buyout. That is just as absurd as the 15 mpg statement. He may have a point about the cost of the vehicle. We need to keep the price in the $35 range or it will be an affluent vehicle and the Prius will win again. The best attack that GM can do at this point is to build the car and bring it to the NYT and give Mr. Jenkins a ride in it to the nearest subway station.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (12:06 pm)Of course the Volt is a PR tool. It is also a proof of concept vehicle and a drivetrain and platform that can be ported to every vehicle in the lineup with ease.
The Prius was a PR tool too. Toyota saw a market segment that nobody was doing anything with (ultra environmentalists) and went after it.
As for positioning itself for a government bailout…the government SHOULD bailout GM for a variety of reasons but I don’t think they will at all. For some strange reason we have a terrible double standard in the press and Congress when it comes to Toyota, Honda et al. vs. GM and Ford.
“GM hates Unions! Bad GM! Toyota is the BESTEST!” “What? Toyota isn’t Union and never gets picketed or anything? umm…BAD GM!”
Don’t give me the quality argument either for crying out loud. It took Toyota nearly 10 years to figure out how to galvanize steel correctly in the 70′s and yet we kick in the double standard and give Toyota a halo and we rip GM for QC issues that occurred in 1960.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (12:07 pm)#33 Rashiid Amul
Yep. They have got to nail the technology with reasonable performance to start, and then have a road map to improve it.
Here’s the thing: you’ve got to start somewhere. The technological investments that GM makes on the Volt will not be lost. They will have figured out a lot of things that will help their entire hybrid portfolio going forward, from their mild (BAS) hybrids and their two-mode hybrids to their series hybrids. It also prepares them for a future where hybrids will be much more prominent. If, for example, the latest work on direct methanol fuel cells can be commercialized successfully, then GM is poised to make use of it.
There is a bit of a gamble in this; they are somewhat at the mercy of oil and electricity prices and the whims of the market. But if you say GM is crazy, I’d say they’re crazy like a fox…
Jul 2nd, 2008 (12:16 pm)Alot of financial viability talk going on. The market certainly believes which way GM is headed.
Another low of the low set today, currently:
$10.45 – $1.30 -or- 11%, yield is almost 10%
Jul 2nd, 2008 (12:20 pm)Its clearly time to flame this WSJ elitist. 15 mpg under gasoline mode? He clearly fails to understand this tech. Lets all take a minute out of our day to send him and educational email… Hows about the story of Lutz’s driving the mule car with 40+ mile battery range?
Jul 2nd, 2008 (12:27 pm)Holman Jenkins has offered the first plausible explanation I’ve seen that explains why a company in dire liquidity straits (yes, they really are, the WSJ tends to get that sort of thing right all the time) would be pouring money into a project that, BY DESIGN, will not produce any significant profit before 2013 AT THE EARLIEST. This also explains the “openness” around the Volt development.
They are setting the stage for a handout, so that DC will have a reason to keep GM alive. They’re going to have to ask for more than a “loan guarantee,” like Chrysler did. They’ll be asking for much, much more. This also explains the nonsense about getting utilities involved in using the Volt for temporary bolstering of the grid. They’re doing all they can to maximize the “constituency” of the Volt and, therefore, backers for the GM handout.
15mpg in extended-range mode? It will probably do better than that but probably not more than 45mpg. Perhaps as little as 40mpg.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (12:28 pm)We are in the midst of a very big political shift. Mr. Jenkins opinion obviously is seated in his investments in the oil industry, as many people are, GM needs to push ahead without delay. The politics of “business as usual” will only leave us further dependant on old and dirty technology.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (12:29 pm)RE: #29 GXT
could you post how you got those numbers? I would love to check your math for you, but without anything to go on its a bit tough.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (12:33 pm)Wallstreet Journal? Isn’t that susposed to one of the bastions of libral thinking?
Obviously the author of the article has his head so far up his …………. anyway, who cares what he said. It’s really not worthy of print and certainly not worthy of debating on this forum.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (12:40 pm)Interesting quotes from the article:
“Secondly, any forecast calling for a “permanent” shift in auto tastes based on a quantum as volatile as the price of gasoline is nuts.”
Wow.. so it is WSJ-s sure bet that oil/gas prices are going to come down? As if suddenly there would be abundance of new easily accessible (i.e. cheap) oil-drilling locations available? And ..ahem.. no global warming thanks to burning too much fossile either?
Last I checked across the Asian (never mind the African..) continent three things were happening – a) population increase and b) move towards industrial societies. c) gasoline sold to consumers at SUBSIDIZED prices. Yes, subsidized as in below the market value. Compensated by special arrangements from other public resources – they supposedly do that to avoid mass-riots…All the biggest – China (where gas is cheaper than in the US, never mind the Europe), India, Malaysia do that and they spend billions of dollars on these subsidies annually and no, there’s no end in sight to this policy.
I suppose all that comes as a revelation to the WSJ and..ahem.. despite all of the above , the oil prices will drop, right?
Why is WSJ publishing such nonsense?
Have they perhaps had too big slice of the Big Oil pie for lunch?
Jul 2nd, 2008 (12:41 pm)Statik #5. Don’t you think we ought to hold off on pronouncing this an affluent buyers car? I’ve been lurking on this website for nearly 6 months now and have digested a great deal of good and well thought input, a lot from yourself I May add however, it’s not been written in stone (yet) what pricing will be, only speculation and even GM has been playing with the proposed pricing I suspect to throw competition off the scent.
So the 45K you stated is only a WAG.
Even if it were to be as expensive as some have proposed it won’t be for long. Battery technology is evolving rapidly and with that prices will follow.
C’mon, be a sport, try and put a positive spin on some of your inputs. You generally have good points and for the most part quite informative but you are for the most part terriblly negative:)
Jul 2nd, 2008 (12:42 pm)This article is tantamount to the barnyard practice of chickens pecking at a bleeding member until its demise.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (12:44 pm)You know criticism like this from such an elitist globalist paper should be a badge of honor for GM. Maybe these neo-cons are afraid the public thinking will change. That we don’t need to be so panicked over maintaining our access to oil and fight these ‘stability’ conflicts in the Middle East. Maybe they fear a public back-lash.
‘How could you have spent so much money in Iraq to accomplish next to nothing when we could have bankrupted our enemies with the money by buying every one a Volt?’ Not to mention the jobs we’d create, the balancing of our trade deficit and inventing the tech to allow us and our trading partners to live up to the Kyoto treaty. I think the powers that be really fear change and innovation. They see their power and their World Power Balance models being attacked. They are desparate and don’t know what to do so they spread lies and falsehoods. We need to stand up to this and keep preaching to the public the wisdom of the Volt project.
So the car might be more expensive than the gas it saves. yeah, but the price of gas has a huge socialized cost with all the war, pollution and despotic regimes it finances with our own money!
There’s clearly more at stake here than just gas mileage and bailouts. How much would a GM bailout cost now that they are on track to solving the problem and making the world a better place? A few billion? Thats a joke of an amount of money in Washington these days. They spend that in Iraq in one month.
We know where this author and where this paper stands: status quo, Welfare/Warfare statist.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (12:48 pm)I found a follow-up article on Mr. Jenkins article published by Businessweek, where the author attacks Jenkins assertions
WSJ Attack on Chevy Volt—-Shocking
Posted by: David Kiley on April 23
Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. writes a pretty tedious editorial in The Wall Street Journal today, suggesting that General Motors is wrong-headed for developing the plug-in Chevy Volt.
Holman W. Jenkins Jr. does make one reasonable point. The Department of Transportation’s announcement that automakers will have to boost fuel efficiency in their cars and trucks by 4.5% a year until 2015, is subject to change by a future Congress and White House if automakers can’t get there, market conditions and oil prices changes, etc. There are a host of things that can happen between now and then to move the goal posts.
But here is where Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. loses me. “America’s biggest near-dead car company called in reporters this month to boast – boast! – about its willingness to lose money on its forthcoming electric car. That includes betting the farm on whether batteries can be developed with the necessary power-to-weight ratio and life expectancy to give the car its needed usability. “Whatever it takes to do, we will do” to deliver the plug-in Volt by a 2010 deadline, project leader Frank Weber told journalists.”
The scientists I have interviewed over the past few years tell me that not only is the technology within reach, but that it makes too much sense not to pursue with gusto. Do costs have to be brought down? Yes. But never has an application of technology come along that so perfectly matched the peculiarities of the U.S. driver. The plug-in is designed to run between 40 and 50 miles on an electrical charge. If you have to go a longer distance, an engine that kicks on to recharge the battery will get you there. It takes the nervousness of running out of juice out of the mix.
Honda doesn’t see the market for plug-ins. Okay. But Honda have us the awkward looking Insight to answer the Prius, as well as the Ridgeline pickup and the Element. Honda’s read of the consumer desire side of the busines can be off.
GM sees the Volt and its plug-in siblings as a new lens through which the U.S. and world will view the company—if it gets the products right and delivers. But fault the company for over-spending on breakthrough technology? Why? GM has gotten management decisions wrong plenty of times (linking with Italian automaker Fiat before its financial renaissance comes to mind) They have also gotten product decisions wrong plenty of times (see: Pontiac Aztek, Chevy Outlander and Saturn LS to name a few.).
A financial and management commitment to bring a game-changing technology to showrooms is hardly something to criticize. As Toyota has proved, the presence of the Prius in showrooms and in the papers makes even its thirstiest gas suckers like the Sequoia and Tundra appear greener than GM’s vehicles even when they aren’t.
More from Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. “For some number of dollars, GM can afford to bribe consumers to drive Volts off the lot…”
GM is betting that there will be early adopters, as well as government incentives to help consumers buy the new technology…just as there were for the Prius. GM opted out of hybrids in the 1990s because it rightly saw that gas-electric hybrids were an inelegant engineering solution for higher fuel economy. It made a bet that hydrogen-powered cars would come along faster than reality tells us now is the case.
Yes, it’s a bit of a roll of the dice for GM. And it’s unlike the way the “near death” automaker Jenkins describes has behaved in the past. From my vantage point, it looks like GM is taking in the political reality that we will never have European-style gas taxes to drive demand for smaller vehicles, so it is trying to one-up Toyota on the technology front. If GM falls on its face in the execution, we can all write that story. But to pillory the company for trying? What for?
Regarding Ethanol
“Finally, there is the new Satanism school. Writing in the Wall Street Journal columnist Holman Jenkins recently accused me personally of “surrendering [my] soul upfront” and “rushing into a devil’s bargain” by praising the use of ethanol rather than oil products, and then again that “Satan will insist on his due” even if though I urge moving from corn to cellulosic biomass as a feedstock. I was really shocked at this allegation – not about me, since I would honestly have to plead guilty to at least second-degree ethanol support, but I was surprised to see Mr. Jenkins link the Devil to ethanol, even outside the context of excessive recreational ethanol consumption. So I communicated to Mr. Jenkins that I had given him a call and the Devil had assured me that it wasn’t true: “I’m totally,” he said, “invested in geothermal.”
Idiots like him should be prevented from commenting on new technology
Jul 2nd, 2008 (12:53 pm)The guy is a moron. No hard facts to back up his “opinions”, just loose canon rhetoric and shrill nonsense. Considering the source, it’s no wonder I don’t subscribe or read the WSJ. Next intelligent conversation please???
Jul 2nd, 2008 (12:54 pm)He writes “at best, the Volt will be an affluent family’s third car”
It will be our first car & we are not affluent. We have a fixed income, but we’ll come up with what we need to get a Volt.
The trouble with opinion pieces is that some readers take them as truth. The 15 mile per gallon thing, for example. How many highly educated people who read the WSJ & base their car buying decisions on other biased publications (Consumer Reports comes to mind) will believe this statement to be accurate?
Jul 2nd, 2008 (12:55 pm)When he says it won’t work for urban dwellers, what he means is that you can’t park it anywhere in Manhattan with a wire out an apartment window to the street without it and the car suffering a minimum of eleven acts of vandalism per hour as long as it’s there.
Meanwhile, let’s all try to remember that NYC is trying to bill itself as a soon-to-be “green” city!
For the Volt, the “first case” is likely to be the “worst case” in terms of cost. The “third car” comment probably does describe the fate of the first 10,000. If costs don’t fall by 2013, he could be right overall; but I don’t see that they can help but fall. We’re talking about a new industry to build batteries on this scale. Once it ramps up to high volume, it will take a lot of work and chicanery to keep the pack prices high.
