Comments on: GM’s E-Flex Plans for Europe http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/14/gms-e-flex-plans-for-europe/ Real-time news, information, and discussion about the Chevrolet Volt. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:55:54 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: 57silver http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/14/gms-e-flex-plans-for-europe/#comment-53235 57silver Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:49:15 +0000 http://gm-volt.com/?p=1109#comment-53235 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. 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.

]]> By: Uwe http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/14/gms-e-flex-plans-for-europe/#comment-53160 Uwe Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:14:27 +0000 http://gm-volt.com/?p=1109#comment-53160 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 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

]]> By: DaveP http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/14/gms-e-flex-plans-for-europe/#comment-53151 DaveP Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:16:06 +0000 http://gm-volt.com/?p=1109#comment-53151 #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... ;) #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… ;)

]]> By: Jackson http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/14/gms-e-flex-plans-for-europe/#comment-53103 Jackson Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:20:49 +0000 http://gm-volt.com/?p=1109#comment-53103 <b>57silver</b>: ...what if you offered a discount on that first 20 gallons? That would help families' bottom lines while discouraging 'guzzling' (either vehicles, or drivers). <b>DaveP</b>: 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. 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.

]]> By: 57silver http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/14/gms-e-flex-plans-for-europe/#comment-53068 57silver Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:20:19 +0000 http://gm-volt.com/?p=1109#comment-53068 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 4x4. 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) 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)

]]> By: dagwood55 http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/14/gms-e-flex-plans-for-europe/#comment-53054 dagwood55 Wed, 16 Jul 2008 05:08:12 +0000 http://gm-volt.com/?p=1109#comment-53054 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%. 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%.

]]> By: nasaman http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/14/gms-e-flex-plans-for-europe/#comment-53050 nasaman Wed, 16 Jul 2008 04:29:52 +0000 http://gm-volt.com/?p=1109#comment-53050 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<b>*</b>, 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? <b>Up 100% over a year ago & up 24.5% since May '08**</b> 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, <b>as well as electrify them</b>, 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 <b>survive</b> 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 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

]]> By: ThombDbhomb http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/14/gms-e-flex-plans-for-europe/#comment-53032 ThombDbhomb Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:13:01 +0000 http://gm-volt.com/?p=1109#comment-53032 #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. #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.

]]> By: DaveP http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/14/gms-e-flex-plans-for-europe/#comment-53016 DaveP Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:21:25 +0000 http://gm-volt.com/?p=1109#comment-53016 #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." #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.”

]]> By: Tagamet http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/14/gms-e-flex-plans-for-europe/#comment-52977 Tagamet Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:50:18 +0000 http://gm-volt.com/?p=1109#comment-52977 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 <b>read</B> the article by the Intel fellow? Be well, Tag 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

]]>