AND 
GM’s E-Flex Plans for Europe
It is well known the Chevy Volt has been approved for U.S. production for 2010. Less clear is what GM will do in other markets. The E-Flex platform is by design very flexible. The Opel Flextreme concept illustrates how a diesel rather than gas generator can be used.
GM CEO Rick Wagoner previously indicated that GMs European brand, Opel’s E-Flex vehicles were being designed in Michigan. Last month a report surfaced suggesting that E-Flex vehicles would appear in Europe both under the Chevrolet and Opel brands.
That report quoted Mike Arcamone, VP of GM Powertrain Europe as saying “Opel and Chevrolet will get a version of the car in Europe within a few months of each other.”
He also made this statement about timing:
“In terms of European vehicle launch, the Chevrolet probably will come second. The timing is going to be very close at around the end of 2010, but Opel leads by a couple of months.”
Source (Automotive News Europe, paid subscription required)
Today, new information was provided by GM Europe President Carl-Peter Forster. He advised that the E-Flex Opels wont make it to Europe until 2012, will cost 10,000 Euros more than their non-E-Flex counterparts, and will be made in America.
He declined to predict European demand for these cars stating such a guess would be “pure crystal ball gazing – demand is dependent on the oil price.”
So while GMs exact European plans still remain a matter of some speculation, it is clear that the E-Flex platform clearly has the chance to make it into many products, brands, and regions of the world.
How do you think E-Flex would best be utilized?
Source (just-auto, subscription required)
93 Responses to “GM’s E-Flex Plans for Europe”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- New York Times Report on the Chevy Volt Generator Mode Driving Experience
- CNBC Test Drive of the Chevy Volt in Charge Sustaining Mode
- Chevy Volt Will be Able to Hit 104 MPH
- Chevy Volt and Battery Program Update
- GM to Announce Initial Volt Markets at LA Auto Show
- Coalition of Industry Leaders Releases Roadmap to get 120 Million Electric Cars on US Roads by 2030
- Op-Ed: GM Reports a $1.2 Billion Loss, but Has the Cash To See Volt Well into Production and Beyond
- Three Chevy Volt Paint Color Finalists Announced
- What BMW Has Learned from the MINI E Program So Far: That They May Need to Build EREVs
- GM: EVs are Cool, but EREV’s are Really Cool
Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts
- Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud? November 20, 2009This is how open minded liberals operate. "And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best... […]BigCityCat
- Is the Volt Engine Direct Injected? November 20, 2009I recently read that the Cruze's engine will be DI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Cruze#Chevrolet_Cruze Obviously the Cruze's engine will... […]omnimoeish
- First Reports of the Chevy Volt's Charge-Sustaining (Generator) Mode Operation November 20, 2009The first two journalists' reports of what it's like to drive the Chevy Volt while in generator mode operation have been published. 1) New York... […]admin
- Florida giving $5000 rebate to convert Prius to plug-in November 20, 2009- Probably Hymotion - $10,400 standard price - $5000 state rebate - $1000 additional federal incentives - $4,400 final cost. Hurry because their... […]Texas
- New York Times CSM story November 20, 2009Link to the New York Times story of November 19, 2009 about a test ride of the Volt in charge sustaining... […]srschrier
- New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]srschrier
- New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]srschrier
GM-Volt.com is not affiliated with General Motors Company
All contents copyright 2007-2009 GM-Volt.com, LLC - All Rights Reserved
Home | Contact | Privacy Policy | About | Back to Top
July 14th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
This is some great news. I can’t wait much longer…:)
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Build ‘em all, build ‘em quick.
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Before the thread gets too long, I just wanted to jump in a mention why GM can’t really market cars like the Volt under the name ‘Chevrolet’ in Europe.
In Europe, Chevrolet means ‘entry level.’
To get the Volt out, and for it to be well received, it has to be through their Opel and Vauxhall dealers. They have not only have more dealers, they are better equipped/have much better image.
Chevrolet is mostly a fleet of rebadged Daewoos in Euro, it doesn’t have the same ‘je ne sais quoi’ (if you’ll let me use a little french).
Of interest, the press release does mention that cars build in Michigan will be making the leap across the pond, until the Euro plant is online. (as was speculated earlier about some of the “200,000 Volts” going international).
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Well, since you ask, put another electric motor on the rear wheels, get the 0-60 time down to about 5 seconds and I personally will be much happier. It probably doesn’t do anything for anybody else or GM, though.
From a business perspective, they should put eflex into SUVs and light trucks for sale in North America. They make a lot of cushy profit on those vehicles and could absorb the extra cost better than a small car as well as those big vehicles need the mileage improvement most of all. They should start with an electric Escalade.
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
The flextreme concept is such a beautiful design, I hope something close to it is produced and maybe brought back to the USA.
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I would like to know what is in store for Volt 2.0 as the Volt as we know and love is pretty much all designed.
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
The opel will be rebadged as a Saturn.
http://www.saturn.com/saturn/vehicles/greenline/futurevehicles/index.jsp
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Bring back the S-10. Put two in-wheel electric motors in the rear, and use the same E-Flex-based platform.
In-wheel elec motors are impractical for cars, but they’d be perfect for light trucks. The only thing I’d miss would be 4 wheel drive. I imagine you could put motors in the front wheels as well, but the power drain when using them would probably be impractical.
Can you tell I love my S-10? Colorado can die in a fire.
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
#2 Jason M. Hendler:
Amen. Heavy on the “quick”. By 2012 the game could be over.
#8 Cpukill:
I’m right with you there. My S-10 is just the right size. The Colorado is just too !@#$%^& big.
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
AT #8
AGREED – S10 may very well be the most asthetically pleasing and practical city truck ever built…
I was very unhappy when they were discontinued. – I had 2 S-10’s and they were great trucks, would have bought another – but then came the Colorado – so i bought a Scion (yes a toyota) – becasue it was practacle for my needs…
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
To : Cpukill, #8
I think not, there will not be any power drain, just turn off the motor, it will just function like a Hub, I think this is the best part of the E-Flex model, as there are no engines, Motors can be turned off and on very easily. They cannot do this in Prius as ICE and Motor is mated together.
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
What amazes me is the lack of attention the general media has given to GM’s obvious committment to alternative energy. GM recently opened the first hydrogen refueling station in California, is cooperating with the state governors in biofuel and is going to announce production of the Volt in about two months – yet we hear absolutely nothing in the general media. Are trhey all asleep?
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Until or unless we see a large scale investment in lithium battery production facilities, the “production” date is insignificant. Once we have the capacity to make 10,000 batteries per month, then we can talk about having them in lots of markets and in lots of models. Are we not investing because of a fear EEStor will render lithium batteries obsolete? If so we are being played like a bell.
Recall the story where LG said they would build a battery facility in the USA if they go the contract. Was it disclosed how many batteries per month that facility will kick out?
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, you cannot buy a Prius because production is limited by – drum roll please – battery production facilities.
Could we bring investment in from the government and the electric utilities? Not without some leadership.
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
What an awesome statement GM can make if they produce a E-flex Corvette…
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Noticed the gas price protest ad. ITS SPONSERED BY THE OIL INDUSTRY. They use the same dollar graphic that shows they make no profit. We need to sign an opposite petition which would be MAKE ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Heres a better petition: http://pol.moveon.org/pac/cleanenergyfuture/
FOR CLEAN ENERGY!
