Lutz: 1 Million Worldwide E-Flex Production by 2020 and is GM Planning to Bring Battery Production in House?
GM vice chairman Bob Lutz and GM Europe’s president Carl-Peter Forester were on hand at the British Motor Show last week.
In a new article in the Times, there are several unprecedented statements. The author contends that the first E-Flex in Europe will be based on the next generation Vauxhall Astra, appear under that brand or Saab, and be priced at £32,000
Forester is reported to state he wants a European state to sponsor the idea of GM getting a “super carbon credit” for making E-Flex vehicles, and if England would agree to that role, then GM would build the cars there.
It was said that that GM plans a first year European production run of 30,000 E-Flex vehicles in 2011.
Bob Lutz was quoted as saying he believed “that worldwide production of E-Flex cars could be 1m by 2020.”
The article also states that the lithium-ion packs are costing GM £5000 and that the contract going to either LG Chem or A123 is about to be announced.
In a shocker of a statement the article goes on to imply that afterward, GM, “because it believes that electrics will play a large part in the future of the car, it is now bringing battery technology in-house. ”
This latter statement was neither confirmed nor denied by a GM official familiar with these matters that I contacted, who indicated the article may contain some errors.
Take it as you will.
Source (Times Online )
Popularity: 7%
Related posts:
- Is GM planning an E-Flex Cadillac?
- GM’s E-Flex Plans for Europe
- GM Considers Chevy Volt Plant in England
- Lutz: Production Volt Has a CD Between .27 and .28 and Battery Extreme Cold Performance is Good
- E-Flex Opel May be Unveiled in September
(9 votes, average: 5 out of 5) 
Loading ...
July 27th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
It’s good to see more publicity on it, and with 30k in 2011 in Europe you’d think things will doing somewhat better in the US, so that’s promising.
As for 1M in 2020, that actually feels very low to me– shouldn’t they have most of their fleet “flex’d” by then? (And don’t they sell over some 8M a year, or so?)
July 27th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
It’s, amazing what can be done when oil is breaking everyones financial back.
That said…GM you Rock! Go Bobby Go!
Also Nice Job GM on the new Camaro.
Please don’t forget the Z/28
July 27th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
I’m a little surprised that worldwide production would only be 1 million by 2020. I would have expected a number like that to be attained by 2015 or so on a worldwide level.
A follow-up question to the generator post: Is there any chance that the Volt might be able to tow a small utility trailer given the generator size? I’m curious because I currently tow one on rare occasions with my Honda Civic, but experience a significant drop in fuel economy. If the generator has enough power to charge the battery and turn it off sometimes, perhaps it could handle the additional drag (though I doubt it).
July 27th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
If GM can sell 30,000 cars in Europe for 32,000 pounds in 2011, then there’s no reason to sell any in the U.S. for $40,000. To maximize their return they should sell them where they’re worth more.
At least we know that the speculated $10,000 per battery is correct. Now can either supplier produce the required quantity alone?
July 27th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Agreed, I really hope the 1M E-Flex vehicles by 2020 is a mistake. If not, I don’t see how GM plans to recoup the production costs…. 12 years from now. That’s a long time to stave off bankruptcy.
July 27th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
$10k for the battery… Truly the Volt’s achilles heel.
I would first introduce a plug free Volt (with 8kwh battery and no AER capabilities) to compete directly against the Prius. A $30k Volt that gets a flat 50MPG is better than a Volt most people can’t afford…
As battery costs decline, I’d then introduce the 40mile AER Volt.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Great news!!! One million produced each year by 2020. Now we are talking about a significant reduction in oil used. This technology will not be just for a few …it is going to be for the masses. It am really enjoying following the evolution of this technology.
Nice job GM and Lyle.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
I took it to mean 1 million total by 2020, not per year.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
1 million E-Flex vehicles worldwide over a decade is a joke. The way I look at it, it’s way too few to make money on it and way too many to be selling at cost. So my prediction: GM will either go down if this is true.
Lutz is just speaking out of his ass again. He needs to stop with these production numbers until he can get some solid estimates. How can he predict the production numbers 12 years from now on a product that he doesn’t even know GM will be able to sell and make money on!?
July 27th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
On second thought, maybe he did intend production [per year] by 2020…
July 27th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Actually the price of the battery, $625 per KWH is very good news. The cost of the British EREV, $64,000 tells more about why socialism cannot compete in a world market, hence the need for a government subsidy.
July 27th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
I seem to remember a fairly recent article posted here from across the big pond which had “…unprecedented statements”. It ended up being more fiction than truth. Looks like it took 4 days for Lyle to get the dirt last time…can he beat the record?
http://gm-volt.com/2008/05/22/gm-ceo-chevy-volt-out-earlier-by-2010-and-for-less-than-30000/
http://gm-volt.com/2008/05/26/gm-ceo-misquoted-about-chevy-volt-price-and-timing-want-it-for-less-get-tax-credits-passed/
July 27th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
On second thought, maybe he did intend production [per year] by 2020…
Yes, I believe that’s to mean 1 million cars made per year, not 1 million made to-date.
And careful with your exchange rates - as said 32,000 pounds is $64,000 - much more expensive than the $40,000 of the current quote.
July 27th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Speaking of people talking out of their ass again, I don’t know how people accuse Lutz of that while in the same breath being so certain that producing 1 million by 2020 automatically makes E-flex unable to recoop its costs. Based on what exactly? Oh its the end of GM, again. Why?
Given the pasting the cynics on here got from slamming the door on the Volt because of the 1.4 L engine vs the 1.0 and having that door come right back and smash them in the nose with the post yesterday of what a good thing that engine will be, I would think the nattering nabobs of negativity would be a little more cautious in dire predictions on here.
July 27th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Lutz… Loser.
GM with Lutz, bankrupt.
I really want to see Volt succeed, but it won’t with idiots like Lutz running the show.
July 27th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
…I say let GM do their job and encourage them along the way. They are going through enough crap as it is. We should give them our input along the way, and encourage them to keep the price reasonable. Snowboard is right. So many people said that the Volt was vaporware, the battery wouldn’t work, the engine was too big, the range couldn’t be met and yet they still keep posting here, watching every goal being met. Let them naysay…when the Volt comes out, they’ll be the first ones in line trying to get one after we’ve all gotten ours…
July 27th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
None of these predictions really matter. For one, I’d like to hear MORE about GM’s plans to bring batt. development IN HOUSE!
The full article includes this ridiculous quote WRT Project Better Place:
“This idea was rejected by GM on cost and logistical grounds, but it is an essential step if electric vehicles are to stand any chance of gaining ground on their oil-dependent cousins. ”
*** *** ***
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, P.B.P. is a disaster for all but the smallest countries that are either socialistic or demo-socialistic like Israel.
NO it is not an essential step! The role of Govt in any free market economy is to foster competition and prohibit monopolies in acting like a referee for the economy as a whole. PBP is a ridiculous socialistic plan that cannot and will not ever work in the United States for the simple reason that it prohibits competition and innovation. These are the cornerstones of our economy, and are the reason we’ve grown the way we have.
Is it too much to ask that those that write silly articles for the media PROVE that they’ve at least graduated from H.S. ?
July 27th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
@Ziv #15
The Volt exists because of Lutz you idiot.
July 27th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
GM has already announced that they estimate only 200,000 Volts total in the US for 2010-2015. So 1 million by 2020 worldwide seems to be in-line with that.
As for the $32,000 pounds… I understand that cars are more expensive in general in England, but who’s to say the Volt won’t be $50,000 US or more if $48,000 is the breakeven point?