This is a somewhat flawed analogy, but I recall seeing the first electronic calculator (as we think of them today), featured in a magazine article; it had been virtually hand-made in a laboratory for the Apollo astronauts, and cost thousands of dollars. As a child at the time, I thought; “how cool would that be to have for Math class,” though at the time, I might as well have wished for my own space capsule. Within 10 years, I was getting a miniature version from an office supply store, free with a promotional coupon! Sometimes when you pull the lever, you do get a jackpot …
Jul 2nd, 2008 (12:55 pm)Well, hopefully the government will bail GM out and put the motherload of strings attached to the bailout: E-REV on all vehicles under XXXX weight by 201X and two mode hybrid on all vehicles over XXXX weight by 2011.
The fact of the matter is we are probably the ONLY country whose government does not subsidize directly or indirectly its automotive industry.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (12:58 pm)I posted a reply and was going to post it here but the comment hasn’t been approved yet so I can’t yet post it here as well without retyping. Basically I mostly wrote about the 15 mpg part of his article and how the article is closer to slander than anything else.
But all this talk about 15 mpg has got me thinking. I posted on here a long long time ago that the E-Flex system does not depend on large batteries. Who here wouldn’t today want a Volt if it only had a 2KW battery! If that car was on the market right now it would be the best car available right now!!! Who wouldn’t want a car for less than 30K that gets better milage than a prius. It would be the highest milage car you could buy or possible would get only as good a milage as the prius. But either way their is a waiting list for the prius so the Volt with the same or better mileage would be pulling in some serious bucks for GM.
I think I am the only one on the plantet that realizes this.
GM needs to move all of their vehicles to the E-Flex drive train and add larger batteries various production lines in the future as they become available.
I hope that GM has plans to do just this and is waiting on doing it for the same reason they are limiting production of the volt initially… which is probably because of fears of huge recalls that would cripple the company if the recall numbers are large. Hopefully they will have the assurance of the drive trains durability soon and the conversion of all their vehicles can begin soon.
And think about it you buy your E-Flex car or truck from GM with a 2K battery and the upgrade to a 16K or whatever size battery you want requires virtually nothing more than the battery and the controller to recharge it with. Upgrade companies would be popping up like the $10,000 dollar upgrade available for the prius.
This would be an immediate boom for car and truck sales for GM. Just do it!!!!
Jul 2nd, 2008 (1:07 pm)The key point of the article as identified by Statik is
“GM executives are not nuts. They justify the costs and risks of the Volt as a way of changing GM’s image in the minds of consumers and politicians. To commit a pun, the Volt is GM’s vehicle for making a bailout of GM politically acceptable.”
The author is correct. GM executives are not nuts. GM is looking for government support, and such support requires a different image arising from a different reality. GM’s plan is rational. The invisible hand does not require pure motivations of those at GM, for we all will benefit from the Volt.
15 mpg with the ICE on is incorrect. Perhaps it is simply a typo.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (1:11 pm)Holman Jenkins OBVIOUSLY didn’t do much homework on the Volt and the new technology behind it. The Volt was probably just another story his editor had him do. He probably researched it for a half hour on the internet, talked to a few people in the newsroom and then published what he thought.
The dude just doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Not even worth trying to argue with a guy like that. You’d just be educating him on things he should have done himself before he even wrote the story. The people who wrote the Atlantic story really did do a good bit of homework on the Volt in their story: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/general-motors
Jul 2nd, 2008 (1:13 pm)#48 250Volts
“Statik #5. Don’t you think we ought to hold off on pronouncing this an affluent buyers car? … what pricing will be, only speculation and even GM has been playing with the proposed pricing I suspect to throw competition off the scent. So the 45K you stated is only a WAG. C’mon, be a sport, try and put a positive spin on some of your inputs. You generally have good points and for the most part quite informative but you are for the most part terriblly negative:)”
It’s true if the over 40K price is just a big bluff, the ‘non-affluent’ might get into it. (Over 40K is for the affluent, 95% of new autosales are under this price point). I don’t think the pricetag is a WAG though. Suggesting that GM is ‘pulling a fast one’ might be.
As for being mostly negative…I plead guilty.
I’m not really the type of guy that puts ‘spins’ on things either. (=
However, I think my negativity has something to do with everything being negative. This is a bad, bad economy we are in right now and declining, and GM is a company in that economy that is in bad, bad shape. (I used bad twice in those references because of my negativity…the second bad is clearly redundant, hehe.) ((Then I added the ‘hehe’ for levity))
Jul 2nd, 2008 (1:16 pm)There are a lot of good points here. #16 Greg Woulf may sum it up the best when he says that Jenkins is wrong on the facts but makes a good point about the political finance deal.
I don’t see what’s so negative about using good technology in order to obtain government incentives. Every company wants a handout. Bear Sterns got one. Private Equity gets one. Alternative energy companies get one. These don’t bother me so much (maybe the private equity) as the ones that are really evil, like Archer Daniel getting a tariff on sugar cane ethanol so it can jack up the price of its corn ethanol. Or the crazy policy of building roads into national forests that cost more than the timber sales. Those hurt people and our national interest and cost the taxpayes money all at once without providing a corresponding societal benefit.
The point would be that it’s perfectly rational to provide incentives if it makes sense. If GM has a promising technology that will cut our dependency on oil, thereby letting us out of the Middle East and allowing us to stop funding terrorism, then I fail to see why we wouldn’t provide an incentive. For the $24B/Month we’re wasting now on the rat hole we call Iraq we could buy down a lot of the price on a lot of VOLTS.
What would be so terrible about that?
#29 GXT
You raise a question how much electricity will be needed to power the VOLT and question whether the claimed mpg is unrealistic. You may be overestimating the power needed to drive the VOLT. Here is a quote from the Poulsen Hybrid site. Poulsen is an entrant in the Automotive X Prize contest. They’re of interest here because their system consists of a very small battery that hooks directly to hub motors in two wheels. It works because you need very little power to run the car directly (the other way to look at this is that the ICE in a car engine is unbelievably ineffecient):
“The development is based on the observation that only 10-15 horsepower is required to propel a compact or mid-size automobile along a level road at a steady 60-70 mph. leading to the conclusion that this relatively small amount of electric power would be able to cope with 70-85% of normal driving, only aided by the combustion engine during start up and when extra energy is required for acceleration and hill climbing.”
Trains use the generator/battery/motor combination because it’s the most effecient method available. I don’t see why it’s a shock that it would be effecient in a car.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (1:19 pm)#56.
Omegaman66
i recall the volt has an 85 kw motor. you can’t run a series drive on a 2kw stack. It won’t put out the necessary amperage. You’d need a 5kw prismatic stack that operates at 480 volts and the least. This stack would probably weigh about 300 lbs, and would require one heck of a complicate control circuit.
I don’t know that any one has ever built a NIMH stack with many cells (i’ve not heard of a large format prismatic)? It would be just under half as many cells currently contemplated in the Volt 40. So who says it could really be done for $30K. But granted, maybe worth a try.
But, if you look carefully, GM is betting on LION prices eventually achieving near parity with NIMH. From what i;ve read i don’t see why that won’t happen. The tests i read about the new Large Format LiFe cells has the retail costs down to $0.80/Wh. They have good heat tolerance and and better cold start ability than NIMH. If managed properly the manufactures claims 2k cycles @ 70% DOD. Who knows if those numbers can be trusted, but with competent manufactures like LG throwing serious bank and engineers at the problem, i wouldn’t be surpised if by 2010, they’ll build a Volt stack + controller for under $10K which meets the criterian and then some. I am a seller of A123 winning the volt contract by the way.
A123 tech would make more sense in a LION Prius as their pulse power stats are second to none, but they haven’t proven themselves on cost or large-format. Their M-series cells are a perfect match for HEV market. Oh yah, and i think they took a few extra months to deliver a working stack to GM, right?
–
DA
Jul 2nd, 2008 (1:20 pm)I had actually wondered how the lunatic-Left would demonize the Volt. I knew that someone with a liberal leaning would, even though I couldn’t quite figure out how.
Zero pollution for the first 40 miles seems like a no-brainer (but electricity comes from coal! Waaaah!) But electricity can be made with Wind Power, which is projected to provide 20% of all US electrical needs by 2030; and there are new Solar breakthroughs almost weekly. Coal plants will likely be forced to “sequester” CO2 emissions. The Volt still seems like a cinch for the Global Warmists to take to (and I’m frequently amused when I see them trying to figure out why most people here never show up for Sun Day school).
The batteries don’t contain toxic materials (like NiMH, or Lead-acid, for that matter), and in any case are fully recycleable; so there goes the rest of the environmental objections.
“Too expensive, except for the rich!” That wouldn’t stop a surprizing number of elite liberals, for whom money (especially ours) appears to be no object. How much electricity did Al Gore use last year? And in any case, the technology’s costs will drop.
So what could possibly be left for a good liberal to object to?
With all the obvious things easily answerable, that still leaves a glaringly obvious one: the Volt offers hope for an America which is not continually diminishing to a point where it can no longer influence world affairs. This is one thing that the hard-core Liberal (or Environmentalist) cannot allow. You know. Because the US is so EEEEEEEEEEVIL!!!.
At the hardest core of liberal-environmentalism is a hatred of industry, economy, the US, and even Humanity.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (1:25 pm)Jackson #62. You really need to be less full of vitriol and rigidity. You paint everyone left of center as if they are evil. You use a brush so wide that you eliminate half of the country….at least half. You make it sound as if liberal leaning is a bad idea. The other word for liberal is PROGRESSIVE. Progressives believe in moving FORWARD, not standing still with the status quo and shooting to everyone that everything is okay, when clearly it is not. You can bet far more progressives are for the Volt than are conservatives IMHO.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (1:25 pm)I am really surprised that the WSJ editorial staff didn’t stop him from making a 15 mpg claim without backing the statement up.
If I were GM, I would consider legal action against WSJ for libel.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (1:31 pm)#29 GXT
Sorry I left off some rough calculations. If the ICE engine in the VOLT has the same effeciency as the honda engine you’re referencing, then it could power the VOLT for 4.4 hours at a speed of say 60 mph using 6.9 gallons of gas. This means we’d be looking at something along the lines of 40 mpg highway rather than your estimate of 19 mpg. That’s consistent with the early information that the VOLT would have a cruising range of 640 miles on a standard (16 gallons?) tank of gas.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (1:34 pm)#56 Omega
I think alot of us are thinking that. Actually we just had a whole long post about “Should GM get into the ‘high-efficiency hybrid’ business”
Truth is, GM missed that boat, they admit it too. Rather than trying to get onboard as quickly as possible, they have decided to try and circumvent their problems of today and slip right into the future.
If you accept that GM will go bankrupt. and you also accept that they think so too, it is not a bad plan.
Honestly, they should probably still be doing work on the economically viable, under 30K, ‘hybrid thing’ as well. But maybe they figure the XFE badge on the Cobalts/Pursuits-G5 today, and then the new turbo 4 into their cars will be enough to connect the past with the furture.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (1:43 pm)45 Egineer,
Well I would prefer if someone else did it from scratch, but here is my reasoning.
Generator info from Honda website:
rated power: 9.5kW
fuel tank capacity: 6.9 gallons
Run time per tankful: 4.4 hours at rated load
9.5kWh * 4.4h / 6.9 gallons = 6.058 kWh/gallon = 0.1651 gallons/kWh
Volt Specs:
Battery Size: 16kW
City Range: 40 miles
Highway range: 25 miles
Electricity used before generator comes on: 8kW
To generate 8kW with the Honda generator would take 8kW * 0.1651 gallons/kWh = 1.321 gallons
So 40 miles @ 1.321 gallons = 30.3 MPG
and 25 miles @ 1.321 gallons = 18.9 MPG
Jul 2nd, 2008 (1:44 pm)Kevin R
Yes, I think 50/50 is about right, and both sides are about equally brushed. If you don’t believe me, look at where the country falls politically.
No, I probably shouldn’t troll-bait like that. But I do get tired of actually seeing only one side expressing itself.
If we really want to throw civility to the winds, I think it might be interesting for all to see how Volt interest on this site shakes out, politically, maybe on a click-poll (one click per screen name). I think a lot of people would be surprised.
A great strength of the Volt is that it answers so many people’s needs/issues without exclusivity. Want to stop funding Mid-East Oil? Volt can help. Want to limit CO2 emissions? Volt can help. Want to save American industry? Volt can help. There aren’t many things out there which has so much “Win” for so many points of view.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (1:45 pm)62 Jackson:
What’s evil is the way you’ve managed to take this fluff piece and turn it into a diatribe against “liberal-environmentalism”.
What makes you so sure that Holman Jenkins is not a neocon in the pay of Big Oil?
And what makes you think that you’re not the troll in this scenario?
Jul 2nd, 2008 (1:47 pm)65 DonC,
I would appreciate if someone else could confirm, but I am pretty sure that it is a known fact that the electric ranges that GM is talking about for the Volt are the result of 1/2 of the Volt’s battery being used. That would mean that the 8kW is accurate.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (1:48 pm)I failed art class in high school, and get paid by energy engineers for efficient systems regardless of aesthetics.
