Who’s Got it Right, GM or Honda?
Despite the plethora of automakers aiming to build EVs over the next few years, Honda continues to uphold its stance against it.
In a recent interview with Automotive news, Honda R&D chief Masaaki Kato says Honda has no plans to produce an electric car.
Honda made recent press about an announcement for a sub-$20,000 revamped Insight parallel hybrid. But that’s apparently as far as it goes for now.
Kato feels the energy of lithium-ion batteries is “still too poor for cars,” and only predicts EVs will make up 1% of the vehicle fleet by 2015.
He claims EVs will only be useful as neighborhood runabouts but that to get the performance of an Accord, the car would have to carry 2 tons of battery, a weight he says that is “no good.”
Source (Automotive News, subscription)
Expanding this premise is an article in the GlobeandMail by Jeremey Cato. Cato contends that he is leaning to Honda’s simple approach versus what he calls the Volt, GM’s moonshot. He argues that Honda’s forthcoming low-cost, high-volume hybrid Insight is more likely to be a long-term success for the company than the riskier Volt will be for GM.
Source (GlobeAndMail)
So the argument is: Go with something simple and proven and reduce its price, or take the risk and go for new bold technology that might be more expensive at first?
Popularity: 3%
Related posts:
- Revenge of the Honda Insight
- Honda Still Hasn’t Plugged in Yet
- Does Honda Lack “Clarity” on Their Thoughts About Plug-in Vehicles?
- Chevy Cruze Versus Honda Insight
- Honda Says Chevy Volt Makes No Sense
(9 votes, average: 4.89 out of 5) 
Loading ...
September 11th, 2008 at 6:22 am
Both. He is correct about the 1% in 2015 number and I would guess that he is correct about the success of inexpensive cars that get great gas mileage. I think (I hope!) GM is also correct about the Volt in the same way that Toyota was correct about the Prius 10 years ago. He also points out the same uncertainty that GM does: Will the batteries be good enough. That’s the question.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:24 am
“to get the performance of an Accord, the car would have to carry 2 tons of battery”
I thought you just needed a hampster and a wheel for that.
We don’t need another hybrid. The US needs (among other things) ways off oil. EREV is the better choice even if it is more expensive. In my eyes there is a large hidden value if less money pumped out of this country.
Also, no one should complain about the Volt’s looks when compared to the Insight. Talk about a turd.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:26 am
In a way, they are both right. Honda has always felt that efficiency was paramount. For that, I salute them. But sometimes, you have to take a gamble in order to move forward. GM has been trying to build cars that rival Honda/Toyota in efficiency, only to fall short every time. It’s almost like someone at GM is an inside man for the imports. As soon as GM does something, secretly Honda hears about it and develops something more efficient at the same time. I’m not a conspiracy theorist but what the hell? Yes, the Volt is a moonshot. I may be a little biased in GM’s favor but the last time I heard anything about a moonshot, we were actually the first country to put a man on the moon. So if Honda calls the Volt a moonshot, I would consider that a compliment considering that by our past accomplishments this will be our country’s second moonshot.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:27 am
Why ignore the elephant in the room?
Volt - not here yet.
Honda - not here yet (but sooner than the Volt).
Prius - Available today, selling 180K in the US per year. Toyota is well along the road to making real money.
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN0518895920080905?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=10216&sp=true
Okamoto recently offered remark’s similar to Kato’s. Toyota thinks the economics of a large-battery vehicle are poor.
Considering that Toyota can deliver a car, profitably, in the neighborhood of $20K and the idea of the car business is to make money…
September 11th, 2008 at 6:29 am
In the short run, the Honda and its lower price point could do very well. But that does not negate the fact that sooner or later, our days of powering personal vehicles with oil will come to an end.
I should think that GM, having invested in all-electric technology, is better positioned for the long run.
The raises the question of whether GM and its anemic balance sheet can survive to the long run. However, should the company go under, the technology it is developing will be inherited by whoever picks up the pieces.