Where was Lutz’s handler anyways?
July 27th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
14. 2Snowboard,
Regarding the 1.4 Vs the 1.0, I think you have to be a bit more critical of the PR that GM is feeding you. The move to the 1.4 was most probably a cost-cutting/timeline related change. The justification came afterwards.
In the extensive theoretical planning of the Volt (that could have picked any theoretical engine), did GM’s best and brightest actually pick one worse than a derivative of the engine on which GM “just happens” to be staking their small car future? I know the Volt prototype was half-assed, but was it that bad?
Least you think I am just being negative, how come the “the 1.4L NA four better brake-specific fuel consumption than the 1.0L turbo when used in steady state mode” announcement wasn’t followed up with a “so we have revised the MPG from 50 to 55″? Is “over-sell everything” GM not taking an opportunity to quantify legitimate improvements?
It is possible. It is also possible that the fuel consumption is less but so is the power (we know this to be true) and therefore it will have to run longer to charge the battery and therefore it will use more fuel than the 1.0L.
I guess time will tell. In the meantime let history be your guide and assume most of what GM says are half-truths.
July 27th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Here we go again. Now there will be 250 posts about how Bob Lutz is insane………..
I think that Tag is right.
We need to see some pictures of the interior and hopefully the exterior of the Volt…..
Lyle - Beg if you have to, but see if you can get some pictures!!!
July 27th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
We don’t even know how well these batteries will perform 7 years out and we don’t know what technoligical breakthroughs are right around the corner. Making predictions 12 year into the future is about as pointless as can be. Gasoline maybe one dollar a gallon in 12 years… or it may be 1000 dollars a gallon in 12 years or we may be living like hunter gatherers again in 12 years after the comet hits the pacific.
Predictions made that far into the future aren’t even worth reading.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:17 am
I thought their suggestion to bring battery research in-house was very interesting. If the battery industry is rapidly advancing, typically you would just wait for the small companies to fight it out and then license the technology from the winner. When you have battery development already going on in dozens of other areas, it’s hard to imagine GM setting up an in-house shop and then beating all the entrenched companies.
GM must have in-house experts on the tech, but I suspect the developing new chemistries in house is not going to be a core competency. But considering how complex these batteries are with cooling, etc; and how integrated they are into the entire car, I wouldn’t be suprised if GM gets into the business of designing, building, and testing the battery systems and licensing the chemistries from smaller research firms.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:51 am
23 Cautious Fan: “When you have battery development already going on in dozens of other areas, it’s hard to imagine GM setting up an in-house shop and then beating all the entrenched companies.”
“Bringing battery technology in-house” most likely means buying the company that makes the batteries you want, rather than starting your own company from scratch.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:01 am
#19 GXT
“GM has already announced that they estimate only 200,000 Volts total in the US for 2010-2015. So 1 million by 2020 worldwide seems to be in-line with that.”
Really? The 200,000 seems on the very low side. I’m pretty sure — from multiple sources — that it was 10,000 in 2010, 60,000 in 2011, and then “who knows” after that. Assuming the Volt will not be a flop, which GM cannot possibly be assuming, you end up with at least 300,000 for the period you’re targeting.
GM has been saying they need to hit home runs, so I’d think they would be shooting for at least 500,000 Volts for the period 2011-2015.
The technology is quite beautiful in that it’s very scaleable and therefore can end up in many different types of vehicles. My guess is the next car is a higher end Cadillac with more performance or perhaps the CUT that nasaman has been advocating. This truly has the potential to be a game changer for GM.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:35 am
#25 DonC - “10,000 in 2010, 60,000 in 2011, and then “who knows” after that.”
Actually 10k in 2011, 60k in 2012. Assuming 100k after that you have 370k total Volts by 2015. The 1m in 2020 is clearly annual production, but applying the Lutz factor gives us a range anywhere from 250k to 4m.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:37 am
#11 Van #13 canehdian #19 GXT
You should never use exchange rates to directly convert retail prices of cars; at best it tells you the max price the car costs to produce, but don’t expect it to reflect the expected market price here (or the “break even” point either).
July 28th, 2008 at 1:44 am
Anyone catch the cost of the European E-Flex? £32,000. That’s almost $64,000.
For comparison, the Astra is a £12,000 car ($24,000).
$64,000 - $24,000 = $40,000 just for E-Flex alone.
RIP OFF.
#14 = Fanboy optimism. When it comes to vaporware, I’m not very optimistic until I see it with my own eyes. GM is spewing all kinds of hype about the Volt. I’m remaining cautions about getting my hopes up over empty promises. Lutz has BSed (or perhaps misspoke) many times in the past. Speculating on production numbers in 2020 is completely irresponsible of him. You say it’s irresponsible of me? Simple fact that all of us accept and that GM admits: GM will only see a profit on the Volt if they can produce it in large quantities. If GM sees a profit on the Volt, they will be producing more than just 1 million units over a decade time. 1 million units WORLDWIDE over a DECADE tells quite simply that they are producing E-Flex units in extremely limited quantity. If they are producing in limited quantity, it’s got to be for a reason. Either they aren’t selling (asking price is too high) or they are selling at cost (their cost is too high) or they will be selling for an outrageously high price (targeting a niche market). Either way, it doesn’t sound very good for a company that’s on the edge of bankruptcy (or a bailout) that is counting on E-Flex as being a “game-changer”. In my mind, if E-Flex isn’t a game-changer, it will be a failure. Game-changing technology isn’t produced in 100,000 units world-wide per year.
What I’m saying is this: You had better hope that Lutz is BSing, because if he’s not, he’s predicting not-so-very-good news for Volt fans. Low volume Volts are bad news for everyone. Bad news for GM. Bad news for us anxious drivers. Of course, so is cheap gas. Anyone check gas prices lately. $3.56 here in MI.
Things aren’t looking good for the Volt.
::fulfilled his troll duties for the night, time for bed::
July 28th, 2008 at 2:05 am
#26 doggydogworld
Are you saying GM isn’t going to sell any Volts in 2010? If they are then 10,000 would be a pretty small number. Like three Volts per dealer or something.
I could be wrong of course but I’m thinking the 10,000 is for 2010.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:09 am
There are some BEV makers that have plans to offer a separate ICE trailer attachment for LONG hauls. That sounds like a novel idea. Just buy it as add-on option if/when you need it. That would also keep initial investment at a lower entry point.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:16 am
I think Maximum Bob previously stated there will be only 10,000 Volts for the entire 2010 model year, that’s total produced between November 2010 thru Summer 2011. Full production will not commence until Summer/Fall 2011.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:18 am
Only a “select” number of dealerships will be given the privilege to sell the mighty Volt (1/3 or less)
July 28th, 2008 at 4:43 am
hmm since the other threads are pretty much dead ill post this here
we been talkin about user selected modes right on ad off…
how about saving date from a trip?
say u want the volt to memorize the trip to grandmas house from start to finish and backwards again..
u know u cant have alot of predeterminted destinations maybe like 3/ or 5?
1. to work and back
2. to the local grocery store and back
3. to the place u go for entertainment or activity?
4. grandmas house
5 to the mall?
soo maybe a litlte flash card would store the date of power usage and such .. and the volt would be able to save u extra on gas or electricity maybe kickin in the ice alittle sooner for that steep hill to grandmas house ?
or if its just alittle hill.. it wouldnt kick the ice on because it knows its only got 2 miles left out of 10,
see how that could be laittle useful?
or maybe ur gonig home from work and its on 37% left and 1 mile from home it dont kick the ice on cuz it knows the trip will end soon.