Therefore, I qualify myself to say that the Mona Lisa is the ugliest painting of all times and guess it would get about $15 dollars on the open market because the cost of oil is at an all time high.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (1:56 pm)Mein Green
To answer your question, “What makes you so sure that Holman Jenkins is not a neocon in the pay of Big Oil?”, I’ve learned that nothing constructive ever follows the word “neocon” in a post.
To answer your charge, “And what makes you think that you’re not the troll in this scenario?”
I’m sorry.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (2:03 pm)Mr. Jenkins,
Your opinions are a great example of the short-sighted arguments that have led to our current fuel crisis. However, the facts on the ground are changing. Your theories on pricing and economy are all based on current fuel cost, current emissions and current thinking.
You mention that families are still willing to buy large vehicles. You repeat the argument that electricity can be more ‘dirty’ than gas, you question the efficiency of an onboard generator. Providing that there were no technological advances and consumers preferences didn’t change, your assumptions might be correct.
However, consumers are changing their habits. Just search “SUV Car Sales” on your own paper and you’ll see that consumers are changing. This is not just a recent switch, Hybrids have been doing well, and many consumers are waiting for the car they ‘want’ to be released as a Hybrid. I personally don’t see this as an endorsement of ‘Hybrids’ as much as an endorsement for change.
Technology is also changing, with $4 gas, industry and investors are all scrambling for a piece of the alternative energy ‘pie’. It’s also possible that with higher gas prices, we will see a public warming to a return to ‘nuclear’. Better batteries, motor, generators are all on the horizon. How much better remains to be seen. Where we end up is a guessing game.
The primary benefit of the ‘Volt’ is that it doesn’t really care where the electricity comes from. It can come from an outlet (coal or nuclear), it can come from a generator (Gas, Diesel, Ethanol, Vegetable oil, hydrogen). It could come from the sun or a lightning rod if you’re lucky. While the first version of the Volt is planned to be gas, it just a matter of changing out the generator to convert to newer technologies. Current Hybrids are well tuned machines relying on the engine for the heavy lifting; they can’t be easily unplugged and ‘swapped’.
As battery technology increases, you will be able to unplug your old batteries and replace them with newer, lighter, cheaper alternatives.
You dismiss the idea of the onboard generator as being ‘inefficient’. You suggest that the feature is not valuable, because you ‘guess’ it will only get 15 miles to the gallon. Well, my research in the subject suggests that 20 miles would be the worst case scenario for an extremely inefficient system for a car of the Volts weight in heavy driving. I think creating a car that hit 40 miles per gallon, would be pretty darn easy.
Still the efficiency is not really the point of the generator. The generator removes the ‘compromise’ factor of the electric car. Consumers worry about not being able to drive their car, because it’s out of charge. They won’t buy a car that they are afraid will strand them. The generator serves as a ‘safety’ net. It also allows them to plan the yearly trip to grandmas knowing that their family car will get them there quickly and reliably.
To sum up, the Volt seems to be shaping up into a great ‘no compromise’ product that will serve the customers who can afford it well. It will also turn into a profitable and growing platform for a fleet of future low cost, efficient ‘no compromise’ cars and trucks.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (2:13 pm)The only politcal move is any advertisement whatsoever that implies the car will work off the ICE with limited RPM ability if the battery fails (sorry, nasaman, it just ain’t so…coming from an EE). That is a bunch of hogwash, but the real design of the Volt is real. The E-REV is real. Battery technology (Li-ion and and NiMH) is real.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (2:31 pm)I saw that article and came to the conclusion that this moron hasn’t a clue about anything automotive. Why in the world he would claim that the Volt will be a money loser is anybody’s guess, then his absurdly idiotic claim that the Volt will get 15 MPG using gasoline makes me wonder what planet he’s been living on the past few months. I mean, there are no 3100 pound cars that get 15 MPG that I’m aware of, even those using much less efficient gas engines directly. How does one explain stupidity that’s this comprehensive? Why is the WSJ assigning people like him to write automotive articles? If the WSJ believed in truth in media, this guy would have been fired yesterday. Apparently, the editors at WSJ are just as ignorant about all things automotive as this veritable copy boy.
In the past I have read some rather ignorant crap in the WSJ, as well as the NY Times, which often feeds it stories and vice versa,
but this stuff is unbelievable. Anyone inclined to bash the media has a perfect example of near total incompetence right here. Hard to believe, isn’t it?
Jul 2nd, 2008 (2:33 pm)GM stock just hit single digits, for the first time since…well…no one here remembers, unless they have been getting a pension for 20 years.
$9.99 off $1.76 or 15%
Jul 2nd, 2008 (2:34 pm)I really don’t get what these “city folk’ have against this car. I have read repeatedly how the Volt will never work in the city where people park their car on the street and don’t have a garage. This is just the NY/LA centric bias of the mass media.
1. Who care how many Volts are sold to the urban market. This is a tiny fraction of the overall market for this or any other hybrid of its type. The huge market is the surburban commuter that takes an hour to make a 20 mile commute. The great majority of the market for this car will not come from the city so that is not justification for saying it will not work.
2. Which is easier to deploy rapidly, infrastructure built around hydrogen or infrastructure built around a plug-in electric? The first company to comercialize a kiosk type recharging station will make a killing. Picture a post in the head of every parking space at a mall, or maybe just a plug-in section to start. You pull up, swipe your card and plug in. This is a system that could be rapidly scaled to every mall, hotel, large business, park-and-ride, airport parking lot in the country. Once we have several models of plug-in hybrids gaining market share look for a pay-as-you-go electric plugin parking spot charging system to be rapidly deployed.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (2:34 pm)Does anyone want to venture a guess as to why this brainless boob thinks the Volt is a “city car.” Doesn’t he understand that this is not a battery-only electric? Does he realize that the city, with its condos and lack of garages and carports, is NOT the best place to locate a car that needs to be plugged in every night? His monumental ignorance apparently knows no bounds.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (2:44 pm)Jason @ 64,
Litigation over speculation at this point just ain’t worth it–trust me, from a litigation background. Besides, the best thing GM can do is focus on the vehicle at hand and unveil a true production vehicle. I know, I’m getting ahead of them. But the WSJ has lost some credibility with me over the statements made here… There is nothing to back up the 15 mpg claim. Idiotic.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (2:44 pm)It’s kind of funny when you look at this situation. When GM decided to do the Volt it was in response to the Prius. When gas prices were not out of control. Since then gas prices are through the roof. People are not satisfied with the fuel economy of current vehicles and are abandoning trucks and suv’s. The lifeline of GM. Most people are not going to put money into a new vehicle now (unless they are downsizing a gas guzzler) because they are waiting for better products on the Horizon. All the auto manufacturers are suffering. The Volt has become so much more important for GM than it was when they started. Even though things are tough for GM right now. I kind of see this as good fortune for them. That they are as far into this process as they are. The Volt will deserve a govt. tax credit and GM will come out of this by the skin of their teeth.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (2:59 pm)To #46, 250volts:
Your question: Wallstreet Journal? Isn’t that susposed to one of the bastions of libral thinking?
Not when it’s owned by Rupert Murdoch…you know, the giver of “fair and balanced” news via our friends at Fox.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (3:10 pm)#22 Totally!
But this site had nothing to report so it made something up and it worked.
Anyone see a mule yet?
When we gonna see what it really looks like?
Intrest free financing?
Jul 2nd, 2008 (3:12 pm)Apparently WSJ didn’t approve my post. Harshes thing I said was the article borded on slander refrencing the 15mpg comment.
On a side note I think it is time for an update from GM on the mpg (city and hwy) that can be expected from the ICE. Wasn’t it suggested the ICE size had been increased. Shouldn’t we have some more solid figures than the preproduction paper estimates that were originally put out.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (3:40 pm)I want an electric car to drive to work. I’d be lucky to afford a $10K car. Maybe, with creative financing, I could stretch to $25K, but that’s pretty much about it.
One problem – they don’t exist! There is no such animal as an electric car (even used) for under $25K that I could drive 9 miles a day to work in Newport Beach, CA. Why? there are no “streets” with a 35 mph or less speed limit between my house and work.
Hey, if they made one, I would buy it. But they don’t go fast enough to legally drive down Barranca, Jamboree, Irvine Blvd, etc in Orange County. Personally I wouldn’t mind driving 25 mph down the street, but I’ll but *YOU* would mind, especially if you were behind me.
What they need to do is widen the “bike lanes” out here, and let us drive these so-called electric cars on the bike lanes. BTW, they are not cars, they are golf carts with strange-looking car bodies.
If I could actually get a hybrid (an electric car with a gasoline engine alternative), that would be sweet. But from what I’ve seen in my research on the Internet, that just ain’t gonna happen. And if GM will lose money at $45K per car, well, that definitely tells me that I am not in the market for one.
It can be done! These ugly little electric carts (EV’s) can be made to go a respectable 40 mph. And if so, people can actually get used to driving that slow — but I daresay that is the more difficult part of the package.
Oh, back to the Wall Street guy. Based on the history of the EV market, he may not be far off the mark. Perhaps GM is really serious about producing this PHEV, perhaps they are not. The public will not know for sure until they actually sell some. Look around people, there are several companies who have hyped up promised to sell street-legal, hiway-driveable EV’s who have been “busted” on promising more than they can deliver. The more brash fellows are in jail, and the more conservative “fibbers” just keep moving back their release dates. But as of today, ain’t no such animal.
-Mo
Jul 2nd, 2008 (3:54 pm)15 MPGs?!?!?
I get 15 MPG in my 1997 Ford Explorer with a V8. I get 17 MPG with my 2007 Hummer H3. How the heck does this Jenkins guy think a Volt would only get 15 MPG? Drop my V8 in the Volt and with it’s much lighter body and less wind resistance, would get better than 15 MPG.
And just so the rest of you don’t start chastising me for my gas guzzlers, know that I live in sunny CA and use a 45 MPG motorcycle for my daily commute. The SUVs haven’t been driven in over two weeks!
Jul 2nd, 2008 (3:56 pm)jazzdoc62 #77
Thank you very much. It is nice to know that all of us who live in NY, San Francisco, LA, etc, and cannot AFFORD to buy a house even with a $100K annual salary — well, it is very nice to know that we are inconsequential to you.
Wish I were back in the Midwest.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (4:12 pm)#56 omegaman66 says: “Who here wouldn’t today want a Volt if it only had a 2KW battery! If that car was on the market right now it would be the best car available right now!!!”
An E-REV with a battery that small wouldn’t work.
The whole idea of a series hybrid (a.k.a E-REV or REEV) is that the gas engine only provides AVERAGE horsepower. The battery pack provides the PEAK power to the electric motor for accelerating or going uphill, even while the gas engine generator is running.
For example, with the Volt you still have 4.8 KWh in the battery when the ICE comes on. This is enough to power the Volt up a steep mountain grade with adequate speed and acceleration.
Also, remember that the size of the battery affect 2 things:
1) KWh, which relates to the electric range
2) KW, which relates to power and acceleration
This is why the Tesla Roadster is so fast. You need huge batteries for that kind of power. A Tesla Roadster with a 40 mile range batteries wouldn’t be fast.
So a small 2KWh battery would not be enough to power to the Volt’s 120KW (160 hp) electric motor. The result would be a snail, like 0-60 in 15-20 seconds, and it would be nearly impossible to drive up any significant hill.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (4:25 pm)I guess this guy never heard of of trains that use a motor generator set and traction motors. They can haul a ton of fright 420 miles on 1 gallon of gas.
Why do we have such idiots in the press
Wait till he hears about EESTOR ultracapacator
Jul 2nd, 2008 (4:26 pm)I made a similiar post a couple of days ago that GM was in trouble and the Volt would make a bailout easier. The Volt sales will not save GM (volume too low at the proposed prices), only a bailout made easier by the Volt. I know nobody wants to hear this but its obvious.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (4:31 pm)To everyone who is dismissing the 15MPG out of hand:
I too thought the guy was crazy. But he is spot on about quite a number of other things so I looked into the MPG claim as best I was able (see my other posts). He might actually be being fairly reasonable.
Instead of killing the messenger let’s look at the numbers. GM has been off by quite a bit on their other numbers (e.g. >=33% on the price). They have also played a little loose with the numbers (e.g. 150MPG). It is possible this 50 MPG is off by ~33%. That would take it to ~30MPG. It is also possible that the 50 MPG was the city number and the highway number is much lower. If that is the case then a sub 20MPG highway is very possible.
If this is true, then a 100 mile highway trip in the Volt on a single chart would result in an effective < 30MPG
Perhaps the 50MPG number was a prius-envy inspired PR number. When was the last time GM actually made a comment about it?