As an aside, Honda seems to be in denial right now, similar to the way Toyota originally was about plug-in hybrids.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:32 am
Honda is one of the best run car companies. They were the first to bring production hybrids to market. The two seater Insight. Dont forget they have more than 100 FCX running, which are fuel cell vehicles. i.e, they are basically electric vehicles with a small battery and they use fuel cell to charge the battery and run the motor.
So, they have experience making production electric vehicular. All they got to do is remove the fuel cell, replace it with a ICE to charge the battery and put in a bigger battery and put in a plug, they have a plug in hybrid.
I surely hope they will do so.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:32 am
P.S.
Honda’s only saying that to put negative perceptions of the Volt to future consumers…probably pissed off that they didn’t think of it first. And if they think that an electric Li-Ion tech car is too expensive, call Honda and ask them how much it would cost to repair a damaged FCX Clarity. Better yet, if it’s so much better, why can’t everyone buy one (hell, the people that got them can’t even buy one!)
September 11th, 2008 at 6:40 am
What is correct? Anything that achieves our energy independence quickly and economically so the masses can afford it.
At this point, where battery technology still needs a lot of help, many options can work. Personally, I prefer the EREV option at the moment.
Because I can use gas or not. I like the “not” part the most.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:41 am
I will still go with the “Volt” over the Honda. However, I’m still very upset about the possible styling of the production version of this long awaited car.
Everytime I look at the posted PICS it upsets me knowing what we started out with (Concept). Why does this car have to look so…!!!??!!! GM has the right tech that makes sence for now and into the future. This is a great sagway to an all electric car in the future when the battery technology is available to make it practical. Plus I like the fact I’ll have a possible 100mpg + with the thing. Take that ESSO, Shell, OPEX and who ever else. But for goodness sake man, fix the car’s lines…!!!!
Someone asked what is the drag like on a Corvette…??? I have to ask the same question. The Corvette has no problem moving through the air and it looks damn good moving and standing still. What happened to the Volt while it was in the wind tunnel…??? I mean, it has turned into a silver-gray bean with Bridgestone tires.
Why can’t it be great technology and sexy too…??? Please answer that question Mr. Lutz..!!! Why did you allow this tragedy…!!!??!!! Plus your asking me to fork over $40K for this thing…, please. I would think that styling is the easy part. Someone at GM please respond…!?! Mr. Lutz…!?!
September 11th, 2008 at 6:42 am
Lyle, thank you for putting the Honda and GM next to each other.
I like the looks of the Volt better.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:43 am
Well commerically I think Honda’s approach is better:
Less risks, a lower price, and it will be available earlier. With current fuel prices the difference between $20000 and $30000 or even $40000 is simply too big.
Of course GM’s approach is more ambitious, and could help to reduce the West’s dependency on imported oil. But with GM’s recent financial problems in mind, let’s hope it is not _too_ ambitious.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:48 am
If GM sticks with it, they will win the argument. It will take a long, long, long time, and they need to be profitable as soon as possible.
Only then will they have the money needed to amp up development.
I have a feeling this is the car GM will take the most development risks with.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:49 am
I think as far as body style and design they both look the same. The difference between them is basically the front bumper. Which goes to my point of how ho-hum the Volt looks.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:52 am
Norman D. Robinson Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 6:41 am
I will still go with the “Volt” over the Honda. However, I’m still very upset about the possible styling of the production version of this long awaited car.
Everytime I look at the posted PICS it upsets me knowing what we started out with (Concept). Why does this car have to look so…!!!??!!! GM has the right tech that makes sence for now and into the future. This is a great sagway to an all electric car in the future when the battery technology is available to make it practical. Plus I like the fact I’ll have a possible 100mpg + with the thing. Take that ESSO, Shell, OPEX and who ever else. But for goodness sake man, fix the car’s lines…!!!!
Someone asked what is the drag like on a Corvette…??? I have to ask the same question. The Corvette has no problem moving through the air and it looks damn good moving and standing still. What happened to the Volt while it was in the wind tunnel…??? I mean, it has turned into a silver-gray bean with Bridgestone tires.