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
I have a few questions that may already been answered elsewhere.
I had a lot of rain today and some roads were flooded.
1. Will the Volt be able to drive through 2 feet deep puddles?
2. Will the Volt have a neutral transmission setting for cars washes?
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
#12 Robert
The media is drawn to depression, destruction, and danger…………they see GM as the obvious target to get good ratings relative to its competitors. “HEADLINE……LARGEST AUTOMAKER IN THE WORLD GOES OUT OF BUSINEES.” The damn media would have a field day. If they really wanted to report bad news, they could cover CHrysler. I love my Chrysler car, but they just are doing so poorly right now and I don’t see much coming down the line as far as small cars and fuel efficiency. : ( If the media really was reporting everything, they would report how TOyota had a 50% higher drop in sales than GM even with their giant SUVs. THe would report how excellently their Cobalt, Aveo, and Malibus are selling. But alas, there is only so much u can fit into a 30 second sound bite, and bad news is better than no news which better than good news to them. : ( Go GM! Make that 100 MPG machine!
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
o, and nelson, I would say that it is possible that the VOlt could go through those puddles since it wouldn’t necesarily need a clear exhaust to run……but then again, the engine could be emersed in the water with u in it subsequently electrecuting u and all of the cars other occupents…….ultimately killing u……..so…..that is something u should ask GM. : )
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
“How do you think E-Flex would best be utilized?”
A “sporty” compact hatchback….with a MSRP that is reachable by the masses. Under $25K would be terrific…under $20K would be phenomenal. 40 mile EV range is not a requirement…make it a 20 or 10 mile EV range. And I emphasize “sporty”…and so should the marketing of the vehicle.
Think BMW produced Mini…and call it “MV20” or “MV10”. It should not be a “MilliVolt”, but a “MegaVolt”. Or the “SparkPlugIn” or just “SparkPlug” since ‘plugging in’ is optional.
The young drivers would love it. GM needs to start successfully promoting their compact vehicles.
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
#17 Nelson
Not withstanding that 2 foot deep is probably out of the realm of what could be described as a puddle, I’d highly recommend you never, ever drive through any water that deep.
If water that deep is flowing, a car will certainly get swept away by the pressures inovled and the occupants would most likely killed. If the water is NOT flowing, then I can personally attest to the fact (in possibly my stupidest driving moment when I was just starting out) that hiding somewhere inside the 2 foot deep water could very well be a brand spanking new 6 foot deep patch of water that didn’t exist until the water washed a big hole away and then covered it over with the same murky water that looks 2 feet deep. Took me like 2 months to get all the crud out of the 72 Ford pickup I nosed into it up to the seats. uuuUUUUuuugh!
In any case, the problems I had weren’t just with the engine. The cabin doesn’t seal (unless you have an old beetle, perhaps?) and it ruins your interior (although I lucked out, it was all cheap vinyl and rubber floors!!
. The bearings and grease fittings on the joints don’t seal THAT much and if they are submerged they will start to lose grease and get silty and you’ll have to do something about it, too. Mud and silt gets into and coats everything. Things like shocks aren’t designed for that kind of silt (unless they’re specifically designed for it like in a mud-bogging vehicle).
I’d imagine the \Volt would fair just as incredibly poorly as pretty much any other family sedan would.
That being said there should be no reason the \Volt couldn’t drive through any non-submerging type of water the same as any other family sedan would, either.
Hey, looks like Andy Grove agrees with me (not about not dunking your car (although, I don’t think he’s said anything positive about dunking your car, either
, but about building electric drive SUVs and Trucks):
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/july-august-magazine-contents/our-electric-future
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
____________________________________________________
E-Flex (aka VOLT) the entire GM portfolio line ASAP!
He who gets there first in a big way wins. Low volume demo production runs don’t count in the real world.
Go GM-VOLT!
____________________________________________________
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
GM I’v been blogging for a year now please get me my VOLT. Can I be the first in Florida….? No offense Estero.
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
____________________________________________________
#23 TED in Fort Myers
Dear GM,
I’m another Florida guy patiently waiting for my VOLT. There are MANY more of us in Florida that would buy a VOLT TODAY if it were available!
Please, Please, Please give us Florida guys a PV cabin cooler (like Aptera) as a standard feature. We are tired on getting into hot cars in the summer!
____________________________________________________
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
At #17
I am sure that the battery will be sealed and there will be an inexpensive GFIC circut to shut off electricity leaving the pack in the event of a water related short. This is simple technology.
That being said – when is the last time you drove though 2 feet of water. Driving through water is not very smart in any vehicle.
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Gm will announce massive layoff in the number of tens of thousands tomorrow. Is this too late?
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
“How do you think E-Flex would best be utilized?”
Your choice of gasoline/bioalcohol or diesel/biodiesel flex-fuel gas-turbine generator, 2-3 kWh lithium-ion or electrostatic buffer, induction motor. Optional plug-in battery. Targets: 60 mpg highway, 70 mpg city.
Basically, Prius done right. About 50% of the energy liberated in a reciprocating ICE is lost to friction, but we use them anyway because they can respond quickly to driver demand. Decouple the engine from the traction motor via the electrical buffer, and now we can focus on energy efficiency rather than power demands.
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Latest news: Every employee at GM headquarter was asked to submit resume to their bosses tomorrow morning and immediate evaluation based on work performance and employee needs will result in firing a undetermined number of employees. Check NBC Detroit affiliate for latest news.
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
“The opel will be rebadged as a Saturn.
http://www.saturn.com/saturn/vehicles/greenline/futurevehicles/index.jsp”
Interesting, its quoted as 34 miles AER.
”
I have a few questions that may already been answered elsewhere.
I had a lot of rain today and some roads were flooded.
1. Will the Volt be able to drive through 2 feet deep puddles?
(except a boat, I guess. But 2 ft might be too shallow!)
2. Will the Volt have a neutral transmission setting for cars washes?
”
As everyone else has said.. not recommended to drive through 2 ft of water in ANY vehicle
Also, electrocution isn’t a factor, as someone said – GFCI can be implemented. As for the electrical motor running underwater – unlikely, due to safety circuits.
2. What’s the difference between on and off? Electric motor when ‘on’ does nothing unless supplied the electricity to move, controlled by the throttle. So you might as well turn off the car and sit back.
(Car washes here have moving tracks on the floor… do ones by you have you drive through?)
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
#28
GM Refocus Means Loss Of Thousands Of Jobs
Here is the link
http://www.clickondetroit.com/automotive/16882511/detail.html
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I feel a great deal of sympathy and sadness for those to be affected.
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Boycott all Japs made stuff in Michigan, start right now and send 50,000 people to demonstrate before anything Japanese in Michigan and Ohio.
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Now we can see how it is that GM intends to make 10,000 Volts in 2011 and 60,000 or more thereafter and still only sell 200,000 Volts in the U.S. from 2011 to 2015. They intend to market them in Europe where the price of gas is much higher then here. This will give them a chance to continue to charge the “under $40,000″ price for some time to come. They must feel that a small volume of cars at a high price will help them recover their development costs sooner.
I guess most of us are out of luck until after 2015.