* u can hit the button again to stop te trip data and go in standard mode*
July 28th, 2008 at 5:51 am
Interesting news indeed. I fully support the idea of an AER Volt and wish GM best of luck with their project. Whether a state is supporting the E-Flex idea in exchange to get the production facilities there is to be seen.
Cheers
http://www.ecocarforum.com - Green Car Network and Community
July 28th, 2008 at 6:00 am
1 million world wide by 2020 is a disappointment. We can use 1 million in North America alone.
July 28th, 2008 at 6:05 am
How many in the end will be produced is extremely difficult to forecast. It depends on so many factors where GM has little or no control such as oil price, car trends in general, global economy and other concerns to the people of this world.
I am happy if this car is makes it to the production line. From then on it depends on the buyers and the marketing whether it will succeed.
http://www.ecocarforum.com
July 28th, 2008 at 6:15 am
The possibility that GM will bring the battery technology in-house is interesting.
I had speculated on this possibility in my Dec 27th 2007 posting when I said “It would not surprise me the least if the eventual manufacturer of the Volt battery pack one day becomes a Division of GM…”
July 28th, 2008 at 6:39 am
Stopcrazypp @ 27. The article, not me says the car will be priced at 32,000 pounds. That refers to the retail price in Britain, not in the USA. All I did was convert pounds to dollars to illustrate how much higher the expected cost in Britain is to the expected cost in the USA.
July 28th, 2008 at 6:39 am
GM will buy out on of the battery companies and then use the other one for additional units thus only having one outside battery supplier.
July 28th, 2008 at 6:54 am
I expect E-Rev to be north of 50% of GM’s production by 2020, so if they are only producing 1 million per year they will be bust.
Bringing battery production in house is an excellent idea.
I sure am looking forward to seeing who gets the battery contract.
I am sure glad I don’t have to pay the British sales tax. The Volt would cost NZD80,000 here.
July 28th, 2008 at 6:54 am
1 million worldwide by 2020 would be a letdown. I thought it would be more than that. I was hoping E-Flex would really become mainstream.
But at least GM is talking about bringing the battery pack in-house. That’s a good sign.
July 28th, 2008 at 7:22 am
For bringing battery technology in-house I would probably look to EnerDel.
Partnered with Delphi. Comparable battery technology, smaller compared to CPI, A123.
GM could bring EnerDel in house, contract supply with A123 and CPI for different product lines and essentially “lock up” the three battery companies heavily involved with BEV technology and research.
Enerdel is also located in Indiana with production facilities in the US. GM would not only gain a battery company but battery pack production facilities as well. (info provided by Lyle’s interview)
July 28th, 2008 at 7:27 am
Do you think GM wants the competition to know every move they make? No, I don’t think so. All these tidbits coming from GM are to confuse the competition. We don’t even know what the final Volt cost will be. The cost could be a lot lower than most think. Should the cost be lower, the Volt would sell like hotcakes. Even if it sold at $40k, it still could have a huge market.
July 28th, 2008 at 7:34 am
It’s these long summer days that make you realize just how far away we are … 28 months minimum? Yeesh.
Side note:
I guess we will still get a mini-car. Beat is gone…but the Aveo is going to be replaced with the Mexican “Trax” (or Groove-same car different skin). Apparently it is easier to change to US standards and is built on the Gamma platform (Greek letters shall not die!).
As always, it is just far enough into the future where it is irrelevant to today, and they can waffle around doing nothing about it for the next two years and pretty much change their minds at anytime… released in the US in for 2011.
July 28th, 2008 at 7:41 am
Hiya guys,
I know there lots of people speculating numbers here and there, but
remember the GM source that Lyle has contact with stated there may be some errors in the article…lets keep our optimism for the
production numbers…..for now =)
July 28th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Other random news from my home area:
GM, under threats (and legal ramifications) of a broken contract negotiated in bad faith in Oshawa, has capitulated to the union and are having a big ‘information dissemination’ meeting later today.
It is expected that they will add two vehicles to the town to make up for the truck plant that was due to be shut down in fall of 2009. Best guess would be that would add up to 2,000 jobs…offsetting the majority of the truck plant (coupled with the buyouts).
GM also would like that truck plant shuttered even sooner, so it looks like that will be rolled up in the same deal.
Oshawa currently has the deal for the new Camaro going forward (which incidently is all over our backroads at the moment…I almost plowed one on my way to Detroit this weekend, now THAT would have been a interesting situation).
It is expected that another car based on the flex platform would be announced, to go with a FWD Impala and Buick
July 28th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Why is everyone so fixated on the 1 million number? To claim that 1 million is not a sufficient number of vehicles for GM to recoup their development costs is wild speculation. The number of E-REV vehicles sold will not be an absolute predictor of GM’s sucees or failure–there will be many, many more factors in determining that over the next 12 years.
What you should be worried about is what Bob Lutz is basing his estimate on. If he thinks 1 million is the total market for E-REV vehicles, then so what. The market will ultimately decide that. My guess is that Bob Lutz’s estimate is more about GM’s production capability and commitment to the E-REV technology than anything else. If this is true and the demand ends up being greater than 1 million vehicles, then you have a problem becuase there will be shortages and price inflation because of GM’s miscalculation. That’s what you should be worried about.
July 28th, 2008 at 8:19 am
#6 Plug Free Volt - 8 kWh is massive overkill for AER 0. If you don’t want AER range buy a Prius or one of a dozen other HEVs. An AER 0 Volt would not be cost-competive because the electrics (battery, power electronics and motor/generators) must handle twice the power.
#17 Grizzly - “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, P.B.P. is a disaster for all but the smallest countries that are either socialistic”
You mean like Britain where the article was written?
#20 GXT - “It is also possible that the fuel consumption is less but so is the power (we know this to be true) and therefore it will have to run longer to charge the battery and therefore it will use more fuel than the 1.0L”
I’m sorry, but this is gibberish. He said lower BSFC. Engine run time is irrelevant.
#29 DonC - They specifically said 10k units in 2011. Later clarified as model year 2011. The plan is to launch Volt in November 2010 as a 2011 model. Even if they succeed volume in calender year 2010 will be very small, probably in the hundreds. Only a fraction of dealers will see a Volt in 2010.
#35 Rashid - One million units annual production 10 years after launch is indeed disappointing, but let’s have some context. Toyota Prius launched in late 1997, 10 years later Toyota worldwide annual hybrid production was less than half a million units.
July 28th, 2008 at 8:30 am
The times article appears to be a mixture of new information and opinions and guesses of its author. It may be more valuable for the window it provides into current thinking of GM management than for any hard numbers.
One point is that GM is negotiating for advantageous terms for an EREV plant in the UK. That means GM remains optimistic about the future value to GM of EREV production, and they continue to think they can sell them in the UK and Europe knowing all the latest projections for battery costs, mule performance, integration issues, or whatever. That is fundamentally optimistic.
The other side of their outlook is the emphasis on bonus carbon credits. That seems to mean that GM management continues to think of gas powered cars as their main lines into the future, and the EREV as a way to get credits to sell the gas cars
July 28th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Lightning Car Company (http://www.lightningcarcompany.co.uk) advertises on their website that their fully electric sports car with in-wheel motors (!) can charge their battery in 10 minutes:
“FASTER CHARGE - NanoSafe™ batteries can be recharged in approximately 10 minutes, rather than the hours required by many other rechargeable batteries.”