Why can’t it be great technology and sexy too…??? Please answer that question Mr. Lutz..!!! Why did you allow this tragedy…!!!??!!! Plus your asking me to fork over $40K for this thing…, please. I would think that styling is the easy part. Someone at GM please respond…!?! Mr. Lutz…!?!
———————————————————————
A Corvette starts at about $45,000 and seats two. It also gets less than half as much MPG as the Volt with the range extender.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:53 am
Actually, public acceptance will determine how much less imported energy we will require as a nation. The number of energy saving units on the road which can replace fuel guzzling vehicles is the primary mechanism by which we will be able to declare our energy independence. The Honda approach, due in large part to its low price, legendary quality and exceptional fuel efficiency, will likely be adopted in massive quantities and therefore make a massive difference. The low volume Volt, even though it will use even less petroleum, will not be as significant. The new Honda Insight makes it more clear than ever how much the Volt program looks like a “hail mary” pass!
September 11th, 2008 at 6:53 am
This proves what I’ve been saying all along. Japanese car makers don’t make revolutionary new cars. They evolve cars that they have been making, and wait for other car makers to pave the way with new designs. So what you end up with from Honda is something like a Prius, only smaller and cheaper.
As for Honda’s statement that EVs “would have to carry 2 tons of battery, a weight he says that is “no good.””, this corresponds to a pure EV with 200 miles of range using NiMH batteries. Li/Ion batteries weigh half as much, and the Volt only has 40 miles of electric range, so the result is 0.2 tons, or 400 pounds.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Honda seems to be happy to just continually tinker with the gasoline ICE’s making small improvements here and there. They haven’t been extremely successful with their hybrid offerings in the recent past which may play into their attitude at times. The Civic hybrid has been their only success in the hybrid arena, and even that has been quite the laggard when compared to the Prius and its sales success. The original Insight was a sales failure as well as the subsequent Accord hybrid.
Honda has been consistently resistant to the idea of EV’s–so has Toyota. Nissan’s Carlos Ghosn has been the only one Japan’s big 3 that has openly embraced EV’s, (see Project Better Place). This is hard to understand, at least for me. Honda usually is so forward thinking and big picture. Looking at their Clarity Fuel Cell vehicle, it’s wonderful technoology and a huge leap forward, yet it runs on a fuel that is very difficult and expensive to obtain. Then they turn around and practically ridicule GM for making an EV that runs on a fuel (electricity and gas for range extension) that is available everywhere.
IMO, GM is on the better path of the two with the E-flex idea. GM needs to saty focused and stick to their guns on this.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:13 am
All of this lamenting about the demise of the concept Volt and how disappointing the production version looks is becoming very tedious – it’s worse than the fuel cell debate. I know it has only been a couple of weeks since we first saw the production Volt, but enough already. Let’s all get on board with the reality of the new Volt and move on to something else.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:17 am
#18 hermant Says: “The low volume Volt, even though it will use even less petroleum, will not be as significant.”
————————————————————————————–
Who said the Volt will be low volume?
The Volt will cost $30K to $32K after tax credits. Over the life of the car, the gasoline savings of a Volt will offset the price difference over a Honda Civic.
Yes, GM will only sell 10,000 Volts in the first year. This is about what Toyota sold for the first year of the Prius. But as people begin to understand how the Volt works, and as GM reduces the manufacturing cost, sales will ramp much more quickly than the Prius.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:21 am
John #17 “Corvette has no problem moving through the air and it looks damn good moving and standing still.”
Don’t forget that the Corvette has a between 438 and 505 H/P (depending on the model) to push it through the air!!!! Put 500 H/P in a mini van and it will go……………
September 11th, 2008 at 7:22 am
In the short term, Toyota has it right.
In the longer term, GM has the better strategy. (2011+)
The big question is, can Honda fit into the short/medium term mix? At a sub $20K price, I would think so.