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Because this thread prominently brings Opel into discussion, Saturn (the US Opel brand) is of interest. Below is the Saturn GM’s recent response to rumors Saturn might be shut down addressed to their dealers, employees & owners:
“Jill Lajdziak on July 9, 2008 at 3:38pm……
In recent days, media reports have fueled speculative rumors about the future of the Saturn brand. Let me replace those rumors with some straightforward facts.
GM has invested heavily to give Saturn one of the best and freshest lineups in the industry. The strength of our new products was evident in June’s strong sales performance:
Total sales were up 9 percent from June 2007 and up 18 percent over May 2008 (adjusted for the number of selling days). The numbers are even more impressive since we are no longer selling Ion.
Aura has its best month ever – up 45 percent over June 2007 and up 31 percent over May 2008.
Sky also had its best month since launch – up 66 percent over June 2007 and up 67 percent over May 2008.
Vue recorded its best retail month of the year – up 100 percent over June 2007 and up 24.5 percent over May 2008.
We’re optimistic that, despite difficult economic conditions, we can maintain this momentum. The truth is that our product line up is at the right place in the right time. As customers increasingly seek vehicles that combine fuel efficiency with refined performance and great design, we are ideally positioned with our new portfolio.
The 2009 Aura will offer best-in-class highway fuel economy (33 mpg gas, 34 mpg hybrid)*
The Sky Red Line offers best-in-class highway fuel economy (28 mpg)
The Astra offers unsurpassed fuel economy for a 5-door compact car (24 mpg city/32 mpg hwy)
The Vue hybrid (limited availability) provides the best highway fuel economy of any SUV (32 mpg)
The Outlook offers even better fuel economy in 2009, providing higher highway fuel economy than any 8-passenger SUV (24 mpg)
*All claims based on EPA estimates and GM segmentation and exclude other GM vehicles.
Every day throughout the year, we examine our business plan to look for ways to improve our performance. That was the case regarding our decision to change the lifecycle plan for the next generation Aura. We originally planned to have an accelerated lifecycle (3.5 years) for the Saturn Aura when it was introduced in 2007. Given existing business conditions, and the upside potential of the current Aura, we have decided to put it on a more conventional lifecycle of five to six years.
Aura sales are up more than 28 percent so far this year, and we are adding a standard 4-cylinder engine with 6-speed transmission to its lineup for the 2009 model year. As I mentioned above, this powertrain combination will offer 33 mpg highway for the gas engine and 34 mpg highway for the hybrid, making Aura the highway fuel economy leader in the midsize car segment. We are very confident that Aura will continue to do well in the marketplace.
So while we can’t control the rumors, we can continue to focus our efforts of providing great vehicles and great service to our customers. We sincerely appreciate your strong interest in Saturn and our dedication for our brand.”
Source: http://imsaturn.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2033334%3ABlogPost%3A42511
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Here is an article about a “special” division recently created within Chrysler to crank out ELECTRIC cars within 3 to 5 years:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080714/BUSINESS01/807140325
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Ouch, 10,000 Euro more in Europe! That’s $16,000 more! If it’s indeed $40,000 in the USA, tha’s $56,000 for the Europeans!
And reply to Robert who thinks the media is ignoring GM… what media are you reading/watching? I see the Volt on TV all the time, on CNN, CNN HN, CNBC, and MSNBC, ABC on both Nightline and the nightly news, in Popular Science, Time Magazine, all over the web, etc.
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Lyle, your question for this topic was, “How do you think E-Flex would best be utilized?”
For background, please note my quote in post #34 from Saturn’s GM, “Vue recorded its best retail month of the year – up 100 percent over June 2007 and up 24.5 percent over May 2008.” (This compact SUV was Saturn’s star sales performer in spite of escalating fuel costs & “conventional wisdom”. I expect the Vue 2010/11 plug-in version to significantly outsell the Volt!)
To answer Lyle’s question, E-Flex is BEST applied to the vehicles Americans are still in love with, downsized to CUV size. The Caddy Provoq concept (which uses the Vue chassis) is a good example. The two main reasons for this are:
1) There is a very significant (increased/latent) market demand for CUVs
2) The payoff in gas savings is GREATER than for E-Flex compact cars*
*I know this seems counter-intuitive, but if you do the math you’ll agree (as the brilliant retired founder of Intel, Andrew Groves does in this excellent article: http://www.american.com/archive/2008/july-august-magazine-contents/our-electric-future)
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Build all kinds and put them into productions as quick as possible. The competition is closing in for the kill. They smell red meat and it is making them hungry. There will be several vehicles on the market 1 to 3 years before the Volt that will sell a lot of vehicles. The Volt will still be a market changer and GM will sell every Volt they can make for the near future. After the market is saturated with new versions of the Prius, the Honda hybrids, ZENN and the others there will still be a LARGE market for whatever GM can build as an E-Flex vehicle. The problem is getting some on the market ASAP and insure they are street ready.
Go GM and Go, Go, Go Volt………..
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Sure heard a lot of silly thoughts here tonight. The game is not over yet. A lot of playing field left to play on.
Take Care
Arch
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
My sympathies to the employees who may be let go soon. I hope it doesn’t have to come to that. Nasaman, thanks for that great link from the former Intel exec.
To Lyle’s question, I think a light truck or van with 4WD would be great, but probably not as practical as a smaller car with Better MPG. That said, there is no reason they can’t put a van body on a volt chassis/drivetrain. That’s what VW did for so many years and although the bus was slower than a bug and way worse aerodynamically, they were more or less the same car with a different body.
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
“Today, new information was provided by GM Europe President Carl-Peter Forster. He advised that the E-Flex Opels wont make it to Europe until 2012, will cost 10,000 Euros more than their non-E-Flex counterparts, and will be made in America”
*** *** ***
That is really surprising. It really appears that GM has succeeded in globalizing platforms. I can tell you that 10+ years ago this type news would have been laughable. If GM has succeeded in this respect alone (platform globalization) and is poised with the best near/long term strategy in the industry, then surviving the short term will definitely bring promise for the LT.
Some have called him “Red ink Rick” but I’d have to disagree. To pull off what GM obviously will is to understand what it takes to pacify a short run
weaned B.O.D. into buying a LT strategy that is unmistakeably the best in the auto industry. This is just another step, or has everyone forgotten that GM successfully jettisoned the LT health care/pension liabilities with a $30-35B payout to the Teamsters. That one is off the books, liability now rests with the union.
These times are tough, but give GM time. Amazing it is what an American pub-held can do when it adopts a LT strategy!
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
#23 Ted in Fort Myers
No offense taken! I just hope GM chooses this area of Florida to introduce the Volt. If I can’t be one of the 1st to get a Volt, perhaps it will be you! Good luck! Just promise me one thing — if you get one before me, please give me a call and let me salivate for awhile!
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
“How do you think E-Flex would best be utilized?”
Ahh, so gracious of you to ask. I hope GM reads this thread.
-Speed to market is of paramount importance on sooo many levels for GM and for the US and for the World. Since there is so much new tech in the Volt, GM has to have limited first year production. This is unavoidable. The question is, can this time to production be improved? I think it can by offering a BEV version first. GM has said they plan to offer a BEV version and it is a MUCH simpler design. GM has also conveyed that the bulk of the remaining engineering is in integration. Well, that is not needed for the BEV version. While the real testing and improvements and prodcution will be with the EREV version, the only serious risk to the near term success of the Volt is the battery (I don’t think there are long term threats as long as GM’s commitment is unwavering). So, the sooner the battery gets into real world use, the sooner the can begin production in earnest. Putting BEV’s on the market sooner than late 2010 will also allow for smoothing ramping of battery production.