Now this may of course be some really badly unproven technology yet… but if it isn’t then Volt and GM may well be into buying technology thats close to obsoletion. Seems like things are moving so fast in the field of battery tech. that the ‘big players’ have trouble even following the news let alone jumping on the train..
July 28th, 2008 at 8:53 am
By “bringing the battery tech in-house” does that mean:
a) GM will develop their own battery tech and manufacture it themselves,
b) GM will license someone else’s battery tech and manufacture it themselves, or
c) GM will purchase a supplier?
July 28th, 2008 at 8:57 am
#50 Kaido Sounds like a great car. The web site also says ” For a fast charge a 3 phase power supply is required ..” so the short charging times are not readily available.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:02 am
#51 Jason Hendler
Other possibilities include “bringing in house” being a negotiating position for the benefit of outside suppliers (my guess), or simply being a meaningless offhand comment.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:08 am
#s 51 and 53: Bigger question. Does it mean it will make the packs cheaper to produce thus drive down costs for the consumer?
July 28th, 2008 at 9:17 am
#54 Dave B Cheaper packs, one way or another, yes. My guess is that they are looking for at $10K pack to become $3K and think it can be done.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:18 am
In Europe I believe that prices are normally quoted including taxes. I could be wrong for cars since I have never purchase a new car there. In the UK the sales tax (VAT - value added tax) is 17.5% (low by European standards) and the UK has always had one of Europe’s highest pre-tax vehicle costs, they’ve claimed issues like placing steer wheel on other side costs more. Also I’m not sure if cars have a special VAT rate so it might not be 17.5%. In any case there is room for tax to be part of the equation.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Regarding making a million EFLEX cars: Considering that not a single one has yet been made and sold, saying they will do a million is actually a pretty daring statement.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:33 am
” the 1M E-Flex vehicles by 2020 ”
As stated, this is a GOAL a TARGET. Those things are almost always low-balled.
The quote that there are errors in the article, to me says “interesting read, but don’t get your knickers in a bunch”.
Relax and let the naysayers spout their mouth noise.
We have over a year until we
“Get the Volt’s wheels on the road”!
Be well,
Tag
July 28th, 2008 at 9:45 am
I’m not sure bringing battery production in-house is a good idea. Battery tech seems to be moving very quickly. If the next battery chemistry is lithium titanate, GM will be out in the cold. And what if its supercapacitors? I think they’ll move to more of a Dell business model where GM is an integrator performing system design and analysis. You see this trend in many other industries with rapidly advancing consumer technology, (Boeing 787, Dell, etc.).
July 28th, 2008 at 9:47 am
An amusing thing to do, while waiting for hard news on the Volt, is to go to http://www.cuil.com which is a new search engine. cuil = cool
Enter Chevrolet Volt as the search subject.
Later enter gm-volt as the subject.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:04 am
worldwide production may be 1 million by 2020 that is in 2020 1 million eflex vehicles will be built and sold. They also said eflex, not volt. They may only sell 200,000 volts by 2015 but that doesn’t mean they won’t have eflex SUVs, sports cars, pickups and other vehicles added to that. What about the Saturn VUE?
July 28th, 2008 at 10:09 am
The first error would seem to be the quoted price of the battery pack.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:09 am
#48, Doggydogworld says,
#35 Rashid - One million units annual production 10 years after launch is indeed disappointing, but let’s have some context. Toyota Prius launched in late 1997, 10 years later Toyota worldwide annual hybrid production was less than half a million units.
———-
Yes, but the world is different now. When the Prius started, gas was so much cheaper than now. It seems to me that GM could produce and sell many more than 1 million because of the way things are now and how much worse they can get in the not too distant future.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:14 am
I think it highly likely that in 2020, there will be several companies making EREVs of various stripes. If nothing else, there could be far more on the road than could be accounted for by GM’s production capability. They may include low-performance, “inexpensive” egg-shaped efficiency-wonders that would make the Prius look beautiful, so let’s save time and pull for GM now.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Just drop the whole battery and ICE…
Just use some Ultracapasitors… 500 mile range.. 5 minute charge..
Who needs anything else? Even if you only get 1/2 the range and double the charge time? so 250 miles, 10 minute charge up… Wouldn’t you still buy it?
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20533045/
July 28th, 2008 at 10:28 am
As said in a few of these posts, you can’t simply do a currency conversion and get a US price.
For example, the BMW 135i retails for a base of $35k here in the states. Well, the same car goes for nearly 30k british pounds in the UK or $60k USD!! The taxation in the UK is very different than here. So you look at those numbers and there is a 50% increase on the UK price. Backing that out of the 32k pounds for the volt = $64k /1.5 -> ~$40k. Looks consistent with what we’ve been hearing all along.
Hopefully the government will step up and offer a tax credit equal to this cars importance for the country (at least double the hybrid credit), to offset the initially high price of the batteries.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Brandon #65.
Ah yes. EEStor. Many us of here have been holding are breaths waiting for EEStor to prove they are for real. Sadly, many of us have died from suffocation waiting for this to happen.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:46 am
#65 brandon asks: “Who needs anything else? Even if you only get 1/2 the range and double the charge time? so 250 miles, 10 minute charge up… Wouldn’t you still buy it?”
————————————————————————————–
I wouldn’t buy a pure EV with a 250 mile range.
If the EEStor Ultracap technology works out to be as cheap as they say, that would be great. It would mean we could have E-REVs with 80 - 100 miles of range for less money.
The problem with a pure EV is the quick charge filling stations. Changes to the infrastructure will take time. It took around 50 years to build out our current infrastructure of gasoline filling stations. It will take at least 20 years to fully convert that over to electrical quick charging stations, and that’s if the advantage is crystal clear.
To me, the advantage of driving the daily commute on electricity is crystal clear, and it doesn’t require any new infrastructure. Just plug in at home and charge overnight. Electricity is 3-4 times cheaper than gas, and plugging is is less hassle that going to the gas station. What’s not to like?
But for longer trips, I don’t see a clear advantage of quick charging versus E85 or bio-diesel for the driver. Converting a gasoline pump to E85 or bio-diesel is relatively cheap and easy, so this would have a strong advantage with filling station owners.
Making a new car that uses new technology is common. People expect it. People are also fairly used to plugging in their cell phones at night, so plugging in your car won’t be that hard to accept. But asking gas station owners to pay huge amounts of money to rip out their gas pumps and underground tanks, and replace them with quick electric charging pumps and large underground batteries - that will be a TOUGH SELL!
July 28th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Can the raw material suppliers support “1m” (I would guess 1m=1 million) E-FLEX vehicles per year? One has to consider the entire auto industry and any industry that uses the same raw materials.
Statements about volume numbers in 2020 is more speculation than anything. I assume that stating such a number is an effort to increase the exploration of the necessary raw materials…good idea.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Regeneration rates in projected Li-ion hybrids are somewhat limited by the rate at which the battery can accept charge (a hard, sudden stop would create a power spike too great to absorb). A plug-free Volt isn’t really feasible since you need a certain amount of Li-ion mass to provide the power surge needed for accelaration (and why not use that for AER with a plug)?
Short of EESTOR’s fantasy and science fiction (until they prove that it’s otherwise), an ultracapacitor could be a great addition to Li-ion in real-world applications. It could absorb regeneration power spikes and feed them to the Li-ion under it’s ideal charging conditions, and even allow Li-ion chemistries which favor overall storage over available power (at less cost) by providing accelaration surges. By themselves, they could allow a plug-free serial-hybrid version which can absorb or provide power spikes without a battery pack (but for long-range on ultra-cap alone, wait for the EESTOR Gold Ring).