I know I seem weird saying this with the price of WTI bouncing around $100/barrel, but, the fundamentals all point to a substantial rise in the near future and expensive fuel is the Volt’s friend.
LJGTVWOTR
September 11th, 2008 at 7:22 am
John Says:
GM sticks with it, they will win the argument. It will take a long, long, long time, and they need to be profitable as soon as possible.
Only then will they have the money needed to amp up development.
I have a feeling this is the car GM will take the most development risks with.
——————————————————————————
I really hope for GM success on this car too. More so that it will show other car companies that this kind of car is finically doable. Plus, if the Volt is successful GM will put this tech in more and more vehicles. (Personally I would love a EREV Vue, I know the 2 mode plug in is coming) But as to your comment John: They will have plenty of cash available. I truly believe that this has been part of GM’s plan to receive federal loans at a cheap rate. So you and I will be paying for the volts development and re-tooling cost. Don’t get me wrong I won’t be that upset if $500 million of our tax dollars went to a good cause for a change and anything that will help us from giving billions of dollars to people that want to see us all dead, makes me happy!!!!
September 11th, 2008 at 7:23 am
At 50 mpg and $3.50 per gallon gas, it still costs 7 cents per mile for energy in a hybrid.
At 5 miles per kWh, and 10 cents per kWh (average US rate), its only 2 cents per mile for energy for the Volt.
Although these numbers don’t justify a large price premium today, if war breaks out in the Middle East and gasoline goes to $10 per gallon, then hybrids will become the new “gas-guzzlers” and E-REV will be the drivetrain of choice.
I agree with #6 JME III, and further comment that denial is not a river in Egypt.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:30 am
I’m sure that Honda is working on EVs that are not publicized. Since they already have a better image than GM they can focus on affordability and profit, while GM seems to be looking for something that will give their image a makeover. Honda probably doesn’t see a lot of sales for a $40k car the size of a Civic, but you can bet that the minute the tech becomes cheap enough to make a profit, they will unveil the EV that they have been working on all along.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:33 am
I think the E-Flex is a courageous path for GM to begin. I think the Volt styling is just horrible. I never thought I would say it but the Prius and especially the Insight look much cooler. Still they could be better. Just give me a nice organic non forced design like a VW Golf 6 with an e-flex drive.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:33 am
The Volt and the Insight do look a lot alike, don’t they. I guess there aren’t may ways to reduce drag. Stick a car in the wind tunnel, Shave a little here, round it a little there and stop when you get the numbers you want. Ta Da! You get the same shape as every body else who tried to do the same thing. It turns out that “styling” is a major hit in the efficiency. Remember that every extra MPC that you get by modifying the shape is free.
Adding more battery or more energy density per unit volume or weight costs real $ that goes straight to the bottom line. The “out the door” price of the Volt jumped over $10,000 during development. I believe that they would have been thrilled to make a mid-$20K car but the technology just isn’t there yet.
Since you can’t make a $20K electric car, Honda is probably right. The masses won’t be able to afford a Volt. When (note that I say when not if.) the price of Li/Ion batteries drops to less than $3000, than the E-flex technology is really going to take off. GM is going to sell a lot more E-flex Cobolt type cars than they will ever sell Volts.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:43 am
John Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 6:52 am
A Corvette starts at about $45,000 and seats two. It also gets less than half as much MPG as the Volt with the range extender.
———————————–
Granted John.., I’m referencing the wrong model car (Corvette). Why can’t it at least look as good as an “Lincoln MKS”…??? It is going for under $40K and the styling is spot on for a four (4) door 5 seater that has alot of style going for itself.
Mind you, I really want this car to be a success for GM and the US. GM has the right technology going for it. It is a very practical and forward thinking measure. Yes, a moonshot that will hit its mark just as JFK asked of America and it was made so. NASA followed JFK’s request and they were sexy while doing it.
I mean lets be real about this, “gas stinks and electricity is oderless”.