-EFLEX GEN1 in as many models as possible that it makes sense for in 2012 and 2013 model years: G5, G6, Vibe, Malibu, SAAB 9-3 (if around), Aura, Solsitce, Sky, HHR, Equinox, Provoq, Vue. Obviously, the battery cannot be made to fit into all of these vehicles but they are in the right performance/price range. Ooops, I almost forgot the no-brainer. Take the bowtie of the image at the top of this page and stick on a Cadillac crest. Build it as close to the concept as production allows and let the range fall where it may. It should be ubundantly clear this would be a sensation for Cadillac in the $45,000 price range.
-GM has alluded to work being already under way for EREV EFLEX GEN2. This should be targeted for 2013 model year at the latest. I know this will break the hearts of many, but don’t try to make it a low cost version unless you KNOW the battery cost will be there. Make it an upscale higher power version (180KW traction motor and 18KWH battery) and avoid the risk. The genset could be the same power rating as GEN1 for similar weight vehicles and scaled up if needed for mid-size SUV’s. The first implementations of this powertrain should be considered for CTS, SRX, XLR, Acadia, G8, Outlook, LaCrosse, Lucerne, Grand Prix, SAAB 9-5, Enclave, Torrent, SAAB SportCombi, Trailblazer.
-Economy version of GEN1 with 20-25 miles AER for 2012.
-GEN3 ecnomy version in 2014: 12KWH battery, 80KW motor, and 35KW genset. For compact, sub-compact, and micro cars.
-Advance small size (high volumetric energy density), flex-fuel ICEs REs that is optimize for constant output. Through away conventional ICE development thinking and open up to all potential technologies that show promise for this new era of ICE requirements.
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Best use of E-Flex technology from a “save the planet” veiwpoint would have to be powering the Soccer Moms. Minivans and mid-sized SUVs primarily. I absolutely agree with the need to re-introduce the S-10 with an electric drivetrain. Keep the frilly stuff out and make it a simple, functional utility machine so the cost stays low. The giant Suburban or Tahoe class vehicles may not benefit quite so much due to sheer enormity of the motors and battery packs required there, but the 2-mode hybrid is already doing a great job of improving that segment. Now if they could only get the cost penalty under control…
For me personally, I prefer to commute in a compact sedan so the Volt is already perfect for me. I tow/haul with a biodiesel powered Silverado that I expect to own for the rest of my life so I wouldn’t buy an “E-Flex on steroids” heavy-duty pickup.
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 1:01 am
nasaman # 37
I think the reason most people don’t pick up on the fact that the first doiubling of mileage gives you 50% of all available gas savings is that they think in percentages. So 10 to 20 doubles your savings, 20 to 40 doubles your savings, 40 to 80 doubles your savings, and so on. They focus on the doubling, thinking that the doubling is what matters, missing the important bit that because the base consumption is twice as large at 10 mpg as it is at 20 mpg you get twice the bang.
To some extent the problem is that we focus on miles per gallon instead of gallons per miles. If you use a measure like gallons per 1000 miles (an average number of miles), then it’s easy to understand that that a 10 mpg gallon car uses 100 gallons a month, a 20 mpg car 50, a 40 mpg car 25, and so forth.
Approaching the issue this way not only makes clear that the low mpg vehicles are the true problem, it also makes clear the minor savings you get from going from 44 mpg to 50 mpg (2.7 gallons) or say from 80 mpg to 100 mpg (2.5 gallons). How many times have I heard people say they need a car to go 100 mpg, apparenly not realizing that the gas savings iover a car that gets 50 mpg is only ten gallons a month if you’re driving 1000 miles.
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 4:29 am
Ok, so #37 nasaman proved what I always suspected. Nobody actually reads my posts, here, do they?
(I posted that link in #21 
So, I might as well reveal the secret formula that the oil companies have been hiding from you how you can use water to increase your mileage by a gazillion times or how to train squirrels to power your car on nothing but nuts…
But seriously, it really does seem pretty clear that the biggest impact on fuel consumption that eflex can have is by using it on the trucks/suvs that get the worst mileage. And because these vehicles are the most profitable for GM, it would help them the most, too. Not to mention those are the vehicles that can best absorb the cost of the systems. It seems like a total no-brainer to use eflex in that manner. Plus all the benefits that could be added for almost nothing, like a built-in site generator and my personal favorite the kill-o-watt stereo.
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 6:27 am
OK then how about VOLTS for all three of us Florida guys? LOL AND yes GM the Solar vent system sure would make the cabin cooler here in Florida and extend the life of the battery. The best use for e-Flex is for soccer moms who should be driving something the size of the Volt and just think they need a BIG ASS suv or Minivan. GM is heading in the right direction eREV in every model. Oh yes GM an EV S10. And a BEV Volt.
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 6:32 am
E-Flex has to move into larger vehicles. I suppose that an issue is when enough batteries will be available, but larger vehicles are the arena where there can be a much bigger payoff. I want an E-Flex truck. The need for (and interest in) pickup trucks has not gone away. DaveP is right — the potential for the greatest gas savings, gallons and dollars, is on big cars and pickup trucks, where current mileage is low.
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 6:51 am
The answer to Lyle’s question is very simple.
E-Flex would best be utilized sitting in MY driveway !!
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 6:53 am
RB
Gas savings is not in BIG ASS vehicles. Look at what they drive in Europe where gas prices have been high for years. Americans have to get over the “I gotta drive a BIG ASS vehicle attitude.” It just doen’t make logical sense any more to haul around alot of excess steel. TED
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 7:23 am
NEWS FLASH: CNN to interview Bob Lutz at 12 Noon (ET) today!
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Lyle asks, “How do you think E-Flex would best be utilized?”
In my driveway.
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 7:37 am
@51 nasaman
Probably to talk about more massive job cuts being announced right now.
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 8:07 am
I referenced these cuts a couple threads ago (down at the end to not hijack the thread), I tried to wait until this one got old, but it seems to be creeping in regardless.
Here are the details for those interested:
Salaried Empolyers: -20%
Sell Assets: 4 billion
Borrow mor cash: 2 billion
Dividend: cancelled
Sales forcast 2008: -15%
“GM will continue to align its production with anticipated demand, he said.”
“Wagoner said GM has a “solid, well thought out plan” to return its operations to profitability. It’s not a plan to survive, but a plan to win,” he said in a broadcast to employees.
Naturally, he did not elaborate even to his own employees. The plan is a ’secret’.
Linky (w/video):
http://www.cnbc.com/id/25685707/site/14081545?__source=yahoo%7Cheadline%7Cquote%7Ctext%7C&par=yahoo
I don’t expect much out of Lutz on CNN, he is more of a ’showboat’ than a reality guy…but I’ll still watch, hehe. Everyone loves a show right?
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 8:16 am
#54 Statik
I would also like to say without going any further with this. This is a good move by GM.
Sure, the salaried workers should have got the axe like 3-4 years ago (in a cold-calculated business sense)…but better late than never. Same goes for the dividend…500 million a year they don’t have to pay out. Not sure what the ‘asset’ sale is, so I have to hold judgment on that…if they can get a billion for hummer that would be a steal.