July 28th, 2008 at 11:05 am
#68 Dave G
GM has already announced they are going to work on the electrical infrastructure with the electric companies to deal with the load of so many cars being charged at home..
I don’t think 250 miles with a 5-10 minute charge will be bad. How much can it cost for a gas station to install a box with an Outlet and a meter on it that you swipe a credit card through, $3000?. If it takes 5-10 minutes, it is worth it. It takes about 2-3 minutes to fill up anyways so what is another couple of minutes?
If you still want you can still lug arround that ICE and then just lose the batteries. Instead of the 50kw generator in the ICE put a 100kw generator on it because Ultracapacitors can take a higher charge with out any heat issues. The 1.4L engine can produce 100kw with a bigger generator.. This can either do two things: give car more power to accelerate, or allow for less use of the ICE because the ultracapacitors will charge better.
Anyway, All-in-all the Ultracapacitors, If they do work, are much better than batteries.. Why invest in battery technology. Invest in capacitor technology.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:13 am
To my post at #71
Check this out:
http://media.cleantech.com/2644/zenn-gearing-up-for-eestor-powered-car
ZENN is producing cars with this Ultracapacitor in 2009.. 250 miles with 5 minute charge.. 80MPH… Might be interesting to watch.. Maybe a change of plans GM?
July 28th, 2008 at 11:20 am
“GM, “because it believes that electrics will play a large part in the future of the car, it is now bringing battery technology in-house. ”
The headline of the opening article translates this to mean “production.” I have no idea whether this refers to R&D or production or both or neither. And so it goes on a slow news day….
July 28th, 2008 at 11:25 am
#48 doggydogworld - “The plan is to launch Volt in November 2010 as a 2011 model. Even if they succeed volume in calender year 2010 will be very small, probably in the hundreds.”
That would be a bummer. I assumed they were referring to calendar years and that there would be 60,000 the first calendar year, of which 10,000 would be in 2010. If you’re right and GM is only going to produce 10,000 during the first calendar year that would be one very slow production line. Don’t they make 40,000 Corvettes a year?
#64 Jackson - “They may include low-performance, “inexpensive” egg-shaped efficiency-wonders that would make the Prius look beautiful.”
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think the tear drop shape and body materials of the Aptera make for a lovely car — the lines are simply beautiful. Granted it’s not a practical car for most people but the lines are a lot nicer than the basic brick as car offered by convential vehicles. JMO of course (beauty being in the eye and all that).
July 28th, 2008 at 11:33 am
#50 Kaido
Thanks for the link to The Lightning Car Company. Their site was interesting, but I clicked on the link provided to the Phoenix Motorcars (http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/) and found it even more interesting. Phoenix Motors has a small SUV and pickup truck all electric coming in 2010. They will not be cheap, but will not be priced to far away from the Volt, possibly. They are talking about 100 miles per charge with re-charging in about 10 minutes. Not bad for a commuter car with the option of a pickup truck.
The year 2010 is shaping up to be a very interesting year. GM is going to have some pretty good competition. They will have to work very hard to make the Volt attractive and competitive. The one thing the Volt will have going for it is the range extender. That will be a very big selling point. Price will certainly figure into the equation, as always. But, a lot of sales will be lost to the “city” electric cars, in my opinion.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:44 am
#50 Kaido
Good link. I’d love to see the Tesla and the Lightning go head to head on a quarter mile track. It would be the quietest drag race ever. Speaking of that, you think all EV racing will be big in the future?
July 28th, 2008 at 11:55 am
#75 N Riley - “They are talking about 100 miles per charge with re-charging in about 10 minutes.”
The ten minute charge is from the special off-board charger which requires “industrial power” (don’t know exactly what that is). The standard charger uses a 220 line and takes 5-6 hours. Since most people will not have a 220 line to start with, I’d think that would be a barrier for some. I have to hand it to Lutz and Company, GM, with the gas range extender and 120 charger, have really thought through how to remove a lot of the potential barriers that make other EV based cars niche vehicles. (I think nasaman’s double fuel tank with 640 mile range advantage would also be a big winner).
It does seem that you are right about 2010 shaping up as the year of the electric car.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
#71 brandon says: “GM has already announced they are going to work on the electrical infrastructure with the electric companies to deal with the load of so many cars being charged at home..”
————————————————————————————–
This is not necessary. According to the recent Nova program Car of the Future:
“Our existing electric utility system could handle tens of millions of plug-in hybrid vehicles if they would be recharged during off-peak times, such as at night.”
See here for details:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/tm/3507.html?site=22&pl=wmp&rate=hi&ch=5
To put it another way, this would be a good problem to have. 10 million is a lot of cars.
#71 brandon says: “How much can it cost for a gas station to install a box with an Outlet and a meter on it that you swipe a credit card through, $3000?.”
————————————————————————————–
Are you joking? It will cost 10 times that just to dig up the underground gas tank. I would say $50,000 to $100,000 would be more accurate.
#71 brandon says: “If you still want you can still lug around that ICE and then just lose the batteries. Instead of the 50kw generator in the ICE put a 100kw generator on it because Ultracapacitors can take a higher charge with out any heat issues.”
————————————————————————————–
Actually, Lithium Ion can take a charge pretty fast, so a 100kw generator would work with the current Volt pack. But why would I want a bigger gas engine? It’s the electric motor that supplies the peak power and acceleration. If anything, I would want a bigger electric motor for faster acceleration. The gas engine only supplies average power, so a bigger gas engine would be pointless.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
#70 Jackson says: “… an ultracapacitor could be a great addition to Li-ion in real-world applications. It could absorb regeneration power spikes and feed them to the Li-ion under it’s ideal charging conditions, and even allow Li-ion chemistries which favor overall storage over available power (at less cost) by providing accelaration surges.”
————————————————————————————–
This is a good point. We actually had a forum thread about this last year.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
#79
#71 brandon says: “How much can it cost for a gas station to install a box with an Outlet and a meter on it that you swipe a credit card through, $3000?.”
————————————————————————————–
Are you joking? It will cost 10 times that just to dig up the underground gas tank. I would say $50,000 to $100,000 would be more accurate.
Why would you need to dig up an underground gas tank just to install a electrical outlet? I don’t understand the correlation.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Forget gas stations for recharging. At present the perfect places for highway recharging are restaurants and shops. They can give away the electricity for an hour or two while the customers are inside and recoup the income in the charges for food and other items. An hour or two will not be enough time for a full recharge on 220V, but it can be a significant increment (a kwh), and one can spend the gas money on a nice lunch or dinner instead. If the car can accept it, such places have high-powered electrical service already (because it is used for commercial food preparation, dish washing, etc.) and can add high-voltage quick recharge at minimal expense. Everybody wins.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Kent # 81. You beat me to the question. The two are totally unconnected.
Perhaps a few decades in the future, but certainly not now.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
A little off topic…
Couldn’t we bioengineer large, obedient birds to carry us to our destinations? They could be community property and, on queue, come get us and take us where we need to go.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
OK Fred Flintsone, but would you really want to be standing underneath one of those when they fly over your head?????
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
July 28th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
#79 Dave G.
I think he meant the cost of adding an electric charger, not removing the gas pumps. (As you suggest that’s a big deal, at least here in CA.).
As you point out, quick charging is not limited to ultracapacitors. AltairNano claims a few minutes for their lithium titanate batteries. Charging this quickly does, however, require a lot of juice, whether for a battery or an ultracapacitor. The possibility of quick charging is what’s driving the electric companies to look at the grid. I really doubt that trickle charging at home during the night from a 120V outlet is an issue GM and the electric utilities are concerned about. Like what you’ve cited, the articles that say the grid will not be a problem invariably refer to the “at home” scenario rather than the “industrial quick charge” one.