It is just a clean car (Volt) in every way compared to the Honda or the Toyota but I want to look good in it too. You catch me…??!!??
Maybe the PICs are not doing the car justice. I have seen cars in person and have been very impressed. Sometimes the press make a mess of the PICs. I have the funds for the car set aside now. Hopefully in the showroom the car just jumps out and grabs my wallet.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:46 am
The problem wth the question is that it depends upon the time frame.
Are you talking now, or 3 to 5 years from now, when battery prices will certainly be significantly lower. How much lower? Over 50%, according to A123 System execs. Regardless of price, if you goal is to use as little liquid fuel as possible, then the Honda is simply not competitive - it will consume roughly 8 to 9 times more fuel as a commuter and probably roughly the same doing non-commuting duties. Figure something like $1200 to $1300 per year fuel savings with the Volt over the Insight, based on 12,000 mile per year driving rate.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:57 am
#22, Dave G, writes: “The Volt will cost $30K to $32K after tax credits. Over the life of the car, the gasoline savings of a Volt will offset the price difference over a Honda Civic.”
First, you’re assuming tax credits that don’t exist yet and who-know-what for a price. Second, people rarely put up a lot of cash for a payback that takes more than three years. Improving one’s home insulation and furnace usually offers a pretty good payback… and it’s rarely done. Depending on how you measure it, the payback for a Volt over a $22K Prius is somewhere between 10 years and never.
Dave G continues, “Yes, GM will only sell 10,000 Volts in the first year. This is about what Toyota sold for the first year of the Prius. But as people begin to understand how the Volt works, and as GM reduces the manufacturing cost, sales will ramp much more quickly than the Prius.”
And your evidence for this ramp is…? GM projects only 60K in 2012 and it’s not a given that they’ll make that. They’ve never ramped production of their current hybrids. And your example that the Prius sold in low volume… that was here in the US in 2001. Add in the volume sold in JDM and the Prius volume is much more significant. And that was 10 years before the Volt hits the road. Hybrids are commonplace. The time for respecting the pioneers has long past… this is mainstream, now. GM must offer volume quickly. The 10K the first year is pretty close to a joke.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:58 am
I viewed the Insight pictures earlier today on another site and was thinking it was one sharp looking car. And at 70 mpg (est), less than $20k, I might consider it in 2 years. But on this anniversary of 9/11, I am still extremely pissed at the animals that attacked the USA, and to those who still harbor them behind the veil of “religion”. The sooner I can stop sending money to the middle east the better. The Volt will make that happen. I will find a way to afford it.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Being the number one ICE manufacturer in the world, Honda will say what they need to. When the Volt changes the rules of the game, look for Honda to buy a battery company or retool to make electric motors.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:01 am
The Volt’s contribution to reducing oil dependence is negligible for the foreseeable future. The impact of a 50-60mpg Insight selling 100K/year or the million Priuses already on the road and the ramp up of the Prius to 300K+ per year in 2009 will have a more dramatic effect than the first few years of Volt production even before the first 10K Volts hit the street in 2011.
A highly fuel-efficient car available NOW is more important than one available in 2 years.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:05 am
How much extra do I want to pay for the Volt (which is cooler than the Honda for many reasons; 50:50 weight, low CG, electric torque, cool interface, Electric cool factor in general, uses less gas and oil, not made in Japan…)
This is the question that will be asked by many (This is the question I will be asking anyway). And not just for the Volt vs. Honda but also for the Volt vs. Cruze (very similar cars on same platform).
Ignoring the future value of money (This is a blog, not a spreadsheet)
Assuming…
Honda gets 50 mpg and you get it on the road for $20K
Volt gets 150 mpg and you get it on the road for $35K
(based on my daily commute and no plug at work)
Drive 15K miles per year/ gas is $5 per gallon
Honda would use 300 gallons per year
Volt uses 100 per year and needs 250 charges at $1
After 10 years and 150K miles, Volt costs an extra $7500
Actually more if you apply future value of money and/or gas were less. Your mileage may differ and all other caveats.