Provided the market doesn’t open too wonky and GM gets caught in a wave. I would expect a little strength out of GM today at the open on this news versus the broader.
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Has Mr. Nazri been fired? Just curious
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 8:38 am
#50 TED — For better or worse, today I drove to work in my Silverado truck, all by myself. I like my truck. Even when I get my Volt, I’ll keep the truck
for sometimes use. [I need the truck a day or two each week because of carrying capacity.] You may not approve, but I’m going to be out there in the marketplace competing with you and others to buy gas, so it is in your interest too for me to have a more gas efficient truck.
Americans enjoy telling each other what to do, but it is a big country with many different needs. What works in NYC does not necessarily work in Montana, or even on horse farms in FL. As Mr Lutz says, not everyone is going to have a teeny tiny car pulling a teeny tiny trailer with teeny tine horses in it.
I was in Europe not too long ago, and I saw quite a number of large cars and trucks as well as many smaller ones.
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 8:54 am
55 Statik:
Bear market. This could have been viewed as good or bad news and it looks like the market has decided that everything is bad news today.
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 8:59 am
GM should not, repeat not fall into the trap of electrifying large (”BIG ASS”) vehicles for the forseeable future, until EFLEX has proven bullet-proof and universally adaptable to all other (smaller) vehicles, first. The larger the vehicle, the more the batteries will cost; and price is the big problem, now.
They should probably resist making a “Smart” type car EFLEX, though there are lots of people who would buy one — in order for EFLEX architecture to succeed, the car buying public has to be convinced that it can fully replace, or even exceed, their expectations for conventional internal combustion cars. That won’t happen with a nano-size 2-seater.
It might pay GM to consider distribution of early EREVs in light of this public perception issue. Part of this “electric cars are for tree-huggers” image centers around California. Try making them available in all parts of the country, perhaps at least one region ahead of California (I vote for the Southeast!!!!).
In any case, GM should concentrate on applications where the customer realizes the greatest energy savings first, and try to get the volume high/costs down as soon as they reasonably can. This is what America needs, and will dovetail nicely into the expectations for European markets.
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 9:03 am
#37 Nasaman
#45 DonC
You two contend that E-Flex would best be utilized in vehicles larger than compact size because Americans want larger vehicles. We should distinguish wants from needs. Most of us don’t need a larger vehicle for most of our trips. Buying a larger vehicle and using it for daily tasks sounds like the SUV-driving urbanite/suburbanite syndrome. I say drive the small car.
If by “best” we mean reducing oil dependence, then E-Flex would be best utilized in smaller, i.e., more fuel-efficient vehicles. GM thinks that way. GM designed the Volt around that concept. Obviously, we should use E-Flex wherever we can. I would love a large vehicle if it didn’t involve greater fuel use and environmental impacts. But, realistically, smaller, more fuel-efficient cars are the answer to the problems we face. A larger fuel-efficient car still uses more fuel and produces more emissions than a small fuel-efficient car.
Rent the big car for when you need it.
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 9:10 am
#55 Statik — These personnel and other cutbacks seem to be a necessary move, for GM to survive. They also are moves that sacrifice GM long term for GM short term. These GM employees who will be leaving are productive people with a lot of accumulated knowledge. When GM loses them GM loses a lot of earning power at the time when the auto marketplace is more favorable. GM can’t do things as quickly or as well without the people who know how to do it. For example, I expect that this loss of personnel will delay getting the Volt out the door, because all those contracts required for production have to flow through headquarters, and the people to do them will not be there anymore, or at least, there will be fewer, and things will go more slowly. There ain’t no free lunch on this kind of abrupt reduction.
In the US general public, people have had a big shock this year which increased gas prices and loss of confidence in their home prices so that they are somewhat hunkered down in wait and see mode, but as their vehicles grow older, there will be big sales years once again.
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 9:10 am
#58 Morgan
Looks like another terror day on financials. I would just like to say that all last week I was saying this was a very real possibility of a breakdown in financials this week.
Merrill/Citigroup have put a real fear in the market…coupled with the government getting ahead of the news and talking about bailing out potential lack of liquidity in Freddy and Fannie. It really feels like what we had in 87.
As always I say get out if you can…there is no reason to have to ride out this week and take the risk.
Merrill opened the week at $28.80, its at 23.71 now. Citigroup at $16.98, now its at $14.08. These are monster equities…equities that should be secure and they are trading off almost 20% in 24 hours…on pure speculation.
As Tag would say,
/be well
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Bring back an eflex fiero… the Eiero…
Im looking into converting one to pure EV in the next year or so…
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 9:17 am
President Bush, meanwhile, is expected to hold a news conference to discuss steps to help stabilize the housing and financial markets.
–yeah that’ll be comforting
Also, Wall Street is awaiting testimony from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who will speak before the Senate Banking Committee to offer his midyear report on the economy. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is set to appear as well.
–this might actually be comforting though
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 9:34 am
#59 Jackson says “GM should not, repeat not fall into the trap of electrifying large (”BIG ASS”) vehicles…”
It is possible to antagonize people who could be your allies. I’m not sure that is smart, for it converts objective planning into “who is in charge” questions, which always leads things downhill.
It definitely is not in GM’s interest to persuade its customers that E-REV is a technology only for rich people who want cobalt-size cars, as that is market share of 1% or less.
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 9:54 am
62 Statik:
What is happening in the commodities? I can’t check my Canadian miners at work (I am paranoid about plugging in passwords at work where everything is logged)
I am young, I thought about yanking out of all my mutual funds and roll into a 3 month CD but I am still up 10% on the year with them. Today and tomorrow might be the day I do that though.
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 10:01 am
60 Thom:
The only reason the Volt and E-Flex technology makes sense is that it preserves the Suburbanite culture the majority of Americans have grown up with and eliminates range anxiety.
GM’s strength as a company is that they build the best, most well engineered SUVs of any car company on the planet…why would you NOT play to that strength?
The SUV is not evil. The sooner people stop acting like it is the more we can work together to fix the problems and accomodate everyone’s needs and wishes.
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 10:13 am
#55 Statik
“Provided the market doesn’t open too wonky and GM gets caught in a wave. I would expect a little strength out of GM today at the open on this news versus the broader.”
GM is currently up a quarter, as FYI. Bernanke calmed them down, he gave a little ‘wobble’ to Fed stance on holding interest rates. Hopefully Bush doesn’t counter act him.
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Vue e-flex is perfect for my family’s needs, the 2 mode hybrid is better than what is available today. Cadillac needs to make the Provoq, Chevy Equinox, etc… Also for those that want higher gas milage take all of the winning designs of the Malibu/Aura/CTS platforms and put the e-flex in them ASAP – I would be in car heaven
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 10:27 am
#60 ThombDBhomb
I can’t speak for nasaman. Personally I have never owned a SUV or truck. No interest. I’d be happy with an i-Miev for my driving.
But that’s me. Others have different driving needs. Most of my wife’s driving is on the freeway so for safety reasons she needs a larger car — most vehicles on the road are large and they’re not going away anytime soon. Something like a a Volt would work but an i-Miev or Aptera would just be too small. And some people want a bigger vehicle because they are constantly hauling things around, and some people need a bigger vehicle for for work.
I don’t see the issue. If you drive a CUV E-flex or a sedan E-flex you’ll probably get about the same mileage as you would in a Volt. Weight is not as important as drag so you may be not be giving up that much. This isn’t a race to drive the smallest car it’s a race to drive a fuel effecient car.