Jul 2nd, 2008 (4:33 pm)By the way, GM recently announced that the Volt would not use the originally specified 1.0L turbocharged engine, but rather a 1.4L regular engine.
http://gm-volt.com/2008/06/24/has-gm-increased-the-size-of-the-chevy-volts-ice-from-10-l-to-14-l-and-cylinders-from-3-to-4/
The turbocharger provides a lot of extra power, so the output of both engines is probably the same. The smaller turbocharged engine would be significantly more efficient, but would probably cost more and be less reliable.
Bottom line: Say goodbye to 50 MPG.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (4:44 pm)Jenkins is a fool and the WSJ should know better than to employ such fools, let alone let fools write editorials. That is what I think.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (4:45 pm)[Argument deleted at author's request. PDFTT.]
Jul 2nd, 2008 (4:47 pm)Jenkins tries to dismiss th Volt by saying “at best, the Volt will be an affluent family’s third car”.
I consider myself affluent, and the Volt will be our 5th vehicle.
It will be a dedicated car for commuting back and forth to work. Based upon the miles I put each year on my current commuter vehicle, I will log 9,200 miles on it each year. 100% of which will be done in pure electric mode. 100% of the electricity going to power my Volt will come from Xcel Energy’s Windsource program, and will all come from wind power.
I will have a 100% wind powered car.
I don’t see where the fact that I’m affluent, and own a number of cars has anything to do with the fact that I will be completely removing 9,200 miles worth of gas from ever being burned — and completely replacing it with energy generated by the wind. I don’t think the environment differentiates between oil burned by someone who is poor vs. someone who is solidly part of the middle class.
It just sounds to me like that filthy-rich Holman Jenkins was just playing upon low-brow populist anti-rich/anti-affluent hatred for his own political motives when he made his comment about affluent Volt buyers.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (4:52 pm)94 Nixon
It all comes down to people not being able to afford the Volt. How many people on this site bought a car for 40K. Not only the price but you are paying 40K and betting on the technology, quality, and longevity of the Volt. I hope the Volt is a big success but it’s a big gamble for GM and the first years for the buyer.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (4:53 pm)GXT #90:
As I’ve said previously (#85), I get 15 MPG combined city/highway driving in my 1997 Ford Explorer with a 5.7L V8. At highway cruising speed of 78 MPH, I was getting 18 MPG on my last trip down Interstate 5 to southern CA. I would certainly expect the Volt, with it’s 1.4L V4 to get better than the ~20 MPG highway you calculated.
You may be right that GM is playing loosely with the 50 MPG claim, but as far as your “~30 MPG” claim, GM already does better than that with the Chevy Cobalt. I know this because I just bought one two months ago.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (4:55 pm)What is Holman Jenkins smoking?
By his calculations a diesel-electric locomotive would require
170 gallons of diesel to move a fully loaded train one mile.
And where does he get the idea that the Volt needs to be plugged in for SIX HOURS? Betting on the worst case scenario (which the Volt won’t be using BTW) a set of LEAD ACID batteries could be charged in less time.
The Volt, which will most likely use Lithium-Ion or Lithium Iron Phosphate cells, will charge to 80 percent capacity in four hours and in all actuality it doesn’t ever need a plug-in charge if you’re willing to use the 1-liter engine as a generator, in which case the vehicle will be getting 340 miles range out of its currently planned seven gallon tank, which means that in generator assist mode you would be getting approximately
fifty miles per gallon.
And what in hell is a “garage wired for power”?
Is he attempting to make us all think we’re going to need to buy flux capacitors in order to charge a few batteries?
No matter if you plug it in or run with the generator, one thing is certain…you will never ever be left stranded because one or both systems will get you to your destination.
Jenkins’ next assertion, that “off the shelf headlights and taillights won’t work”, is a demonstration of his total lack of knowledge on the subject, as the developers behind the car said from the very start that the Chevy Volt would most likely use
LED taillights, already in use on hundreds of cars, and newly developed LED headlights, which are already capable of providing more than enough illumination when you consider that nearly
50 percent of the studio television programming you’re watching right now is lit by LED panels.
Forty-five thousand dollars? That’s still a pretty good starting point when one considers that the very first VCR, a BetaMax only
capable of one hour recording time, sold for $3500 in 1973.
Somehow that invention managed to become affordable less than five years after its introduction.
Jenkins is upset because he opposes government handouts to GM.
I’d like to know his position on government handouts to defense contractors.
We already know his position on electric automobiles.
It’s a position borne of ignorance, or a rather comfy honorarium from the oil companies.
Jeff H in Occupied TX
Jul 2nd, 2008 (5:04 pm)“Dave”… do you need to really cut/paste whole articles into these forums? A link is more than sufficient, and maybe just a cut/paste of some key points. And by not providing a link you deprive folks of the ability to read all the comments on that article. In addition, you added something about ethanol that makes it seem is part of the article you cut/pasted… but it doesn’t appear to be.
For anyone interested in the full context and maybe the comments to the Business Week article “WSJ Attack on Chevy Volt—-Shocking” see http://www.businessweek.com/autos/autobeat/archives/2008/04/wsj_attack_on_c.html
And by the way, it looks like only 2 folks so far have added comments to the WSJ article on the WSJ site itself…. keep in mind folks reading the WSJ who don’t know better won’t be reading the replies here….
Jul 2nd, 2008 (5:12 pm)Oh, and in case somebody didn’t already mention it, the benefit of running a generator to power a battery instead of directly powering the wheels is that the generator motor can always run at peak efficiency no matter what the load is. The engine also doesn’t have to waste energy changing RPM all the time.
A parallel hybrid can’t do this. It has to respond at the instant power is needed, and it will spend most of it’s time running outside of it’s rpm band of peak efficiency. And the rpm’s constantly have to go up and down based upon demand.
So what the engine loses in efficiency by having to push power through a battery before the power gets to the wheels, it makes up for by running at peak efficiency all the time.
I don’t have hard numbers any more than Jenson does. (only GM has those numbers at this point). But his un-educated guess of 15 mpg just doesn’t take stuff like that into account.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (5:15 pm)#70 GXT
Your Honda generator data works out to 18% thermal efficiency. Normal car gasoline engines peak in the low 30s but the peak is rarely reached in typical driving. Atkinson cycle engines peak in the high 30s. A good hybrid design will run the Atkinson cycle near peak efficiency on the highway and possibly so even in town (note: Prius is way off the peak around town). If Volt achieves 36%, just to pick a number, your MPG estimates would double.
I also think your 25 mile EV range on the highway is off. Based on GM statements and data from similar-sized cars EV range should be 40 in mixed driving, a little above around town and a little below on the highway.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (5:16 pm)I did the math on that generator as well.
(The link appeared to be a different one? I used its specs of 10500W @ 50% load for 7.5hrs, 6.9gal)
1/2 of 10500 = 5250W.
5250×7.5hrs = 39375W / 6.9 gal = 5700W/gal = 5.7kw/gal
A full charge would take:
8kw/5.7kw/gal = 1.4gal
1.4 gal = 40 miles = 0.035 gal/mil = 28.6MPG
So you’re probably still looking at 30+, since as stated above, it takes less power to maintain a speed than to accelerate constantly.
Even still, 28-30 mpg is the average for my Sunfire.
If the volt matches that, I’ll be set. All electric for the town stuff, efficient gas for the long range.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (5:19 pm)mo4jesus-
You make some great points. It seems they need to modify street systems so in areas such as yours so you could get to where you’re going with say a Zap EV. Frankly, I think with a little bit of engineering the Zap EV and other EVs that currently cost between 9 to 15K would be a 1000x more viable. Of course, it’s a completely different market than the GM volt. I think those who can afford the Volt would never go for anything less.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (5:22 pm)Nixon #99 & doggydogworld #100
Good comments, finally two people who know a thing or two about engines.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (5:24 pm)Many of you are missing the point, so I’ll spell it out:
1) Will this car actually be sold? How many? and when? Or is it just a pipe dream?
2) “Normal people” cannot afford a $45K car. Period. The end.
3) Who cares how bad the mpg is if you could actually run it electric-only, for commuter purposes? The more practicial question is – Will it really run fast enough to run on major streets and short highway trips or toll roads?
4) Not everybody in the US owns their own house. How do the rest of us “plug-in”?
These are the concerns of “normal people”. (ie, people who are not rich). We want an electric car so we can save money. If the price of gas goes back down, we will still want to be free of tyranny of gas. Will the Volt do this for us? No. Will the Volt be stepping stone to a more realistic, affordable option for us? Maybe.
However, the more that car companies hype up mythical cars that are actually years down the road, the more disillusioned us “normal people” will become.
-Mo
Jul 2nd, 2008 (5:27 pm)davea0511
Right on! “I think those who can afford the Volt would never go for anything less.” That may very well be true, and it is a valid point. However, it leaves the question of how an affluent “city-dweller” would “plug-in”.
Thank you.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (5:28 pm)Reading through these comments today has been uplifting for the most part. Good job guys.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (5:30 pm)GXT-
Who cares? Most people drive about 40 miles/day. Let’s say you drive 60, with 20mpg for the last 20 miles. Your effective mpg will then be 60 mpg (40+20)miles/1 gallon = 60mpg. Still kicking hiney all over Prius. If you average 80mi/day you’re still getting (40+40)/2= 40mi/gal.
I think the lesson here is if you live 40 miles (80 round trip) or more from work and can’t recharge at work then you get a Prius. Anything less you get a Volt. According to my math with your 20 mpg 90% of people will still save more with a Volt.
Also … the range extender feature is not supposed to be an economical way to travel – rather it’s a way to keep you from getting stranded.
That said, you’d be smarter to just upgrade to a larger battery pack than get a Prius.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (5:45 pm)mo4jesus #104
I feel sorry for folks who won’t be able to take advantage of plug-in vehicles because they don’t live somewhere that they can plug in. But the Volt doesn’t have to solve every single person’s individual fuel problems for it to be a success. It doesn’t have to work for every single car owner in the US for it to be a legitimate product worthy of GM’s extensive investment.
It is not a “hyped” or “mythical” car even if it would only be a solution for just 25% of car buyers. (I think it would be a viable solution for more than just that.) It is a legitimate piece in the entire puzzle that will eventually wean us off of dependence upon fossil fuels, even if it is not a 100% solution for 100% of drivers.
No single piece in the puzzle has to be the single silver bullet.
In the situation for people who can’t plug in their cars, I would suggest investigating B100 diesel fuels, and some of the 60+ mpg cars that companies could be importing into the United States TODAY if they only put some effort into it. That would be another piece of the puzzle. It is just as legitimate a solution as the Volt. Neither take anything away from the legitimacy of the other, or make the other “mythical”. Another solution might be a standard parallel hybrid. There will have to be more than one solution.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (5:46 pm)Wow!
Time to step away from the bong dude.
I have a ’96 Jeep Cherokee with a straight 6 engine that gets 18 mpg in the city,
15 for a little 4 banger like the Volt?
More like 50 mpg.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (5:52 pm)I’m saying goodbye to gasoline and hello to electricity. My next car will be electric. Go VOLT Home grown fuel. No more imported oil. That is the whole point of the VOLT not this dollar and that cent saving. We are saving America. Built by an American company by American workers American fueled. Make the dollars go around here. Keep Americans employed and no longer send Billions of dollars out of this country never to come back again. If they don’t see this screw the wall street urinal. Take care, TED
Jul 2nd, 2008 (5:52 pm)Nixon –
Very good points, there, well said. Sorry I was sarcastic.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (5:56 pm)Also,
methinks this Holman fellow should be looked into for some kind of stock fraud. This seems to be one of the least researched articles on autos I have ever read. It seems as if it his ideal is to unfairly protray this company thru the WSJ for personal profit. His views might his own and not the WSJ’s, but you would think the WSJ would be above this level writing.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (5:58 pm)Gee, it looks like this applies to the Wall Street Joural too:
______________________________________
I remember once reading a comment regarding negativity in the media on the state of the economy and all, and it went something like “Pessimism and self-loathing will inflict far more damage to a society than bombs ever could.” This negativity makes people get all apathetic about where Canadian/American society is going, and makes them lose the drive to be competitive in the world marketplace.
______________________________________
Jul 2nd, 2008 (5:59 pm)Electricity while needing to produced as well could be done so at home with solor cells on ones roof, thereby eliminating to take energy from the grid. By the time the volt comes out solor cells should come down in price to not only help with fuel costs for electric cars but home energy needs as well.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (6:03 pm)Yet again,
If I were a GM exec., I would frame this article and hang in the lobby of the RenCen. I would then invite Holman and the WSJ oped staff to pose in front of it at the end of every profitable year.