So now I have to think, over the life of my car, do I want to spend an additional $7,500 or more to have the volt over the Honda (actually the cruze in my case).
I would sit down and add it up.
I would credit some of the following
Performance and handling +$1500
Cool Electric Factor $+2000 ( I would easily spend that much extra)
Nice interface $+500 (an assumption it will be better)
So using less gas and trying to send less money to the oil market (read between the lines - nutcases in the middle east and Venezuala) will cost me $3500 (plus future value of money) over the 10 year life of the car.
I will definitely be considering it. The test drive better be good.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:09 am
#28
In 3 to 5 years, banking the savings that you would have from buying the $18,500 Honda Insight, you would be over $22,000 ahead of the first Volt, financially speaking. At $1300 per year in fuels savings and assuming a zero percent interest rate, it would only take SEVENTEEN YEARS of Volt ownership to break even.
The problem with the Volt versus the Insight question is that almost no one among the masses thinks like an eco-geek who will do almost anything to avoid imported oil. Most folks among the masses think with their pocketbooks and will not even consider the Volt given its current parameters.
The right question to be asking yourself is how long do you think it will take before Volt technology is as cost effective as the Honda Insight’s technology. That is when the masses will choose the Volt approach and that’s just about when Honda will introduce their first plug-in hybrid.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Who has it right? Time will tell. Both to some degree. Anytime a new tech tries to invade and displace old established technology it has resistance to overcome and when it is much more expensive the resistance is huge.
So basically Honda is taking the smart safe sure thing route and GM is taking the all out full speed ahead damn the torpedos approach.
In these type of situations often half of the people trumpeting the advantages of the new tech end up buying the low tech option due to cost. They want the new tech but just can’t see forking over the money when it comes right down to it.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:14 am
I think the answer is “both.” In the long term, gas-electric hybrids may be an interim step on the road to ending dependence on oil, but there’s no value in bashing them today. Even if the Volt “only” costs around $35K, it will be beyond the means of many, many consumers. A $20K Honda Insight will be more affordable for their budgets. Let’s discuss - or even disagree - on such topics by respecting one another’s opinions.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:19 am
GM needs this car.
They need to redeem themselves from the EV1 albatross.
They need to convince people they can make cars that address the energy crisis.
They need to give their employees a rallying point after so much recent turmoil.
Once it accomplishes this first milestone, GM should slowly build on its success. I don’t think trying to do anything except build the volt is warranted. Do it on time, make it a good product, and win back some of the goodwill lost.
Battery technology will come. I liken it to the introduction of the PC and 8086 processor. It was an important first step, but by no measure a reflection of WHAT IS POSSIBLE. Let’s revisit this thread in 10 years. With any luck, we’ll be able to buy electric vehicles with 400 mile ranges, in various sizes and shapes :-), at a cost effective price. GM is doing the right thing.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:21 am
I’m not a car designer, but I must say painting the doors black just below the windows is a poor attempt to replicate the concept Volts glass door tops. The other design queue that’s missing is the slant of the door openings. I don’t think the door slant affects CFD numbers, but does give a sportier look to the car. The lines on the production Volt just don’t follow through as they do on the concept. I guess version one of any new car need to leave room for improvement in version two. Regardless I still want a version one Volt.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Just some things I have to clear up:
1) I was promised a sporty-LOOKING car, not a sports car, by the pictures of the Volt concept. Then, I was victimized by GM’s bait-and-switch, and the car I fell in love with is dead, gone, history.
2) It is clear to me that the majority of the posters HERE AND ONLY HERE prefer the production Volt, solely because they hate buying gasoline. Looks are unimportant to these posters.
3) The production Volt fans appear to be deathly afraid of anti-production Volt comments. My best guess - they are afraid a redesign would delay the Volt even longer than November 2010.
4) Would you PLEASE stop saying LJGTVWOTR ? No matter how many times you post this, it’s NOT going to speed up the Volt’s launch date - 26 months to go is still 26 months to go, no matter how many times to say LJGTVWOTR.