My point is that we get more oil demand destruction by getting the bigger vehicles to good mileage than we do getting fuel effecient cars to great mileage. IOW let’s not have the perfect impede the good.
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 10:28 am
#66 Morgan
“62 Statik: What is happening in the commodities? I can’t check my Canadian miners at work (I am paranoid about plugging in passwords at work where everything is logged). I am young, I thought about yanking out of all my mutual funds and roll into a 3 month CD but I am still up 10% on the year with them. Today and tomorrow might be the day I do that though”
Are you Canadian too? Hard to say how commodities in general are doing. If you are American and investing in Canadian commodities you are doing really well on the exchange. Canadian dollar is back to par today on further US dollar weakness.
Oil was as high as $146, but then the floor fell out to $136…now trading around $139ish…down 6. Gold at around $984, up 10.
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 10:44 am
European demand????
We pay about twice or three times as much for gas than the US.
GET ON WITH IT!!!… damnit!
In July/August its summer holiday in Germany gas prices will rise (me thinks of 1,75€/litre) and they will stay.
waitaminute
10.000€ (~15000$) more for a flex-car? thats about 5700 litres of gas. If you calculate with 6-7 litres per 100km. I have to drive ~87000km (without using gas) until the break-even point.
If I calculate with that 40 miles (~65 km) per day that means you’d have to drive 1338 days thats 3,7 years. Ok maybe on your workplace you can recharge the car again which would double your range.
Old problem, those with low incomes which hurts gas prices most can’t afford the technology which helps.
There was a similar point in a discworld novel (one of the watchmen books). If you need new boots you have the choice between good ones that could last 10 years. They cost 50$ a pair. But the coopers didn’t have that kind of money so they bought cheap ones for 10 dollars a pair which last a year.
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 10:44 am
RB (#65):
Your quote of my post was just too short:
“GM should not, repeat not fall into the trap of electrifying large (”BIG ASS”) vehicles for the forseeable future…”
“For the forseeable future” does not equal “never.”
The fact is, you have to start small and work your way up. To build electrified big trucks and SUVs early on would mean pricing them into the stratosphere (or putting up with extremely limited AER at best). The only way such vehicles could be built is for the EFLEX technology to mature both in terms of actual engineering experience, and in economics of scale.
A giant SUV or truck intended for towing would likely need over double the energy storage of the Volt, and a larger generator; and for what percentage of drivers? 5 – 10% (optimistically)?
To get the biggest bang for it’s technology buck, GM needs to shelve big vehicles for now, and concentrate on surviving in the present with the majority of drivers. But someday …
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 11:33 am
#17 Nelson
I suspect that with electric cars that low water ford crossings will be a thing of the past. The battery pack encasement in the floor pan will follow electrical code, i.e. NEMA enclosure ratings. I would think that the potentially repetitive accessing of the battery pack from below, even with cover gasket and cable grommets/seals, would probably result in a NEMA 4 type rating (”provide a degree of protection with respect to harmful effects on the equipment due to the ingress of water (rain, sleet, snow, splashing water, and hose directed water”), rather than a NEMA 6/6P required for your scenario (”provide a degree of protection with respect to harmful effects on the equipment due to the ingress of water (hose directed water and the entry of water during occasional temporary (6) or prolonged (6P) submersion at a limited depth”). And if not the battery pack, high voltage electrical cable terminations on the motor, etc. could potentially short.
I could be pleasantly surprised, tho.
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 11:34 am
These are troubling times. The markets are crazy and the populace may follow suit. We do not need to drop our stock portfolio and run for the hills. We need to stick to our plans and weather this storm that is coming. We can do it if we work together and don’t panic.
GM is cost cutting and getting their house in order. The banks and mortgage companies are depending on the government to bail them out of their bad loans which were based on bad decisions. I think that heads should roll at the major banks and mortgage companies. If fraud is involved in some of these bad loans (and I suspect it is) then bank officers and mortgage company officers should spend time in prison and be banned from future business.
GM needs to move up the schedule of releasing more fuel efficient cars and the E-FLEX drive train vehicles. If it takes government loans to accomplish that goal, then do it. Ford and Chrysler needs help to get through the next few years also. Why should we let our auto companies suffer and die when we are constantly propping up banks and mortgage companies.
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Reading all of these comments show that we have quite a few different opinions about what GM should do and how best to utilize the E-FLEX drive train. Many of you speak from experience and knowledge while some of us speak more from our hearts and less from our minds. We all are afraid (whether afraid is the proper word, I don’t know) of change and want to stick to things and ideas that are not popular in today’s world. The world changes and moves on. Of course, it is not the world that changes, it us. We must change to survive. We humans have never been a “static” animal satisfied with our place in the world. We are constantly striving to achieve the impossible and will often fail, but we are not stopped from trying and trying again and again. That is our nature.
I want to thank all of you who have contributed to the information shared on these posting through your words and the links you have provided. I, for one, have really enjoyed many of the comments. With people like these represented on this site, I have no doubt that we will achieve our energy independence. It will not be easy and it certainly will not be painful, but succeed we will. I have that much faith in all of you to work until that day is reached. It will not come in the next few years, but over the next few decades. We must work to not lose sight of our goal and we must make sure that others are brought forward with us.
Thanks for letting me express my feelings.
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
… you going somewhere, Riley?
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
#73 Jackson
I think the fallacy in the assumption that bigger SUVs are going to be more expensive to implement in eflex is that they would require a more expensive battery pack.
If you forget the 40 mile electric range for a moment and just consider the 50mpg aspect of it, what you really need from the battery pack to impact mpg on an SUV/truck is more POWER to start/stop all that mass, not more ENERGY (they may have to sand down the front corners, thouogh
.
A123 cells have the power covered in spades to drive very powerful electric drivetrains from a relatively small pack.
To just get an SUV up to high (city) mileage doesn’t require even as large a battery pack as the \Volt does because of the 40 mile electric range design requirement.
To utilize eflex in this manner would be cheaper to implement on the vehicles with the highest margins.
Couple this with the 2 stroke turbodiesel (OK, that would be a longer term project) and you could see SUVs/trucks getting more like 80mpg.
People are playing around with it, now (this refers to an electric Hummer with turbine generator):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2031839/posts
“Conservatively,” Goodwin muses, scratching his chin, “it’ll get 60 miles to the gallon. With 2,000 foot-pounds of torque. You’ll be able to smoke the tires. And it’s going to be superefficient.”
He laughs. “Think about it: a 5,000-pound vehicle that gets 60 miles to the gallon and does zero to 60 in five seconds!”
That’s the same guy who got Schwarzenegger’s Hummer up to about 25mpg with just conventional turbodiesel tech.
Currently, for where I live and what I’m doing, a truck/SUV is impractical and I don’t own one (and the thought of getting smooshed by one isn’t too thrilling, either). But, I pass a lot of them every day, and most of the trucks are company vehicles, for contractors, A/C services, plumbers, gardeners, etc. And they’re driving around all day long (forget commuting!) getting ~10 mpg.
GM currently thinks it’s two-mode hybrid (which is not exactly causing a revolution in the market) is the solution for these vehicles, but I think they’re blinded by the plug-in aspect of the \Volt. Just like they were blinded by the “no-gas” aspect of the EV-1 and missed their own engineers’ suggestion to add a generator to it.