Then I would throw one of them from the roof.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (6:04 pm)76: Statik. Re: Out of the blue subject-changing negativity:
Please refer to Post 113.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (6:05 pm)The “author” hung himself with the 15 mpg claim. Another “journalist” to throw on the scrap heap.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (6:10 pm)Jackson #68
“If we really want to throw civility to the winds, I think it might be interesting for all to see how Volt interest on this site shakes out, politically, maybe on a click-poll (one click per screen name). I think a lot of people would be surprised.
A great strength of the Volt is that it answers so many people’s needs/issues without exclusivity. Want to stop funding Mid-East Oil? Volt can help. Want to limit CO2 emissions? Volt can help. Want to save American industry? Volt can help. There aren’t many things out there which has so much “Win” for so many points of view.”
Traditional, which “side” do ALL of these appeal to? If sides were to be picked, then I would guess that the one that all of the benefits appeal too would have larger representation. Question, I have, is why there would be a “side” against any of these or other “benefits” to the Volt? Perhaps varying degrees of importance but if one feels their “side” is at odds with any of this, then perhaps some re-evaluation is in order.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (6:15 pm)OK, one last try, with tinyurls. I don’t know what it is, but I’ve posted this 3 times and have been sumarily rejected with no moderation or anything each time.
#29 GXT
Those small generators aren’t incredibly efficient. Usually 2 stroke engines but this on is a carbureated 4 stroke which bears looking at.
I’m still at work, so I don’t have a lot of time. Looking at the BSFC for fuel consumption in fuel rate/power or (grams/hour)/kW…
http://tinyurl.com/64tmod
http://tinyurl.com/5k4ruc
If the Honda has 100% efficient electric generator (which it doesn’t
then the BSFC is:
then the BSFC is closer to 255 and the mpg drops to 38.
6.9gallons/7.5 hours*2838.75 g/gallon/9.5=275
The wikipedia page lists some current diesel car engines around 200, so if we take your 30mpg and multiply by the efficiency difference, we get 41mpg.
Assuming the electric motor is 85% efficient (have no idea, really
So what else?
Given the back of the napkin approach and the ability to optimize the engine at a specific rpm (or using atkinson cycle instead of otto), 50 ought to be achieveable. 40miles per 8kWh might be a little low, too. I think they were getting 40/8kWh in combined cycles, not just city.
In any case, it’s a far cry from 15. That number is completely bogus and undermines the credibility of any other points which may or may not have been important. As to why there’s not hordes of electric drive vehicles out there already I’d have to blame Cobasys’ oil company overlords for making it impossible to get decent sized NiMh packs and the lack of any real motivation for the auto companies who weren’t seeing sales impacted by the lack of fuel effiency up until recently. Hmmm, that kind of prives the Volt arguement instead then because NOW that fuel is motivational we WILL see electric drivetrains!
Jul 2nd, 2008 (6:17 pm)Statik #76 Are you shorting GM stock?
Jul 2nd, 2008 (6:26 pm)I think Dr. Lyle Dennis should take the best of these comments and write a letter to the editor of the WSJ and tell them very politely that this guy is full of elitest knee-jerk reactionary dribble.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (6:48 pm)#115 Gary
“76: Statik. Re: Out of the blue subject-changing negativity:
Please refer to Post 113.”
The article’s whole thesis is that the Volt is a political tool to make a bailout acceptable when it goes bankrupt. “the Volt is GM’s vehicle for making a bailout of GM politically acceptable.”
Me referencing that today is one of GM’s all-time darkest days I think is in keeping with the essence of the article. (Not that I always do keep with the theme, but if GM has a day of interest financial, I will take the opportunity to share it with the community).
Seeing how you like to double post your thoughts on positive thinking in #113, I’ll double post mine (now, with better spelling!):
We all deal with the economy in our own way I suppose. To each his own.
I’m not going to change, but feel free to counter balance my reality checks with positive thinking if you like. I doubt I could change your outlook anymore than you can change mine
Cheers
Stat.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (6:59 pm)#120 Ed
“Statik #76 Are you shorting GM stock?”
No.
As I mention to Grizzly in the last thread when he said he bought GM’s stock yesturday, it is never a good idea to invest whether long or short in something you care passionately about. Doesn’t matter if you are really optimistic or pessimistic…it’s just a bad idea.
Objectivity is almost impossible to maintain even if you are not connected. A investor always comes into a position with a natural bias no matter how they try to see things clearly, even on a ‘arm’s length’ investment.
Because of my closeness to GM Canada HQ and my desire to purchase a Volt (’twere that was possible), I can’t break this cardinal sin regardless if I wanted to or not.
Currently I am now 95% cash (actually gov’t backed securites and money market–split between three currencies, none of them USD) and 5 percent munis. June return was a stunning .53% lol. (Annual yield of about 6.5%).
Jul 2nd, 2008 (7:01 pm)#97 Jeffery Haas:
Amen on the defense contractors. We could probably provide a free Volt to every man, woman and child in the USA with the corporate welfare they suck up every year.
#110 TED in Fort Myers:
Amen. Thank you.
#121 Tom:
Is there some way that Lyle, or one of all of you computer whizzes here, could just forward this whole thread to the WSJ blog? It would serve them right.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (7:01 pm)#107 davea0511,
Well your math is wrong. You have to plug in some pretty wonky numbers for anyone to save money on the Volt. Did you take into account that the $40,000 Volt costs $~18,000 more than the Prius?
Also, keep in mind that the current Prius is not the Volt target. Research the ~$18,000 Honda Hybrid that will be available the first half 2009.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (7:05 pm)#75 kent asks “Why is the WSJ assigning people like him to write automotive articles?”
Please keep in mind that his job is to write an opinion column, not a news column. Usually he writes some contrarian piece, as he has done this time. His job is to provoke people in a way that gets their attention.
Judging from the numerous comments above, he has done just that. We may not agree with his “facts”, but do they conflict with any specific GM statements, or are they just his interpretation? And insofar as his own opinion — well there are all sorts of opinions in the world. Let us not take his too seriously.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (7:09 pm)#125 GXT
I agree. I don’t think we should be doing a ‘old Prius’ vs. Volt comparison…or ‘new Honda vs. Volt’ or ‘new Prius vs Volt’ No way it can stack up with the only criteria being ‘financial sensibility’
We have to start thinking of the Volt in terms of a ‘near luxury’ hybrid, or E-rev or EV…whatever you like to call it at the moment.
By adding that criteria, you can distance it from the new Honda/Ford Fusion quite easily…and possibly the new Prius, although we won’t know what Toyota has in store for the brand until the Detroit Auto Show. Hopefully there will be a sweet spot between the new Prius and it’s luxury cousin that will be build inline under the Lexus brand.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (7:17 pm)119. DaveP
Thanks for responding as opposed to some bull crap about how the space shuttle gets better than 15 MPG so the Volt HAS to
Why did you use 7.5 hours in your calculation? The specs are 4.4 hours at the rated load. If I punch in 4.4 hours then the result is 468, which seems to make no sense as it isn’t a turbo-prop!
Jul 2nd, 2008 (7:32 pm)Merit for a product is not earned until the product is actually delivered.
It all boils down to sales. That’s how genuine progress is measured.
Volt remains a concept until it appears in consumer driveways.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (7:34 pm)#125 GXT
You have a great point about the price difference between the Prius and the Honda hybrid on the one hand and the VOLT on the other. However the VOLT technology is definitely much cooler and the potential gas savings is much greater.
Early adopters will buy the VOLT because of the technology and because they can’t or won’t buy the Fisker Karma (or the Tesla). After that incentives would have to make up the difference. But once you realize that taking just half of what we spend a month in Iraq we could give 120,000 buyers a month an incentive of $10,000, incentives don’t seem so unrealistic. The only unrealistic thing is thinking the car makers would be able to manufacture 120,000 ERVs and strong hybrids a month.
Things have changed dramatically. Americans have finally figured out that buying gas just puts money in the pockets of radical Islamic terrorists, and that the best way to defeat terrorism is to defund it by destroying the demand for gasoline.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (7:43 pm)62 Jackson
In all fairness, now that I had a chance to read through the entire thread, I see that you’re mostly reacting to 50 DA’s political rhetoric, instead of just going off the deep end on your own. I have to admit, however, that reading your anti-liberal expressions is downright scary.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (7:59 pm)All I can say is “Holy Rupert Murdoch Batman!”
Jul 2nd, 2008 (8:07 pm)Unfortunately, there is a kernel of truth here. GM has “run out the clock” (as Matt Simmons says about the oil industry). They should have released the 4-door serial-hybrid EV-1 they were working on. Then maybe they’d have started to turn a profit on that architecture today. Instead, they banked on SUVs and were ignorant about peak oil. The rest of the car industry isn’t in much better shape in the long term. The only thing GM has going for it is its current level of enthusiasm for the Volt. Volvo, Mitsubishi, and Subaru are all dragging their heels in comparison. We really DON’T HAVE 10 years to make plugin hybrids happen. The personal automobile as we know it will have already died, probably never to return.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (8:32 pm)When will you people realize that Volt is a dud?
GM takes years to roll out a Camaro – an ICE model that’s no leap in technology nor design.
Volt on time on budget? Yeah right. Volt is just an “engineering by press release” dud.
Remember, this is GM we are talking about. When’s the last time you have been impressed with a GM product?
Jul 2nd, 2008 (8:33 pm)I know the Volt will work. The problem back in the 70s was we only had lead acid batteries to work with. Its a new ballgame now. This can be done. I do not think this is a grandstand play by GM.
Take Care
Arch
Jul 2nd, 2008 (8:38 pm)One of the things that I find amusing is the assumption that electrics (particularly serial hybrids) are a ‘small economy car’ solution. ROFLMAO. Given 3 – 5 years of optimization you’re looking at a solution that will drive an Expedition sized vehicle with 800 ft. lbs of torque, perfect AWD, and somewhere north of 80 mpg when you have to use liquid fuel. Plus it will do it 500,000 miles with little or no maintenance. Oh – and it will cost roughly 60% of ICE based vehicle. And the car companies (not the oil companies) are scared senseless. All of which they could have done 15 years ago. Funny to watch.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (8:48 pm)According to my calculations, the Volt will need to be priced at $27,891.94 to beat the Toyota Prius when looking at it from an entirely economical angle. At $35,000, gas will have to maintain an average of $7.42/gal through the life of the Volt (and electricity must never increase) for it to be a smarter buy than the Prius.
With a $4,000 tax credit and fuel cost at an equivalent of about $1.84/gal (GGE), the Honda Civic GX (CNG) remains the cheapest “nice” compact 4 door sedan to own. Even without the tax credit, it has roughly the same cost-to-own as a normal gas Ford Focus.
So I agree with this article about the cost. It will only be realistic for an “affluent family”.
I also agree with the article about the 50MPG genset range being unrealistic, but I think their 15MPG estimate is even more so. I expect about 30MPG under real-world conditions.
It’s an interesting view. I don’t doubt that GM may consider the Volt as a political incentive for a government bailout, but I do doubt that this is their only (or even primary) motive for creating the Volt. I think they want to make money, and they see consumer demand radically shifting away from gasoline, so they are responding with something that goes beyond consumer wants. And I don’t think its wise for us to also ignore the fact that this has the potential to improve their environmental image just a tad, too, in the eyes of Uncle Sam.
Interesting article, but I think it’s just a tad too overcritical of the Volt. They got their point out, though. A clean domestic car for America certainly doesn’t hurt their chances of a buyout.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (9:05 pm)136 Mike
Where did you ever come up with those numbers? Maybe the fumes from your Expedition are going to your head.
Funny to read!
Jul 2nd, 2008 (9:05 pm)To Lyle’s question “What do you think?”: To me, Jenkins’ stance is overly negative, perhaps colored through the lens of a GM shareholder, or one who sings from the same hymnal, who would prefer the cash invested on the Volt be available for those who would buy the company. And the issue about city dwellers not being a market for the car, even if you accept that premise, what % of the total driver population would have no access to an outlet?
Sure there is risk in the Volt strategy. Sure there is a possibility GM, Ford and Chrylser may no longer be independent companies. But I appreciate the balls it takes for GM to go this route rather than the usual corporate play-it-safe strategy that has no better chance of success.
My sense is GM will sell all Volts it can build in the first several years of production.
.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (9:12 pm)#84..
this is simply not true. We have a dealer here in town selling two different electric cars. One is from China, the other from Toronto. http://www.greatlakesautosales.net/
The chinese one looks a lot like a golf cart…45mpg max 150mile range, 4 hr recharge time. $12,000.