As for ultracapictors, if they work then there are a lot of possibilities, but it seems people who work in the field think that’s a big “if”. Since GM wants ot get a car out it can’t wait around for the next greatest thing since sliced white bread.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
The recharge future will come along slowly, but will speed up as the number of fully electric cars increase. We don’t know just yet how the future will shake out. EEStor could make quite a difference if their claims and those of ZENN pan out. Like I said earlier, 2010 should be an interesting year. But, from my perspective, it is still a long way away. We need more fuel efficient vehicles now. I am just hoping for some real improvements over the next six months, but am afraid we will be stuck with what we have already. Everyone seems to be pointing to 2010 or 2011 as the year they will introduce vehicles that will “save” us from the oil sheik monsters. Of course, I know they are not really monsters, just smart business men. But, sometimes there is a fine line of difference.
All I can say at this time is: Go GM and Go, Go, Go Volt.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
#84 ThombDbhomb
You have been reading too much science fiction, haven’t you? Breeding big birds to carry us. How silly.. Everyone knows that we would have to breed dragons with the capacity to carry several people and their luggage.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
I am of the opinion GM would be better off with investing in a battery technology company or companies. Battery technology is moving at a faster pace and the battery companies have to be fast and nimble on their feet and in their minds. They would probably function better as a separate entity.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
#81 Kent asks: “Why would you need to dig up an underground gas tank just to install a electrical outlet? I don’t understand the correlation.”
————————————————————————————–
For a quick charge filling station, the expectation is to charge the battery in about the same time as it takes to fill up a gas tank - around 5 minutes.
The Volt’s battery has 8kWh of usable storage. To quick charge that in 5 minutes would require a 96,000 watt connection. This equates to 436 amps at 220 volts. This is over 4 times the maximum electrical service of a typical home.
And this is just for a relatively small range of 40 miles. For example, charging a Tesla sized battery in 5 minutes would require 630,000 watts, or 28 times the service of a typical home. And this is just for 1 charging pump. A filling station would require multiple pumps.
Since the electric grid won’t be able to supply these huge peaks of power, gas station owners would be forced to buy electric storage devices (batteries or ultracaps) to even out the load to the grid. To be efficient, these batteries or ultracaps would have to be physically very close to the charging stations that deliver power to the car. So the logical choice would be to put these large storage devices underneath the filling pumps (i.e. underground).
July 28th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
#88 N Riley
I guess I should have fleshed out my idea a little more before I offered it. Birds can’t pull boats.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
re #79 Dave G
tens of millions of plug-in on existing grid
Actually the DOE number is around 150 million on the existing
grid as long as charged off peak. Their original estimate was
180 million, but they made an adjustment relating to the
percentage of vans.
http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=204
So we are talking over 50% total replacement of our complete light duty vehicle fleet with plug-ins before upgrading the grid becomes a necessity. By then electrical service will likely be “digital” and fed by a national high voltage DC long distance backbone and we will be well on our way to replacement of fossil fuels for electric generation with solar and wind.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
#24 Lurtz >> “Bringing battery technology in-house” most likely means buying the company that makes the batteries you want, rather than starting your own company from scratch. <<
I think you’re right on here. They’ll probably do something like this. GM did this previously when they took a controlling ownership in the company making the Nickel Metal Hydride packs for the update EV1.
Of course after GM decided to abandon electric vehicle technology and gas was cheap, they sold their controlling interest in the battery company to an Oil company and that was the end of full EV size versions of that battery technology being offered for sale - just 5 years or so ago.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
#48 doggydogworld
I disagree with your statement regarding a zero AER Volt. Introducing a “value version” of the Volt would provide a foot hold for GM in the low cost EV game and would allow them to compete directly with the Prius.
Granted, a zero AER Volt may not be a Prius killer but, then again, a 40 mile AER Volt (at $45,000) really isn’t competing with a $25,000 Prius now… Is it ?
July 28th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
6. Plug Free Volt
Hopefully the 40 mile “all electric range” (AER) Volt is going to go for around $32,000 or so with good tax credits. Hopefully, those tax credits will be available for 5-10 years.
It might be THE best investment the government could make. It would help solve MULTIPLE problems … political, financial, social, medical, environmental, etc. Everyone in America ought to be rooting for GM and the Chevy Volt these days. It should be a bi-partisan thing. I bet you’ll see Republicans and Democrats both talking about the Volt at their conventions and during their campaigns. McCain and Obama are both on the Volt bandwagon.
It sure beats being ADDICTED to oil from Middle East oil sheiks and having our President basically have to beg them to pump more oil every few years (the GW Bush energy policy). It would sure as heck be better for the government to have these tax subsidies than paying for the BILLIONS we have to pay in Iraq and around the Middle East to keep that oil flowing. Iraq might end up costs taxpayers $1-2 TRILLION. Now that is what you call “money down a rat hole”! Iraq might be right back to being like gangbanger infested neighborhoods in LA just as soon as our troops leave. O well … at least we were able to “get Saddam” like GW Bush and Cheney wanted. It sure was CRAZY expensive to do it though.
The E-Flex technology is a win-win situation for the whole world. Once the technology gets scaled up and the big battery factories are built you’ll see the battery prices go down. Then you’ll REALLY see the E-Flex vehicles shine … especially if gasoline prices are ridiculous over the next 10 years.
Eventually, E-Flex cars will be “no-brainer” purchase for just about everyone. We just have to be patient and wait for the battery costs to come down. I’m hoping we’ll see more and more price/performance “bang for the buck” every year. It would be nice if battery technology evolves like we’ve seen with computer technology.
In the short run, I think GM might make the E-Flex battery packs flexible in their all electric range. GM might offer a 20 mile AER Volt and the price could drop down to $27,000 with the tax credits. People with plenty of money might be able to buy a Volt with a 60 or 80 mile AER battery in the next 5 years. Who knows? You might be able to buy (or lease) as much battery range as you can afford and then maybe trade in your first Volt battery for one with better range and a better price in 2013 or whatever. I think GM probably has some pleasant surprises coming. We shall see.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
#94 Plug Free Volt
I am in agreement with you. The Volt will not compete very well against the Prius plug-in as far as cost is concerned. There will be other advantages for the Volt over the Prius plug-in as stated by several posters in many other subject posts. Both types would be great for GM to produce. I just wish GM could get some real good mileage figures from their two-mode hybrids, but nothing I have seen seems to indicate any real improvements for the extra cost. GM needs to get a minimum of 50% increase with a two-mode hybrid and 75% would be outstanding. I am just not sure they will be able to do it in the real world.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
#90 Dave G on why charging in 5 minutes is impractical at home
Yes, I agree with your numbers. But if one thinks of a charging period of an hour, and one thinks about the 8KV electrical line running along the top of the pole in front of my house, and one thinks of the much larger electrical services going to nearby malls and big restaurants and stores (such as Home Depot), and one realizes that 8KV times 1 amp is 8 kwh in one hour, then relatively quick charge is not so far out of sight. To do that requires the right car connections, right cabling mechanisms, right metering, and of course the right safety systems, but it is not that far out of reach. And, from the viewpoint of a commercial recharger of cars, thinking of recharging multiple cars simultaneously, it’s a good business opportunity. (perhaps in the not too distant future)
July 28th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
#96 N Riley said “GM needs to get a minimum of 50% increase with a two-mode hybrid”
Is it the case that some of the larger GM pickups and vans go from 15mpg to 23 mpg with two-mode (either this year’s or next year’s model)?