Dropping the plug, and putting out a cheaper (than the \Volt) 50mpg truck with a smallish battery would really impact oil use and their bottom line.
I wouldn’t buy one (I want the plug!
but I sure think a lot of people would.
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
#77 Jackson
No, just getting some stuff said that I felt needed saying. I am getting somewhat frustrated by the long time remaining before we can see the Volt and start getting some real relief from the oil sheiks. It can’t get here fast enough for me.
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
#78 DaveP
I enjoyed reading the link about Johnathan Goodwin. He is the type of individual we need to infuse our automotive industry. If only GM would take him to heart.
I agree GM seems to have their eye on another target and should improve their two-mode hybrid model. I just doesn’t give you enough to justify the extra cost. They really need to expand its capabilities. But, will they?
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
The best use of E-Flex would be in the highest volume segment, mid-sized cars: Malibu/Aura
I believe the recently announced delay of the next generation Aura is because the next Malibu/Aura will be built on E-Flex.
http://www.saturnfans.com/cars/aura/real-deal-jill-lajdziak-addresses-rumors-surrounding-next-generation-aura-delay
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Dave:
Don’t forget that you need a certain amount of battery power to provide the energy spike needed when the truck starts off, or encounters a sudden heavy demand.
A123 batteries have a higher energy density, but may not be as reliable as the LG being considered for the Volt.
Consider that a much smaller Volt could be made with very little, if any AER (just to reap the benefits of serial hybrid gains) if it were not for the need to meet these surge demands (even with A123 batteries).
I am highly skeptical that continuous towing loads could be met by the current generation of motors, much less the batteries.
Meeting a startup or accelaration surge is one thing, but when that high load is constant, when does the internal combustion generator (diesel, or otherwise), catch up? It seems to me that heavy-duty use will require some kind of mechanical way to get power from the ICE to the road, or a (now) impossible amount of battery/motor power.
From a purely economic standpoint: If you have 40 batteries, and can make either 40 cars, or 20 trucks; and have an 80% greater chance of selling the cars, which do you make?
This discussion does suggest a different kind of hybrid for trucks; not properly a serial hybrid perhaps, but one which could behave like one under certain circumstances.
Most truck owners use the vehicle mostly as a commuter, with heavy load-pulling used only occasionally.
Perhaps this truck hybrid would have an engine and transmission powering the rear wheels, and also a generator on the engine shaft. The generator would charge a Lithium Ion battery to power the front wheels, via a motor, or motors. When the truck is lightly loaded (commuter mode), the transmission is left in neutral and the engine acts as the range-extender (after a relatively modest AER). When heavy pulling / continuous towing is required, the engine starts and transmission engages (with the motors to help, perhaps the overall engine HP could be limited somewhat for further fuel savings).
Even so, I strongly believe that GM will be forced to follow the firstest with the mostest in terms of what kind of car gets the new technology first: sorry, but that isn’t truck buyers right now.
It may be eventually.
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
#67 Morgan
I’m not trying to vilify SUVs. But, we need to think about the consequences of our choices. SUVs are more than needed in a lot of cases. Overconsumption contributes to our current demand for petroleum. While E-Flex SUVs may reduce petroleum demand, E-Flex SUVs require more petroleum than E-Flex sedans. I know it is typically American to want large, powerful things. I know people want their SUVs. If we can have low-emission, fuel-efficient SUVs, then that would be fun. But, will E-Flex SUVs solve our emissions/oil dependency problems?
I know, some people really need trucks and SUVs a lot. Others, not so much. Others, not at all. Those that drive an SUV but really don’t need one should consider the greater consequences.
#70 DonC
I think freeway driving saftey would involve rapid decelerations and high speed impacts. A heavy vehicle going 75 mph has more kinetic energy than a lighter vehicle going the same speed. What your wife needs is good braking, airbags, crumple zones, abs, stability control, and maneuverability. She would probably be better off with a modern sedan. Look at those NASCAR crashes. People walk away from those.
I’m not convinced that an E-flex CUV will get about the same mileage as a Volt.
My point is that we get more oil demand destruction by getting people into more fuel efficient cars, especially those that drive SUVs but don’t really need SUVs.
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Thom
“My point is that we get more oil demand destruction by getting people into more fuel efficient cars, especially those that drive SUVs but don’t really need SUVs.”
Did you read the article by the Intel fellow?
Be well,
Tag
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
#82 Jackson:
I’m not forgetting that a certain amount of batteries are necessary. But, 40 miles worth of batteries aren’t necessary. Couple that with the fact that A123’s batteries have slightly higher energy density but significantly higher power density (ie. they can produce much higher bursts of power from a smaller pack) and you should be able to handle the SUV/Truck power demands from a much smaller A123 pack. As far as reliability goes, well, that’s a concern for anything running on e-flex. You’re right that higher power demands could make it worse.
I haven’t run the numbers on exactly how small a pack one could get away with. It would be an interesting thought experiment and if I have time I will take a crack at it.
I am pretty sure there’s no problem on the motor aspect. With electric motors, you can just add some more! That’s not going to be a problem getting hundreds of HP and thousands of ft-lb of torque. Just adding a second \Volt motor to the rear wheels would give more power than most trucks have (and more torque than any trucks have).
A mechanical pathway is not necessary (Look at diesel electric locomotives!) for power distribution. In fact the big problem is that it requires sacrifices in engine efficiency to allow the engine to run over a wide enough range to support the limited gearset of the transmission. I ran through the efficiency numbers a couple threads back. I won’t go through the details here, but I see no problem getting up to 50mpg or higher using eflex in the city. On the freeway, you are going to have problems with drag (especially towing oddly shaped things), but I think most suv’s trucks do minimal towing, anyway. One could imagine “tow packages” with bigger engines/batteries to support that, however. I don’t see the major haulers being the first to go electric. Probably the lightest duty trucks, which I suspect are the bulk of sales, but I don’t have the figures on that.
As far as the economics goes, to answer your question, one also has to consider how profitable each is. If I can make the same profit on 20 trucks instead of 40 cars, I recommend going with the 20 trucks. Les risk, less capital investment, higher margins.
I dunno. I just can’t help thinking that has been where the money has been for GM for years and there’s probably still a lot of money there if people weren’t turned off by the high gas prices. Raise the mileage significantly and Poof! It’s back to business as usual. GM has not been as successful at small cars so raising the mileage for them there they will still have a lot of other issues to overcome. Just IMHO.
Well, if you don’t like that market, here’s another one nobody has mentioned! Electric Eflex Caprice Classic!!!
Police departments all over the country would buy them in droves. They can’t afford the gas for their fleets!
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/15/news/economy/fleet_gas/index.htm?postversion=2008071508
“The Montana Highway Patrol, after failing to find enough police recruits, is using $300,000 that had been set aside for more officers to pay the gas bill instead.”
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
#84 Tagamet
I did read the article by the Intel fellow. He says we should convert pickups, SUVs, vans, and the like (representing about 80 million vehicles) to dual fuel vehicles to save fuel. Inherent in that statement is the assumption that about 80 million of us need pickups, SUVs, vans, and the like. My point is; some of those 80 million don’t really need those vehicles. They just think they do. Those that don’t really need large, inefficient vehicles would consume less fuel if they changed over to a more efficient vehicle. With the current price of gas today, that is happening. Many people are managing without a large vehicle as their daily ride.