The other one is about the same specs but has air conditioning and more resembles a small traditionally styled car. Our dealer is selling them for about $15,000. The car’s website is here…
http://www.zenncars.com/
They can be had, they are totally street legal you just can’t drive them on the freeway…
Jul 2nd, 2008 (9:20 pm)update….here’s the link and specs on the $12k electric car…they have the pictures of the little beastie too…
http://www.greatlakesautosales.net/vehicledetails.aspx?VID=41334669
2008 FLYBO XFD6000ZK
Price: $12,995
Vin: LAE1101687G000036
Stock #:
Mileage: 0
Exterior: Green, Yellow, OR Red
Engine: Not Applicable
Electric
Fuel Type: Electric
Trim/Package: 2 Door Hatchback
Options
2 Door, 2 Wheel Drive, Rear Wheel Drive, Power Windows, CD Player, Trip/Mileage Computer
Jul 2nd, 2008 (9:29 pm)138 JEC
Key issue is that a car only uses something line 20% or so of it’s power on average. Right now there are Turbo diesel cars getting 60 – 80 mpg range. Cut the engine size in half, tune for (pick a number) 2,500 rpm constant. This is not very difficult. Awareness of such though does require some reading and research though. In my case I’ve been following this tech since about 1990. Other alternatives exist. An approx 500 cc gas engine using liquid fuel converted to a vapor before burning can easily get 100 mpg range (think Coleman stove technology). Guy actually did this in 70s, but it was not a workable solution in a standard ICE design partiuclarly in 1975. Burns very clean also.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (10:04 pm)Well, some of you have been polite and indicated that maybe Jenkins made a typo or got some of his numbers mixed up, but I’m with #51 Dave
“Idiots like him should be prevented from commenting on new technology”
And also with #52 Kevin R
“The guy is a moron. No hard facts to back up his “opinions”, just loose canon rhetoric and shrill nonsense. Considering the source, it’s no wonder I don’t subscribe or read the WSJ. Next intelligent conversation please???”
Also, a gallon of gasoline at 100% efficiency can produce 36 kwh. With 33% efficiency, this equates to 12 kwh or about 60 miles for the Volt.
GXT, at <18% efficiency (6.058 gal/kwh), those Honda generators really do suck, don’t they?
Jul 2nd, 2008 (10:21 pm)Kubel #137
“I also agree with the article about the 50MPG genset range being unrealistic, but I think their 15MPG estimate is even more so. I expect about 30MPG under real-world conditions.”
Do not bet on it! If they design the engine for a constant speed and constant load 50 MPG is easy. If they just install a standard engine and just try to tune it for best mileage you may well be right.
Take Care
Arch
Jul 2nd, 2008 (10:41 pm)I have to ask myself, Does GM actually WANT the Volt to succeed?
Gm needs to be more proactive in getting the press onboard with the series hybrid concept. The Volt is just a “filler” story to the Wall Street Journal. A fluff piece to use on a slow news day. And maybe it’s a little therapeutic for them to have something to beat up on, when the stock market isn’t going their way. Forget the WSJ.
Educate the rest of the press corps. Give them hands on time with a Volt mule. Emphasize the fact that a determined Volt owner need never use a drop of gas. America wants change – the Volt IS change. America also wants choices – the Volt gives America choices – gas, a little gas, or no gas at all ? With stored solar panel energy, the Volt need never even plug into the power grid. How green is that?
Then let the press spread the word. Many people still have not heard of the Volt, or think it’s some sort of electric golf cart car, like the Zenn (no highway usage allowed for the Zenn, per #140 Kevin R). The press needs to be enlisted by GM to educate their potential customers. Unlike the EV-1, the Volt WILL work in Maine, Minneapolis, anywhere – even Statik’s home, the Great White North, eh? (Sorry Statik, Bob and Doug McKenzie made me go there)
==============
GM can make an inexpensive car. The battery is the problem. What part of the battery assembly process is so expensive, materials or labor ? Anyone have the inside scoop on how the Volt battery is made, from raw materials to finished product? Lyle, perhaps a battery assembly process tour might be the basis of a good future article.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (10:45 pm)Something to consider. A serial hybrid is much more efficient than a standard ICE if for no other reason the regen feedback. Volkswagen ships a car that gets about 50 mpg (europe only IIRC). With hyper miling this car gets in the mid 60s. Now take that car and convert to serial hybrd. Decrease the size of the engine by half, bump the hyper miling increase by two. Should be somewhere north of 80 mpg.. Note you can do this without a battery only option. Small NiMH is all you need.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (10:45 pm)#145 The Grump….wow, do you nail a bunch of stuff on the head. GM take heed……these are great suggestions that you should contemplate.
It’s in your best interest, it’s in the country’s best interest (where you got your start and where your roots are) and it’s in the consumers best interest. Get this baby on the road boys….we need her now, not 2010/11. Go Volt Team…
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:01 pm)Morgan #55
“The fact of the matter is we are probably the ONLY country whose government does not subsidize directly or indirectly its automotive industry.”
*** *** ***
Amen! I heard too much about the 80′s bailout of Chrysler and how the govt shouldn’t have done it. You’ve brought up a very good point. Not only are many of these foreign automakers where they are today because of Gov’t help, it continues in such a way that they would probably never need a bailout. Daewoo is an obvious exception.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:23 pm)I’m still undecided whether my Volts will be my 3rd and 4th family cars or 4th and 5th?
The suspense is chilling.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:26 pm)Dave G #91
“The turbocharger provides a lot of extra power, so the output of both engines is probably the same. The smaller turbocharged engine would be significantly more efficient, but would probably cost more and be less reliable.
Bottom line: Say goodbye to 50 MPG.”
*** *** ***
Not so fast. The peak potential output of both engines could be the same but THAT RPM would be far higher than the target for the RE ICE.
At roughly 2K RPM (the target…give or take) we’re not talking about much turbo boost for the 3 banger and it’s down a cylinder and needs balancing the 4 doesn’t. They may be able to get away with a lower RPM on the 4 and with optimization still produce 50+. I always believed that the 1.0 3cyl would produce much more than 50 mpg anyway.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:36 pm)#97 Jeffery Haas asks: “And where does he get the idea that the Volt needs to be plugged in for SIX HOURS?”
6.5 hours is the time GM has specified for the Volt to charge. This is not a limitation of the battery, but more of a limitaion of common home electrical circuits and extension cables.
The math for this is pretty easy. You’ve got up to 8KWh of battery to charge. Using a common 110 volt outlet, this translates into 73 amp-hours. Common outdoor extension cables are rated 10-13 amps, so this would translate into somewhere between 5.6 and 7.3 hours to charge.
Note that the Volt is supposed to be a car for the masses. This means normal home electrical outlets and extension cables.
Also, once plug-in vehicles go mainstream, our electrical grid and power plants won’t support day time charging. At night, electrical usage is low. Many power companies offer night time discounts. During the day, a higher percentage of fossil fuels are burned to meet peak demand. So the most effective way to charge the Volt is at night, and 6.5 hours fits that model perfectly.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:41 pm)Statik # 123
“No.
As I mention to Grizzly in the last thread when he said he bought GM’s stock yesturday, it is never a good idea to invest whether long or short in something you care passionately about. Doesn’t matter if you are really optimistic or pessimistic…it’s just a bad idea.”
*** *** ***
Statik,
I appreciate the advice, and I responded to YOUR post on that thread. As you’ll see, my shares have no voting rights! That said, a modest direct purchase really wouldn’t be a bad gamble.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:49 pm)#150 Grizzly:
To be clear, GM originally specified a 1.0L, 3 cylinder, Turbocharged engine (probably Miller cycle), with peak efficiency of 30KW and peak output of 53KW.
http://gm-volt.com/2007/08/29/latest-chevy-volt-battery-pack-and-generator-details-and-clarifications/
The newly specified engine 1.4L, 4 cylinder (probably Atkinson cycle), with no turbocharger.
Things to note:
1) 50MPG is an aggressive target, particularly with the new standards.
2) Peak efficiency of the smaller turbocharged engine would be better.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:50 pm)#146 Mike
I like where you are going. I don’t know if the MPG is going to be 80+, but the battery, if used properly, can make a car very effecient. I think there should be 2 types of cars and the volt is getting the WORST of both worlds.
A 6 kwh NiMH battery (I chose 6 kwh because NiMH have about 1/3 the volumetric power density of Li ion, so the same space used in the volt can house the NiMH) that uses an ICE that only rotates at maximum power RPM charging the battery btwn 2-5 kwh charge while reserving the last kwh for regenerative breaking would be a very effecient petro/E85 car with extended range and MUCH, MUCH cheaper and durable than the Volt and Li ion batteries and would have a very high MPG.
If someone wanted to go through the up front and replacement expense of Li ion batteries, they should not have to have emmision tests, oil changes and all the other upkeep of the ICE and emmisions components. That space and money should be used for more batteries and allow 100% use of charge (just allowing 100% on the volt size battery would be 80 miles while still having all the room allocated for the ICE) bumping the range to 120+ MPC (or in Tesla’s case, 220 MPC…but lower the price by saving some batteries). This car would meet the needs of most everyone not going on long extended trips (as I will remind you, I travel to 5 appointments a day and have only broke the 100 mile mark once in the last year while most of my days are 40-60 miles).
The Volt on the other hand, wastes space, weight and cost of having an ICE + the cost of maintenance for most people. For all the other’s, it’s 40 MPC limitation means you are still paying top dollar for a car that wil still use petro and require maintenance.
I don’t understand what is so hard about it…
High MPG, very affordable and reliable NiMH car or expensive Li ion electric with low fuel and maint cost….NOT BOTH and then glorify it for half a decade as if it is a big breakthrough in the automotive industry.
Jul 2nd, 2008 (11:52 pm)Kubel #137
“I expect about 30MPG under real-world conditions.”
*** *** ***
I’d love to hear your rationale for this 30mpg expectation. After all we’re talking about a very small engine running at a modest RPM and no transmission.
Jul 3rd, 2008 (12:03 am)#134 hung says: “Remember, this is GM we are talking about. When’s the last time you have been impressed with a GM product?”
GM has been the #1 car maker for a long time, so they haven’t really had a reason to make impressive cars. Until now. Toyota is poised to take over GM as #1. So expect GM to behave differently as the #2 auto maker.
In any event, the Volt is the perfect type of car to dramatically reduce our dependence on oil. 40 miles of all electric range is a big deal – a game changer. If Toyota or Honda was making something like the Volt, I would buy it. But right now GM is the only game in town…
Jul 3rd, 2008 (12:09 am)154 Jes
Actually, what I am describing is four models of the same car. There is no real differnce in the design between a Mod 1 – 6 kwh NiMH, no plug capability. A Volt 2 with 20 mile electric range. A Volt 3 with 40 mile electric range. A Volt 4 with no gas engine. The basic design is exactly the same in all four – packaging would change obviously. Also, when I talk about 80+ with the engine, that is 3 – 5 model years down the road, not year 0. For my use, the 20 mile plug Volt is what I need. I would use 2 gallons of liquid fuel per 2 week period. I have a friend that drives a lot of miles. He wants the model 1. GM is well aware of this – it isn’t rocket science.
Jul 3rd, 2008 (12:09 am)Dave # 153
Opel already has a Corsa Club using the 1.4 liter engine that gets mixed city/Hwy combined of 35 mpg. I believe that the highway mileage is mid 40′s and even though this vehicle only weighs about 2300 lbs it also has a transmission and has to turn quite a few RPM to maintain HWY speeds.
The fact is that it remains to be seen how an optimized engine will perform on E-Rev. Remember that there are no transmission losses and the target RPM will be lower than that needed for the club to maintain HWY speeds. All I’m saying is that 50 isn’t unrealistic.
Jul 3rd, 2008 (12:20 am)#154 jes:
#157 Mike:
Would a 6KWh NiMH battery pack provide 120KW of power?
People, please remember that battery size determines both energy storage (KWh) and power output (KW). So smaller batteries generally mean less power and acceleration.
Once the battery gets below a certain size, the series hybrid design doesn’t work. Parallel hybrids work best with small batteries.
Jul 3rd, 2008 (12:44 am)Sounds like the “writer” failed basic physics, as well as science, and lost some common sense as well. The “Volts” technolgy has been around a long time. It will work. (Check out tesla) Yea we all would like it to be half the cost, but it has to start somewhere.
The “numbers” he quotes are non-sense. He should take a trip out to “AC-Propulsion” in california. Which was “doing” a volt “car” almost 10 years ago (With a range extender” trailer) The car was called “z-zero”. The battery technology is even better.
Really reduced my respect for his “paper”
Jul 3rd, 2008 (2:47 am)Holman, Holman, Holman.
/sadly shakes head.
Here’s some numbers to focus the mind.
Dec ’07 finished with WTI at $100/barrel
Jun ’08 finished with WTI at $142/barrel a 42% increase.
If we have another 42% increase, for the second half of the year, WTI will finish the year at ~$200/barrel.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it Holman!