5) #61 biodieseiljeep (from the previous article) has a point - how many people outside of the GM-Volt.com fanboys here, who make enough to afford a Volt, really hate buying gasoline enough to buy a plain looking Volt ? If you can afford a $40,000 car, chances are good you might buy a Lexus hybrid before buying a Volt. Most people outside of GM-Volt.com who CAN afford a $40,000 car are not part of the “never buy a drop of oil again” crowd. They aren’t hurting for gas money, and style IS important to them. It would be interesting to see an independent national poll on the Volt, instead of Lyle’s famous “disappearing” poll. (Sorry Lyle, but you left no doubt what side of the Volt style issue you’re on).
6) If the posters here really hate gasoline so much, CNG is a wonderful, clean, USA produced fuel. CNG is easier to handle than hydrogen, and could be in every filling station in a year if Congress would simply mandate it. BTW, your Volt’s CNG would NEVER go bad, unlike gasoline. Go, T. Boone !
PS - I want the Volt to succeed. I just believe that having a boring looking Volt is NOT a good way to increase sales. My God, it looks almost exactly like the Honda (above). But the wind tunnel has spoken - and the concept Volt is history.
It’s going to take me a while to get over GM’s betrayal of the fans of the concept Volt. I’m still in the greiving process - I’ve worked my way through disbelief, working on anger now, and eventually grief will pass, and I will reach acceptance (hopefully) in the 26 months until the Volt launch. In the meantime, there’s always the Honda Fit, comfortably under $20,000. It will keep me mobile until November 2010.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:25 am
I actually like the Honda Insight’s front end design better than the Volt’s. It’s bold and highly distinctive, yet it looks quite a bit like Honda’s most advanced (and most expensive) high-tech hydrogen car, the FCX Clarity —darned good marketing! See the photo here….
http://www.thetorquereport.com/la_auto_show_honda_fcx_clarity_image001.jpg
September 11th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Reply to MMCC
“The sooner I can stop sending money to the middle east the better. The Volt will make that happen. I will find a way to afford it.”
I say AMEN BROTHER!!
I live for the day when I no longer have to send tens of thousands of dollars anually to people whom I despise.
I think Honda & Toyota don’t realize what GM does. The growing resentment of US consumers being screwed everytime they fill up.
9-11 isn’t forgotten, I hope it never is!
BDP
September 11th, 2008 at 8:27 am
GM seems wedded to 40 miles per battery charge.
What about 20 miles per charge and half the battery pack, allowing for reduced cost? I drive 20 miles round trip to work and back home, so it would work for me.
What about 10 miles per charge, making it even less costly and still allowing for local errands before the charger kicks in?
wgc
September 11th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Wow…it’s amazing how much the Honda insight and Volt look so similar.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:33 am
A side note. I showed my highschool aged daughter the concept Volt vs production volt photos. She clearly liked the production model. She thought the concept looked stupid. It was a no brainer for her.
Just making the point that GM is not totally crazy. They are selling to the population at large and not just to guys who hang out on a websited devoted to the Volt concept car.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:33 am
The smart approach is the right product for the right time. There is no reason that Honda can’t have a sub 20K Insight out in the next 1/2 year and a cost-effective electric car when the time is right.
Honda’s approach is based on 30 years of leading all automakers in dedication and effectiveness of efficiency. GM’s approach is based on GM missing the boat for hybrids and trying to make up for it by forcing electric cars too soon. This is GM forcing the Volt to be a “moon shot” because GM is forcing it too soon for the price and effectiveness of batteries.
Honda’s (and Toyota’s) approach will lead to millions of hybrids on the road (and saving gas) by the time GM hits a small fraction of that. In that way the Volt actually uses more gas than Honda/Toyota’s hybrids.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Further to my post #21 Gustav and Ike are not helping. Emphasis mine.