The problem is that they cost so much more, and 23 mpg does not sound all that impressive (although it really is a big gas savings for big vehicles).
July 28th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
GM Volt Fan #95
“I think GM probably has some pleasant surprises coming. We shall see.”
That is what we are all hoping for. One more reason for GM to be closed-mouthed about their plans and to put out mis-information. I am hoping it will be a very delightful surprise, and not a turn-off surprise.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Plug Free Volt
Comparing the Chevy Volt (a series hybrid) to the Toyota Prius (a power split hybrid) is not an “apples to apples” kind of comparison. The powertrains are very different. The Volt’s powertrain is more advanced. It’s like a pure electric car like the Tesla Roadster with a gas engine onboard to recharge the battery. The gas engine on the Volt plays a supporting role to the battery. The Volt has an electric motor driving the wheels at all times. The Prius doesn’t.
The “2 mode Saturn Vue” and “Plug-in 2 mode Saturn Vue” coming in 2009/2010 will be more of a head to head competition vs. the Prius cars we see on the roads today. It is rumored that they could get up to 70 mpg. Not bad at all. Eventually, GM will do “2 mode hybrids” and “plug in 2 mode hybrids” for smaller cars like the Malibu. You should see a “2 mode Chevy Cruze” and “2 mode plug-in Chevy Cruze in the next few years.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
#98 RB
What I want to see is the mileage improvement of the two-mode applied to the Impala and Malibu cars. They would sell like hot cakes if the mileage would jump to 45 mpg or 55 mpg. Those cars would be real competition for the Prius even with its plug-in capability. I would buy a 2009 Impala with 40+ mpg as soon as it hit the showroom. I would even considerer the smaller Malibu with the increased mileage gain. May end up buying one of those two 2009 models anyway it goes.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
GM is giving some of their employees $35K Car Vouchers to leave the company. Can these vouchers be used to purchase a Volt ??
http://www.thestar.com/article/468557
July 28th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
@82
I agree. It’s a benefit to both the business and the customer. Businesses know that by keeping customers in there for as long as possible, the more stuff the customer will buy. And customers know the longer they stay in the business the more charge they will have.
If I had a physical business like a restaurant or a retail store, I would make free recharging available to my customers (and tow away the non-customers).
July 28th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
#100 GM Volt Fan
I hope you are correct about the two-mode hybrid coming to the Impala and Malibu plus the Saturn Vue. GM needs to put it in all of their cars and trucks. They need all the help they can get over the next few years. The problem with these plans is it will take them 3 years to start doing it. And that is just too late. IMO….
July 28th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
For those confused, it means 1 million e-flex vehicles a year by 2020, not TOTAL production.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
#103 kubel
“If I had a physical business like a restaurant or a retail store, I would make free recharging available to my customers (and tow away the non-customers).”
It would be hard to tell who was who without making some customers mad. You could issue them a debit card for a free charge value of X dollars for their next visit as a way of getting them to come back. They could swipe the card to have it charged for the charging time. A customer without the free card could just swipe his credit/debit card. As long as you provided sufficient charging stations, you could provide your customers a service and make money from the “interlopers”.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
#81 Kent
“Why would you need to dig up an underground gas tank just to install a electrical outlet? I don’t understand the correlation.”
US law says you cannot abandon an existing underground fuel tank in place. Gotta remove it.
Fill it with concrete, yes, sometimes in some areas.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
#107 Ryan P
Why do that at all. The service station would be offering gasoline, diesel and electricity. You may replace a pump or two with a charging station, but still have the other pumps pulling fuel from the underground tanks. Each pump is not tied to a separate tank. All regular gas pumps pull fuel from the same tank and the same with the other blends. You still have to have tanks and pumps to serve older technology vehicles which will be around another 100 years.
So, no tanks may have to be dug up.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
#103 kubel
“If I had a physical business like a restaurant or a retail store, I would make free recharging available to my customers (and tow away the non-customers).”
The business would just have switches inside. Gonna eat or shop there? Pay an hourly fee: tell them your parking stall: get a charge. Not shopping? your outlet doesn’t work!
July 28th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
#108 N Riley:
I’m pretty sure (hazy memory) I remember that electrical lines cannot be closer to a fuel tank than a certain distance, according to the NEC (National Electrical Code). Electricians? Back me up?
July 28th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
101 >> What I want to see is the mileage improvement of the two-mode applied to the Impala and Malibu cars. They would sell like hot cakes if the mileage would jump to 45 mpg or 55 mpg.
I’d sure like to see that too; however, GM has already clearly stated they are not planning that.
BAS+ is targeted for cars like Malibu instead… in other words, the midsize vehicles with 4-cylinder engines. Two-Mode was designed for large & powerful platforms.
July 28th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
#109 Ryan P
Or even better, plug in, pay 50 cents, put the ticket on your dashboard and then stay as long as you want to. After all, the longer you stay, the more income that creates for the merchant or mall management, so one wants there to be an incentive to stay a little longer.
July 28th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
#92 Randal Sparks says: “Actually the DOE number is around 150 million on the existing grid as long as charged off peak.”
————————————————————————————–
Good info. Thanks!
July 28th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
#110 Ryan P on proximity of electrical lines to gas tanks
It doesn’t matter as we’re going to be recharging at malls, restaurants, and tourist traps, not filling stations. (As my nephew used to say when he was a little boy, “I love tourist traps”) The former have good reasons to want us to hang around for a while.
July 28th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
#97 RB,
I was responding to proponents of fast charge filling stations. Their idea is have have pure EVs with around 200 miles of range that quick charge in 5 minutes. This idea has many practical issues, which I cover in post #90.
If you’re willing to add a gas engine for long duration trips, and then use a special connection to charge up in an hour while shopping, that would be much easier to install, but it would also tax the grid a lot more than overnight charging.
July 28th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
In the first place, I’d like to see some realistic high-speed charging tests (if not real world tests) to verify that regular, <1hr charges won’t hurt battery life. We’re being asked a lot to believe that Li-ion of any size or type could actually end ten actual years of typical service, being charged nightly at 110V, with anything like a useful capacity. Now, we throw in 100-200+ amp charging and say, “sure, no problem.” There might be immense problems today, despite what various battery makers are claiming.
Second, the connectors that can handle that kind of current aren’t something the typical driver should fool with, unless very carefully designed. Even at that, who among us will be first to connect a high voltage/amperage (440V@200Amps?) circuit in a rainy parking lot? (Can the rest of us watch? From a safe distance??)
Some compromise, like 220V connections (already contemplated even for ‘first gen’ Volt) might still be an attractive way for brick-and-mortar businesses to attract shoppers. I know of at least one Outlet Mall where 3 - 4 hour visits are the norm.
July 28th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
#110 Ryan P
Gas pumps have electrical power to them now. The gasoline tanks are not under the pump island. They are generally off to one side or on two sides of the island. There is so much power around the pump island that adding charging stations (110 or 220) should not be a problem. But, you are correct in that the station would have to meet federal, state and local guidelines.
I really don’t see service stations removing pumps to add charging stations initially. They would probably add them over to one side until the time they became most of their business. I agree with #114 RB in that shopping centers, restaurants and such will be where most charging stations will be located. Service stations will be very slow coming around to the new service.
July 28th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
“The year 2010 is shaping up to be a very interesting year. GM is going to have some pretty good competition. They will have to work very hard to make the Volt attractive and competitive.”