On a completely different subject, didn’t Lutz say the journalists should be driving the mules about July 4th?
So when’s your ride Lyle ????
Jul 3rd, 2008 (4:24 am)#128 GXT:
By that time, I had a 3×3 post it full of numbers for both half load efficiency and full load efficiency and I had found what I thought was a more accurate grams/gallon number than what I’d originally estimated and so I had to recalculate and I crossed the numbers in my rewrite, my apologies for my sloppiness. On the other hand, I’m glad you caught the error. I try to always post enough information and references so that can happen.
Well, actually, I didn’t just repost 3 times, I re-WROTE it because the first time I had written out even more extensively and it was lost when the system trashed my post.
And, yes, as others have noted, small generators are really inefficient.
Anyway, correcting this error actually pulls my MPG numbers in line with #100 doggydogworld’s and #143 BillR’s numbers:
6.9gallons/4.4 hours*2838.75 g/gallon/9.5=469
Using the wikipedia diesels as comparisons:
30/200*469=70mpg for 100% electric conversion efficiency which is kinda bogus. At 85% for the electric generator part, which I think is a decent guess, the BSFC for the engine is much lower since the engine is actually putting out more power so the 9.5kW becomes more like 11.2kW at the shaft. That makes the BSFC 399 and gives a resulting 60mpg.
Of course the problem with this is that the electric generator in the Volt also has to be 100% efficient to get that so figuring another 85% efficiency there, you get right around 51mpg.
There’s a lot of assumptions going on here, but certainly nothing beyond the bounds of reason.
I guess the bottom line is this: If GM can get 40 miles on half the battery, it totally looks like they can get 50mpg on an efficient generator. (which excludes using a small, portable one
(and just in case, now my pre-excuse for any new mistakes is it’s 2:30am and I’m tired. Boy, I am just full of excuses.
Jul 3rd, 2008 (6:47 am)Pure EV without range extender won’t work for most people, it just won’t. Because it’ll work for some doesn’t mean a thing. The increased cost of the extra battery completely offsets the value.
86% of our commute is less than 40 miles. Using double the expensive battery material, or more, to squeak out that 14% doesn’t make as much sense as making twice the number of cars.
Jul 3rd, 2008 (7:14 am)At that price, you’re better off converting a Prius to PHEV with an aftermarket product. .
Jul 3rd, 2008 (7:29 am)#152 Grizzly
“Statik,I appreciate the advice, and I responded to YOUR post on that thread. As you’ll see, my shares have no voting rights! That said, a modest direct purchase really wouldn’t be a bad gamble.”
Yeah, I seen it.
And I responded to your claim of buying GM in a “S&P 500 fund” AFTER taking bath on the stock.
Here is what you said before, when you were trying to make a point, “There is something to be said for digging in with a superior business model. I just bought some GM stock, and I assure you even for the modest cost I don’t expect to lose!” & “Statik…I’m a step ahead of you, as always!”
I won’t continue the discussion here, or on the previous thread, but it’s a highly enlightening exchange. I’m sure no one here is really interested in it, but if for some reason they are, I encourage them to check it out and draw their own conclusions:
http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/01/gm-on-june-sales-asia-doesnt-have-a-monopoly-on-fuel-efficient-vehicles/#comments
Feel free to comment as you feel necessary. I won’t continue the discussion, I believe history speaks for itself…and I won’t bring any feelings I have on this subject to the next thread. I hope your fund works out for you and you have successful year in the end.
Jul 3rd, 2008 (7:58 am)WSJ bashing GM? This is a case of little man’s disease. GM is in a struggle for its existence and the Volt is an intriguing strategic gambit and a technological innovation. Any errors made will be ruthlessly corrected by the market – not by poorly founded opinion. If successful the Volt will invigorate our economy and disarm our economic and cultural enemies in the Middle East and Venezuela. Electricity for the Volt can be supplied very cleanly by nuclear power – a fact the eco-dogues always ignore.
Good luck to GM. They are confronting real problems with real solutions and putting their money where their mouth is.
Dilettantes will dissipate autonomously.
Jul 3rd, 2008 (8:16 am)GXT -
You’re right only if the Volt will cost $18K more than the Prius and if you drive more than 40 mi/day, and if the generator is as inefficient as you say.
That is A TON of ifs.
Where do your pessimistic sticker price come from incidentally. Statik keeps saying it’s going to cost $45K – wheres the basis for that evaluation? Did GM revise their estimate? What is the general consensus as for the cost? Of course the batteries will be the expensive type, but they’ll be done in China. Anyone seen what they’ve done to the price of flat panel TVs? There are no exotic materials in LiFePO4, and according to A123 they are already cheaper to make than NiMH in factories with the right tooling.
Assuming GM is close to their cost projection, and you drive your volt from 30-40mi/day like most people do, you charge at night and get night rates the cost vs. Prius or similar fuel based cars will indeed put money in your pocket before the batteries need replacing. Call me an optimist if you want … but I think that’s the more likely scenario.
Jul 3rd, 2008 (8:16 am)This man probably does not even own a car. He lives in NY City.
Jul 3rd, 2008 (8:24 am)It seems everyone is basing the cost of the car and battery upgrades on the current cost of LiFePO4 technology. I think (and I hope) you guys are going to be amazed how cheap this technology will be in 5 years. Admittedly, 2 years is pushing things … but the time will come very soon when existing battery technology will be married to the best manufacturing technology and EVs will make a huge dent in the Auto market. Add nanosolar and CIGS technology in the mix for cheap electricity and we have a technological revolution that even the oil barons can’t stop.
But admittedly, it’s going to take an oil-based economy to delve into near depression to make it happen, but it’s on the horizon. It’s on the horizon.
Jul 3rd, 2008 (8:37 am)Re: Comment #31: “an ICE generator supplying a battery to drive an electric motor was more efficient than an ICE drivetrain, it would already be in production.”
It is, sort of. It’s called a diesel-electric locomotive. Although in that case there is no battery between the diesel engine generator and the electric drive train, so the diesel is always on. But it is mechanically and economically superior to a diesel locomitive that uses the diesel engine to directly mechanically run the drive train. So GM isn’t a bunch of crazy folks. They are taking a proven concept and adapting it to the automobile.
Jul 3rd, 2008 (8:44 am)Don’t let the journalistic quality of the WSJ fool you. Contrary to their great news bureau, their editorial page is well-known for being an insane asylum. So anything found there is to be taken with a grain of salt.
Jul 3rd, 2008 (10:00 am)#163 greg woulf says: “Pure EV without range extender won’t work for most people, it just won’t. Because it’ll work for some doesn’t mean a thing. The increased cost of the extra battery completely offsets the value.”
Yes, I agree completely. A pure EV is just too scary for most people. Let’s go after the low hanging fruit first.
One more point: If we can convert around 75% of our miles driven to all electric, then the remainder can be covered with bio-fuels (e.g. ethanol from switch grass, or diesel from algae). So flex fuel E-REV type vehicles like the Volt have the capability to completely eliminate oil use, and that’s with our current electrical grid and filling station infrastructure. That’s a BIG DEAL.
Jul 3rd, 2008 (10:14 am)172 Dave
25% of the fuel used in the US is long haul trucking. Serial hybrids will help them, but not that much. You’re going to need liquid fuels for quite some time. With current oil production and biofuel we have plenty however. No imports will be required.
Jul 3rd, 2008 (10:18 am)#31 Bob Cuomo says: “If an ICE generator supplying a battery to drive an electric motor was more efficient than an ICE drivetrain, it would already be in production.”
I disagree. In order to make the serial hybrid work, you need a large battery. The ICE only supplies AVERAGE horsepower. That’s why it’s efficient. The battery supplys PEAK power to the electric motor, even when the ICE is running. That’s one reason why the ICE comes on at 30% SOC, and not when the battery is empty.
The size of the battery determines 2 things:
1) KWh, which relates to all electric range
2) KW, which relates to power and acceleration
So a serial hybrid with a small battery would not have adequate power for acceleration or uphill driving. Li/Ion batteries are the only type with adequate power/weight ratio, and safe versions of this chemistry have just started becoming available in the last few years, so there’s no reason to expect that a viable, cost effective series hybrid could be built until now.
Jul 3rd, 2008 (10:22 am)#173 Mike,
Algae can supply all the diesel we need for long haul trucking. Take a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ToojK_MJd0
Jul 3rd, 2008 (10:31 am)#134 hung:
Our family owns 7 GM vehicles, ranging in age from 1917 to 2006. I am impressed with each and every one of them, every single day.
Even so, I am not buying another one until they can give me something with world class gas mileage.
Jul 3rd, 2008 (10:49 am)john1701a #129
So true, it’s just a concept until people start driving it.
Jul 3rd, 2008 (11:02 am)kevin R #140
I fear you are misinformed. The law is that unless a car can go 55mph, you are NOT permitted to drive it on any street that has a posted speed limit of over 35 mph. (And you must confine your speed to 25mph) That means I could not drive it from my home to my job in Newport Beach, CA. Even if these cars do 40 mph, it is not legal to drive them on any major street in Orange County, CA.
Which town do you live in? If I am wrong, I would love to be corrected. Now, I’m thinking that if it looks like a regular car, and you could drive 40 mph, the police might not pull you over on a main street, but that still doesn’t make it legal.
In reading the fine print, I have discovered that “street legal” means, on streets with 35 mph speed limit or less, and NEV’s must not exceed 25 mph.
What I want is a plug-in vehicle I could drive to work. So far, ain’t no such animal
Jul 3rd, 2008 (11:09 am)from the Zenn website FAQ (it is flash, otherwise, I give you the URL.):
“Q:If the Zenn is only legal on streets with speed limits up to 35 mph, how will it support my transportation needs?”…….”A: island communities….., master planned communities…., military bases….”
NOT Orange County, CA, or Glendale, CA!
Jul 3rd, 2008 (11:14 am)Mike 142, I would say the issue is, what is the mpg on gas-power alone. It ain’t 50mpg. It wasn’t (isn’t? will be?) designed for gas-only, and won’t be efficient driving in that mode. That was the point the WSJ guy was trying to make. It might not be as bad as 15mpg, but it certainly won’t be 50mpg. He is trying to demonstrate that the efficiency of the gas-only mode will be much lower than the public assumes. And the posts here prove his point.
Jul 3rd, 2008 (11:20 am)jes #154.
“I don’t understand what is so hard about it…High MPG, very affordable car or expensive electric with low fuel and maint cost”
Yes! please build me an electric car, somebody, but take out the *expensive* part
Jul 3rd, 2008 (11:26 am)174 Dave G
You are making the invalid assumption that all power to the wheels flows from the battery. Not the way it should work. The generator power and the battery power are additive. In a peak load situtation, power from the battery and the generator both go to the wheels. For example, if generator supplies 100 KW and battery can supply 40 KW, then the peak power supplied to the wheels is 140 KW. You do get in a trade off with efficiency when the battery has been heavily depleted and requires recharge before it can used for peak load again. That is not something you can be hypothetical about though, you need real numbers. I’m not sure we need algae anytime soon, but yes, it could do it.
Jul 3rd, 2008 (11:52 am)#178 MoforJesus
I’m sorry you live in Orange County buddy. Street legal in Michigan as long as you’re not on a state highway or Interstate. Write your reps, change the law….it’s a stupid law and you’re having to suffer for it…..
Jul 3rd, 2008 (12:13 pm)167 davea0511,
The $40,000 was the last number from Lutz regarding the break-even price of the Volt.
I’m not using all those pessimistic (but possibly real) numbers for my calculations. Even giving the Volt the benefit of the doubt on all numbers (e.g. assuming 40 Miles electric range, electricity doesn’t change price, $5/gallon gas, 50 MPG when non-electric, or even 100% of driving all-electric) it still doesn’t make economic sense unless you “plug in” some goofy numbers.
Here are some simple calculations based only on the expected price difference between the Volt and the Honda Global Small hybrid:
$40,000 (for Volt) – $18,000 (Honda Hybrid) = $22,000
At $5/gallon that is 4,400 gallons of gas.
At 50 MPG for the Honda Hybrid, that is 220,000 miles.
At 12,000 miles/year that is 18 years of driving.
In other words you could drive the Honda Hybrid for 18 years at $5/gallon just for the price difference between the two vehicles. If you don’t like $5/gallon, try $7.5/gallon. That is still 12 years. And that doesn’t take into account the financing/missing revenue from tying up the extra $22,000 in capital, or the cost of actually running the Volt over over those 12 or 18 years.
I believe it is generally accepted that the Volt is going to cost the buyer money. The argument that remains is that is some sort of magic bullet to getting the US off of gas (which I believe also requires some goofy numbers to justify).