(Quote)
July 15th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
86 ThombDbhomb…..
You’re right …..many, many people own trucks & SUVs that don’t need them. But many if not most of them are essentially ADDICTED to those gas guzzlers ….and realistically, when you’re dealing with an addiction, you need to deal with the pain (or at least discomfort) of withdrawal. Please realize that many who don’t NEED a guzzler wouldn’t suffer as much from escalating gas costs as they would from trading the V-8 “guzzler” in for, say, a 4-cycl Accord. And no amount of arm twisting by you, or me, or GM marketing will persuade them to quit guzzling. So the sensible approach is to offer them a slightly-smaller alternative like a crossover SUV*, a little like a smoker using a nicotine patch while quiting rather than quiting “cold turkey”.
How else can you account for full-size SUV sales tanking while the slightly-smaller CUV (crossover SUV) Saturn Vue has enjoyed sky-rocketing sales? Up 100% over a year ago & up 24.5% since May ‘08**
My point is that, like Andy Grove might argue, there needs to be a transitional (or “withdrawal”) period for guzzler owners. And if GM, Ford & Chrysler simply downsize their trucks & SUVs, as well as electrify them, our savings in gasoline nationally will be MUCH GREATER (and much SOONER) than if they instead simply try to persuade guzzler owners to buy Civics or even Accords. Ohhhh…. and the added bonus is that the higher profit margins on CUVs, etc will help GM & the others survive for the next few years while the industry is in transition to E-Flex and to down-sized vehicles.
*The 2-mode Vue on sale this fall will get 50% better mileage than its non-hybrid equivalent; the Plug-in Vue on sale next year will get mileage expected to exceed that of a Toyota Yaris ….while pulling a boat!
**Ref: http://imsaturn.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2033334%3ABlogPost%3A42511
(Quote)
July 16th, 2008 at 12:08 am
nasaman wrote, “How else can you account for full-size SUV sales tanking while the slightly-smaller CUV (crossover SUV) Saturn Vue has enjoyed sky-rocketing sales?”
Don’t get excited, the Vue is a new model… that usually gets a bump and 25% is probably within normal range for that. YTD it’s still down 1%.
(Quote)
July 16th, 2008 at 3:20 am
nasaman @ #87;
“You’re right …..many, many people own trucks & SUVs that don’t need them. But many if not most of them are essentially ADDICTED to those gas guzzlers”
——————————————————————–
Yes, I imagine that there are many people that bought SUVs and trucks that don’t need such vehicles. There are also many people that bought such vehicles because they are essential to their needs. I’ve owned many different types of vehicles over the years and have never been ‘addicted’ to any of them. Different types serve different purposes. You can’t pull a boat or carry your wife, three kids, and a mother-in-law with a four passenger compact. You do realize the most popular type of SUV is one with third row seating, don’t you?
——————————————————————
nasaman,
“My point is that, like Andy Grove might argue, there needs to be a transitional (or “withdrawal”) period for guzzler owners”
——————————————————————-
I recognize the fact that Andy Grove is an intelligent man, but there is something that is overlooked by him and most, if not all, the posters on this fan site. You assume the “guzzler owners” are the ones burning most of the nation’s oil. I can make the argument that it is the “guzzling drivers” that burn most of the fuel. “Guzzling drivers” are the suburbanites that bought homes located 50+ miles from their place of employment. Did they think gasoline would always be cheap? Did they not realize high mileage would greatly decrease the resale value and reduce the lifetimes of their vehicles? I haven’t known too many long distance commuters, but the ones I have known bought inexpensive econoboxes for commuting and larger, roomier cars or trucks for their family vehicles that are used infrequently. I live in a small city though, do the ‘big city suburbanites’ really buy Suburbans to commute long distances? That doesn’t seem very wise.
I am retired now and drive very few miles per month, but I haven’t lived over three miles from my workplace in the last 35 years. I filled up with gas on July 13th, the first time I had bought gas since June 3rd. I used slightly over 16 gallons of gas in those forty days. My ‘fuel efficient’ vehicle? A Ford Supercrew XLT 4×4. The moral of the story? Before dissing the owners of ‘gas guzzlers’, find out how many gallons of gas they burn per month. How about a type of gas rationing to reduce our national consumption? No one consumer is ‘entitled’ to more gas than any other. Twenty gallons per month per licensed driver could be a start. Issue an electronic card to each license holder to count their gas purchases, then charge a $2 per gallon premium over the standard price on all purchases over twenty gallons. It could work with electronic gas pumps, such as those used at Krogers etc.that lower the purchase price when their store card is swiped. Just make the rationing card mandatory before gas can be purchased, then raise the price after the monthly allotment is reached. That would get the ‘gas guzzling consumers’ to evaluate the type of vehicle they purchase. Volts, hybrids, and BEVs would be supported by the market. Bet this wouldn’t be popular though, would it? (G)
(Quote)
July 16th, 2008 at 9:20 am
57silver:
…what if you offered a discount on that first 20 gallons? That would help families’ bottom lines while discouraging ‘guzzling’ (either vehicles, or drivers).
DaveP:
Okay, okay, you can have your electric truck
.
I was just saying that it shouldn’t be the first (probably not the next) thing they should do. It will be cheaper for GM (and the consumer) to wait awhile for engineering and economics to ramp up. Think of larger EREVs as a reward for successful electrification.
(Quote)
July 16th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
#90 Jackson:
Well, you may be right. It’s a bigger engineering challenge electrifying a big truck than a small car but for a bigger financial reward, too. They’ve chosen to be somewhat conservative with their “moon shot” so we’ll see how that works out.
Frankly, I’d personally rather have the \Volt than a truck. And as I said in #4, what I REALLY want is a AWD \Volt with about 320 hp, which would easily be accomplished by simply putting another electric motor on the rear wheels plus the electronics to drive it. And I’d like a roof rack for my snowboard. And put it in a wagon shape. For THAT car, I’d trade in my WRX. And while I’m dreaming, I’d also like a helocopter…
(Quote)
July 16th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Its amazing how GM continuously fails to meet costumers expectations. Instead of delivering this real hot chevy volt instantly to key markets like Germany we again have to live with weired or boring Opel-models. We want the Volt here too.
Regards
(Quote)
July 16th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Jackson @ #90,
“what if you offered a discount on that first 20 gallons? That would help families’ bottom lines while discouraging ‘guzzling’ (either vehicles, or drivers)”
———————————————————-
Yes, that could work also. The US Federal Government adds an $.18 per gallon tax on gasoline presently. The Europeans add several dollars per gallon to support their health care system, mass transit systems, etc. The US could increase the tax to a couple of dollars per gallon and use the collections to finance rebates on BEVs, E-REVs, hybrids and also to build recharging stations, alternative energy development, etc. The cards could be set up to eliminate all tax on the first 20 gallons, then the taxes would kick in after the discount is used up. Like some cell phone plans that ‘carry over’ unused minutes, the cards could carry over unused gas allotments for vacations, etc. A husband and wife would both get allotment cards, so there could be some savings of the 40 gallons per month they have access to at a tax-free discount. Of course, I am only using the “twenty gallons” as an arbitrary number. The main purpose of the gas card would be to promote the energy efficient lifestyles and vehicles while penalizing gas guzzling lifestyles and vehicles.
(Quote)