Amen! I’m STILL pulling for a late 2009 release of at LEAST a pilot fleet (our group would make the perfect population).
Be well,
Tag
PS Welcome back, Statik
July 28th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
#111 john1701a
“101 >> What I want to see is the mileage improvement of the two-mode applied to the Impala and Malibu cars. They would sell like hot cakes if the mileage would jump to 45 mpg or 55 mpg.
I’d sure like to see that too; however, GM has already clearly stated they are not planning that.
BAS+ is targeted for cars like Malibu instead… in other words, the midsize vehicles with 4-cylinder engines. Two-Mode was designed for large & powerful platforms.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Then GM is going to lose a lot of business to the competition. The BAS+ system is not efficient enough IMO. Anyway, the Malibu and Impala are not just 4 cylinder engine vehicles. You see a lot of 6 cylinder Malibus and Impalas on the road. GM is making another mistake. If the two-mode can be scaled down, it should be put in the smaller vehicles, at least as far down as the Malibu and others of its size. That is where a lot of sales will come from in the future. Not the big cars and SUVs.
It seems to me that the BAS+ system only provides a couple more miles per gallon for the Malibu, if I remember correctly. Not enough to add the extra cost.
July 28th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
$60000 plus for a volt count me out. My family lives in the UK and there is not the desposable income that we here in America have, They will not sell too many at that price tag.
July 28th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
It seems like GM will acquire A123
July 28th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
I agree with Statik at #44 about the Trax and/or the Groove. Waffling indeed. I also agree with N Riley at #87. 2010/2011 is a long way off. As some of you know, I could really go off on this stuff, but I really am trying to not be totally negative. So, here is my challenge to GM.
Our GM car is running fine, and my wife is very happy with it. It will easily go another 5 years. The only problem is the poor gas mileage. As many have pointed out, if the car is paid off and does not need major work, you can do the math 17 ways from Sunday, and it is still cheaper to drive the car you own outright. So, the only incentives I have to buy a new car are my guilty conscience at wasting gas, and/or a new model with an irresistble “cool” factor. Extremely good gas mileage is a big “cool” factor right now, even if the math doesn’t work out.
GM does not have a car in its lineup today which will work to entice me to buy it, on either basis. We have the money available right now to buy a new car. I have offered over and over to put down a deposit on a Volt. We are just going to stand by and wait for GM to come up with a car which we “have to buy”. If that takes 5 years, so be it.
I have to believe that there are plenty of other die hard GM customers in the same boat. So, it goes back to Statiks’s and N Riley’s comments. 2010/2011 is a looong way off.
What will fill the gap in the meantime?
July 28th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
This just in from The Institute for the Incredibly Obvious:
2009 isn’t nearly as far off as 2010 or 2011.
Be well,
Tag
July 28th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Here’s some info I googled up about a possible “two mode Chevy Malibu”. It’s in the planning stages right now. We’re looking at it coming out sometime in 2011 for the 2012 model year … maybe late 2010 for the 2011 model year if all goes well.
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2012-chevrolet-malibu.htm
GM better do a good job on this car because the current Malibu is getting very good reviews. They need to keep that going badly. I want to see the Malibu CONTINUE to beat the Accords and Camrys in most of the car magazine reviews AND in sales.
They have to get the exterior styling just right. Same thing with the interior. Put in a high mpg “2 mode hybrid” powertrain for a reasonable price and you’ve got an award winning car for the next 10 years maybe. GM needs to be meticulous in every detail. Everything should be well thought out and tested. Like Apple proved with the iPhone, design IS as important as the underlying technology. People buy cars for emotional/aesthetic reasons as well as logical/technical reasons. Gotta have both.
The mid size sedan segment is one that GM should try to focus a good bit of their resources on. That segment and the higher end “supergreen hybrids” like the Volt. The Volt will be a flagship car for GM … an example of what most of their cars will be like in the next 10-15 years.
July 28th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
#116 Jackson noted “Some compromise, like 220V connections (already contemplated even for ‘first gen’ Volt) might still be an attractive way for brick-and-mortar businesses to attract shoppers. I know of at least one Outlet Mall where 3 - 4 hour visits are the norm.”
220V mall charging may be the perfect solution, at least for the next 5-10 years. It will be twice as fast as home charging with 110 (creates need to go to mall to charge the car) and take a very nice period of time for most mall shoppers (say 3 or 4 hours). For all those people who can’t charge at home, it will be a nice mall bonus, and for those who can charge at home, not so much of an incentive but still nice. The electric company can even have some reps there at first, just to be nice and help people (good PR and good service).
If in the future a way is worked out for quicker charges, the malls will have established themselves as the place to go.
July 28th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
#122 Noel Park
My 2000 Nissan crew cab pickup truck will certainly make it until I can buy a Volt. My wifes 2004 Honda Odyssey will make it, no sweat.
My problem with all of this is that I have not purchased a new car since February 1995 (a 1995 Honda Accord EX 4 cylinder beauty). I want a new car, simple as that. Plus, I want to reduce my use of middle east oil so that I feel like I am contributing to them becoming poor again. If I continue driving my 2000 Nissan pickup, it only gets at best 16 mpg city and about 19 highway. I want to reduce my overall footprint concerning fossil fuels. It is not about the cost of the new vehicle versus the cost of buying fuel for the existing paid off vehicle. It is just that I want a new vehicle and I want an efficient one. As efficient as I can buy at the time. If it is a Chevy or other GM, great. If it is a Honda or Toyota, that’s great also. I do want to buy a Chevy and will give points to it to weigh against the more fuel efficient Honda and Toyota models. If Chevy is close in MPG and the quality is close, I will go with the Chevy. That is why I have been very interested in seeing what the 2009 Malibu and 2009 Impala have to offer.
I don’t think I am very different from a lot of consumers GM will be seeing over the next year. We are willing to buy a fuel efficient vehicle, deciding who from is the important decision. ‘
July 28th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
When reading all the posts it reminds me of the saying, “you can please some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time”!
There is no way the first gen Volt is going to be Cobalt priced with Corvette performance. Not going to happen. The first cars will be expensive with moderately tollerable performance specs (range, speed, room, styling, recharge time, etc.). The first buyers won’t even have the new car smell gone before they will be reading about what is to come for improvements and perhaps some buyers remorse will set in for some. But if no one buys the overpriced underperforming first generation then there will never be a second generation.
The pioneers are the ones who get the arrows. Here, here to the pioneers!
July 28th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
#118 Tagamet said ” I’m STILL pulling for a late 2009 release of at LEAST a pilot fleet (our group would make the perfect population).”
I agree, and in fact it would be a shrewd move on GM’s part to put the initial Volt fleet into the hands of people as sympathetic and enthusiastic as our group. Any new car is going to have some issues, so GM needs a group of initial owners who are enthusiastic about the fundamentals, willing to look past any growing pains, and ready to talk positively about the car to other people. That’s us.
In fact, when you think about it, what other car has ever had this opportunity (or maybe ever will again)?
July 28th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
For some reason I think we might see this at the end of 2009.. I think GM is moving pretty fast in the development on this. I can’t see why it would take too much longer. I don’t think the battery can be that big of an issue. There are many EV’s out there right now. So I know there is battery technology. I mean they have at least one built. So the design just needs a little touch up. I think they are saying 2010/2011 just to fool competitors so they also do not hurry. It is not like they need to build an engine. They choose one already designed and marketed. IMO i think we might see this in late 2009.
July 28th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Toyota has already taken a position in a battery consortia. I believe so has Honda. That way it can control the sale and supply its own n