Jul 3rd, 2008 (2:29 pm)A last blast —
There are some very intelligent fellas posting here. Instead of criticizing the auto industry, why don’t we manufacture a solution and make millions? I’m in!
IDEAS: **motorcycle with 3 or 4 wheels and a “body” — they sell these, but they are way too expensive and bizarre looking. Let’s make a decent one for a decent price, and be honest about the safety features, which are: zilch.
** electric car (AKA golf cart with car body) design one with the right ratio of power to weight. Some of you guys are real quick with the calculator, and I’m sure you could do it. By the right ratio, I mean, light enough and powerful enough to do 70mph without costing $100K.
** EV (golf carts that they produce now) that look alot more normal, have seats and A/C. The trick here is getting the law to allow them on the road, and getting gas hogs accustomed to sharing the road with them.
I was really hoping to be proved wrong here, in my assertion that:::
(((***PHEV [or even a plug-in EV] – street legal (ALL streets) and under $25K – no such animal, they do not exist****))))
If I’m wrong in this assertion, someone please correct me. C’mon, somebody prove me wrong. And if you can’t prove me wrong, hey, go out and make one, all you smart MIT fellas! Anybody can be a critic.
Jul 3rd, 2008 (3:45 pm)#180 mo4jesus:
My original numbers came in a little low (#119) but after correcting them (#162) my numbers come in line with doggydogworld and BillR and indicate that 50mpg on the Volt is entirely doable. And that is using fairly conventional car engines.
But what is also important is that the Volt drivetrain opens the door to even more near-future improvements. if GM were to use something that could never, ever work in a car, such as the 2 stroke turbo diesels they already build for locomotives (which would otherwise require like 100 gears to operate your car on the freeway since they only run in the hundreds of rpms) they could get much higher efficiency than that in a much smaller package, too, because they have 2x the power output of 4 stroke engines.
A tiny half litre engine of that type could give over 70mpg in a Volt type drivetrain and still provide the same power.
(assuming BSFC of 150 and the same 85% electric generator efficiency).
Sadly, you’re largely correct about not being able to buy an electric car that can replace a conventional car. I too, have looked for one. The RAV-4 EV was one of the best options but it’s now in such short supply (used) it’s probably not even possible to get your hands on one. I used to see them on EBAY for $60k, occasionally, which is about 2x the original cost to the owner ($40k – $10k subsidy). There’s also the Tesla, which has had some problems getting going but has shipped a few so far.
Granted it’s really expensive, but it’s not nothing. Nothing would mean we have no real hope for electric vehicles. As long as there’s something I think there’s pretty good hope that the prices will come down as more work goes on and more manufactures see viability. It’s going to take a few years, though. To a large extent, I think the Tesla guys have really motivated Lutz and GM to do the Volt, which in turn motivated Toyota to push forth plans for a plug in LiIon Prius, too. So, I think it is important to recognize that the Tesla is out there as a real car that meets freeway and safety requirements, despite all the cost and problems. Maybe it’s easier for me to keep those in mind because I actually have started to see them driving around in Silicon Valley. 
Jul 3rd, 2008 (5:10 pm)As far as the source is concerned, the WSJ was recently purchased by Rupert Murdoch from the family which has owned the WSJ for over 100 years. Rupert also owns Fox media ,a staunch defender of big oil and the Republican agenda. It looks as though the Volt has struck a nerve with big oil. The Volt may be the first in a wave of electric vehicles which will begin the end of big oil. Stay tuned kiddies, the baloney will fly thick and heavy for the next year and a half:) Smilon
Jul 3rd, 2008 (8:33 pm)The guy is the mirror opposite of what most posters are here. He sees all the negatives and many correctly.
You posters here are somewhat Polly Anna -ish in that you’re preoccupation with a nonexistant crisis called global warming makes you way over the line optimistic.
This car or some variant needs to be done. GM will not be relevant if they do not. And oh by the way its going to hurt really bad to pinch this loaf out like giving birth to a food baby.
In the end the inescapable conclusion is we need to DRILL DRILL DRILL for oil anywhere and everywhere it is in the USA……otherwise we face a dollar collapse that GM is unlikely to survive.
TakeAway? Realistically we need to buy 5-10 more years. I can see it is going to happen no matter what. Pain levels will increase until you comply. Resistance is useless.
However you can rejoice you NJF MSG’s religioso MMGW’ers…..oil is not going to go back down alot.
Jul 3rd, 2008 (8:46 pm)Jesus I just read the article and I speak as an engineer….that is to say not wishfully like most the posters……………..I hope the guy is wrong but it appears he is not so far off. Sounds like they are pressing hard for subsidies.
This guy is no dummy in spite of the fact he is only a journalist he realizes MMGW is a hoax.
TakeAway? — Unfortunately wishful thinking may apply but in this case we will have the luxury of seeing how it plays out.
Jul 4th, 2008 (1:01 am)Dave G
The 100 mile versions of the EV1 had NiMH batteries. So did the Rav4 and Ford rangers.
They worked fine. I can’t find too much data on the power discharge rate at various accelerations, but whatever it was, it is/was no problem in the past. Unless you are trying to get 0 to 60 in 5 seconds or less, most HP needed is around 60 (120 kw is 160.8 HP and even with a 3-5% electrical to mechanical motor effeciency loss, 120 kw input is still 153 HP output). And even in the times when you need to accelerate that fast, it is best for any battery car to have regenerative breaking to caps because of their low internal resistance compared to batteries. I heard…but I don’t know if it is true, that the Volt is planned to have caps for the reg breaking to allow for that. Someone please correct me if I am wrong on that.
Regardless, NiMH works fine. That Doug gut from a few articles back is completely right on his insistance of the cheaper, more durable NiMH batteries for E-REVs and we just need a battery to buffer the power to allow the generator (aka ICE) to run at max power. For all electric cars, I’m still hoping for Li Ion technology to becaome cheap enough to replace every 7-10 years (well, lets hope that..before the Volt project, their life span was 2-3 years and Tesla even states that they “predict” to have 70% left after 5 years) since they are not as durable as the NiMHs that last 15+ years.
Jul 4th, 2008 (3:01 am)jes #190
“I heard…but I don’t know if it is true, that the Volt is planned to have caps for the reg breaking to allow for that. Someone please correct me if I am wrong on that.”
*** *** ***
It is planned for Gen2, but not the initial release. In addition, for Gen2, I believe that they’ll also work on ICE optimization, as there is much work to be done here. The Volt is essentially an BEV, but we’re a long way right now from proliferation of pure BEVs for obvious reasons. The only way this will take off is with the risk GM or any company pushing these vehicles accepts. Please don’t forget that R.ange E.xtension is here to stay and will guarantee that we will one day have PURE BEVs, and the quick charge infrastructure to support them. It shouldn’t be taken lightly.
Jul 4th, 2008 (8:01 am)Just a speculater.
Jul 4th, 2008 (10:21 am)Lenny Bruce once said “The pigs will eat your roses”. Dismiss the detractors of this kind of technology as ill-informed, faithless cynics whose sole purpose for such op-eds is to poop on others’ corn flakes.
Consider: I have an electric scooter I ride 4 miles to work daily, weather permitting, and it saves me huge $ with it’s charging cost of six cents a day. It makes about as much noise as your fridge and is fun to ride. If GM can come close to this sort of transportation advantage for we customers, the mindless ramblings of unwashed heathens masquerading as journalists will be lost in the joyful accolades I suspect intelligent and educated purebred AUTOMOTIVE writers will heap upon GM for their efforts. It’s my belief THOSE are the opinions that count, the ones that spring from careful research of the facts.
Jul 4th, 2008 (3:19 pm)Between fantasy editorials like this and frequent Karl Rove columns, the WSJ is encouraging me to forego the over $500 a year subscription renewal.
Perhaps the author conveniently forgot that we have an OIL CRISIS and that the Volt will reduce oil usage per mile more than any other production car on the road.
Also, he doesn’t bother to take into consideration the desirability that will accrue when the next gas shortage hits and people are lined up at gas stations.
I only pray that GM survives long enough to launch this — otherwise from which foreign country will emerge the buyer of the Volt technology?
Jul 5th, 2008 (6:57 am)Here’s a previous Holman article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120890912345836455.html?mod=todays_columnists
I see a trend. . . in his writing now.
Jul 6th, 2008 (11:54 pm)We should forget about electric cars and start drilling everywhere for oil. We are thew US of A and if we can’t take it by force, then what is the point of having a military that is the best in the world. Preemptive oil drilling is the answer. Let’s ask Dick Cheney and his vice president Bush and I bet they agree.
Jul 7th, 2008 (1:00 am)I certainly like the concept of an electric car, but I think we have a major problem looming.
If the electric car (any brand) gets about 5 mi / kwh, and I drive about 90 miles roundtrip on a work day, that means I use 18kwh. (I know my commute is a bit more than most – My total annual mileage is about 25K miles.)
Now assuming a perfect world, we would all be driving electric cars. Assuming 100 million cars on the road (does anyone know how many cars typically operate in the U.S. on any given day?) we would need 1,800 Gigawatts hrs to power all those cars. We’re going to need some substantial infrastucture in power generation for that to happen.
Living in California, I’m already used to rolling blackouts because we haven’t built any new power plants. Even McCain’s proposal to build a miniscule number of nuclear plants won’t get us there, and I don’t hold out much hope for wind and solar plants.
Its not that we’re addicted to oil, it just happens to be a very compact and portable energy source.
I hope someone figures out how to make this electric car thing work including the infrastructure.
Jul 7th, 2008 (2:36 pm)Reims, your kind of logic is what got your country in the mess it’s in today. Greed and force is why you’re stuck in Iraq and your economy sucks. The Romans once thought they could take everything by force, go read what happened to them. Once the Chinese and India have all the purse strings, your “U.S. of A.” won’t dare start waging war over oil. They’ll crush your economy like a big insect. We here in Canada will have the oil your country wants from our oil sands in Alberta. You start throwing your force around with us and you’ll have 50 million terrorists lined up on your northern border. You’re not much of an American, you talk like a backwoods bully from the 1800′s. You’d like to send more of your military men and women to battle and possibly to their death so you don’t have to change and stop driving a gas sucking pigcar. You’re a prime example of the kind of American who is hated worldwide. You’re loud, you talk tough, you’re pushy. Try co-operating with the rest of the world, and you won’t be running scared of the cave-dwelling bomb drivers in the middle East. Get with the program Reims. Oil = pollution = global warming. We really like those ones. Face it Reims, the days of cheap oil are gone, and people deserve better and cleaner cars. Go enroll in school.
Jul 7th, 2008 (2:53 pm)Dear Canada Pete,
This kind of continuing diatribe is utterly useless. Don’t waste your key strokes. We are either part of the problem, or part of the solution. The choice is always ours to make.
Cordially, Tom
Jul 7th, 2008 (4:06 pm)Dear 198 Canada Pete,
I believe 196 Reims was talking tongue in cheek, in any case lets try to stick to topic.
Any thoughts on how we will recharge all those electric cars?
Jul 9th, 2008 (1:02 pm)#29
Can someone check my math and confirm? Anyone know how this Honda generator compares with others in terms of efficiency? ( I checked one of their smallest models and it was about 5% less efficient).
Your math is pretty much right, it’s just your use of those numbers that is wrong. Unlike what those generators have to cope with, the Volt engine will be running at a constant RPM and a constant load. Those generators run at a constant RPM and variable load. Having to be able to adapt to variable loads (or variable RPM) lowers the efficiency of engines.
GM planned for 50mpg, lets look at the efficiency of this. 8kwh=40miles, then they play on getting 10kwh/gallon. 1 gallon of gas is about 36.4kwh. So we’re looking at 27.5% efficiency. This is not that hard to do. The main ‘problem’ (if you will) is getting the 5miles/kwh. Not the 10kwh/gallon.
Jul 10th, 2008 (10:51 am)I was effectively raised by General Motors. My Father spent his whole career there. I was raised to believe in GM and have driven nothing but GM cars for the last 37 years.
GM finally gets into the Electric Hybrid/Fuel Cell market, and they build a $50K roadster. I have to drive 50 miles a day in the worst traffic in the Southeast US, much of it at 20 miles/hr. One of the Top 10 Fastest growing counties according to the U.S. Census, but Project Driveway won’t even consider me.
I can buy a brand new Ford Escape Hybrid for half as much as the Volt, save $50 a week in gas, have room for my family, groceries and other stuff. Another blunder by GM Marketing. Too little, too late.
This is not my Father’s GM.
Ford (36 mpg SUV)and Honda (Civic, 51 mpg) Hello.
Nov 1st, 2009 (6:36 am)Hi!
It took me 2 hours to create this trailer, hope you like it! [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stj6B7LpBGc]Twilight 3 Eclipse[/url]
Please let me know what do you think about it?