Summary of Weekly Petroleum Data for the Week Ending September 5, 2008
U.S. crude oil refinery inputs averaged nearly 13.5 million barrels per day
during the week ending September 5, down about 1.8 million barrels per day from the previous week’s average. Refineries operated at 78.3 percent of their operable capacity last week. Gasoline production fell last week, averaging about 8.4 million barrels per day. Distillate fuel production decreased last week, averaging 3.9 million barrels per day.
U.S. crude oil imports averaged nearly 8.6 million barrels per day last week, down 1.2 million barrels per day from the previous week. Over the last four weeks, crude oil imports have averaged 9.8 million barrels per day, 470 thousand barrels per day below the same four-week period last year. Total motor gasoline imports (including both finished gasoline and gasoline blending components) last week averaged 1.1 million barrels per day. Distillate fuel imports averaged 117 thousand barrels per day last week.
U.S. commercial crude oil inventories (excluding those in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve) decreased by 5.9 million barrels from the previous week. At 298.0 million barrels, U.S. crude oil inventories are in the lower half of the average range for this time of year. Total motor gasoline inventories decreased by 6.5 million barrels last week, and are below the lower boundary of the average range. Both finished gasoline inventories and gasoline blending components inventories decreased last week. Distillate fuel inventories decreased by 1.2 million barrels, and are in the middle of the average range for this time of year. Propane/propylene inventories increased by 1.6 million barrels last week but remain below the lower limit of the average range. Total commercial petroleum inventories decreased by 15.2 million barrels last week, and are in the lower half of the average range for this time of year.
Source:http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/weekly_petroleum_status_report/current/txt/wpsr.txt
September 11th, 2008 at 8:38 am
“to get the performance of an Accord, the car would have to carry 2 tons of battery”
This guy obviously has never heard of theTesla Roadster…
September 11th, 2008 at 8:39 am
The the questions are:
Who’s Got it Right, GM or Honda?
So the argument is: Go with something simple and proven and reduce its price, or take the risk and go for new bold technology that might be more expensive at first?
—————
It would be tough for this question to be more leading? ’simple and proven’ or ‘new and bold’ It practically says, ‘How could any moron go with Honda?’
I didn’t realize that making a car that gets 60MPG, priced at $18,500, that looks like the Volt’s cousin and is available in 6 months was ’simple and proven’. GM must have several of these ’simple/proven’ models in their lineup then? Here is GM’s lineup, go ahead, pick the car to compare to it:
http://www.gm.com/vehicles/?evar10=homepage_vehicles_link
I find it ironic that we have had like a ton of articles here on the Cruze at 40+MPG and how fantastic it is, ushering in the “new GM”
The fact that a 18K Honda is even being put up against a 40K Volt, shows that Honda is right.
Honda NA sales were off 7% in August, but still up 1% for the year. They have 11 consecutive years of sales increases. They saw what the market was doing and where it was trending, and reacted with the perfect product–a hybrid without hybrid premiums. 100K (of 200K production) of these out in NA, which would give them a 6.5% year over year increase on just this model ALONE. They are to be faulted for this?
All we get from GM is Wagoner getting interviewed by CNN sitting beside a Cobalt line throwing his hands up saying, “No one expected it (except for Toyota, Honda and Nissan), so our incompetance is acceptable. We think it might be levelling off and we hope it comes back in 2009 or we are out of money. We have some really great products that might be coming out late 2010…and we are planning to sell 100,000 Volts in 2013.
If you think when battery tech is readily available and viable (think 2013ish) that Honda won’t be a player, your are wrong. There is no loyalty in the auto business, no ‘I win’ sticker for being first…and they have a market cap of 120 billion, and made 6 billion last year. They have deep pockets, they don’t need assistance, they can be to market at their whim.
All they are saying is battery tech is still too far off to make electric cars a mass saleable/profitable product, if others want to take bullets thats fine with thim…while they sell the tar out of least expensive 60MPG hybrid of all time.
They are right too, there is no infrastructure for any automaker to get more than 10K out by the end of 2011 and no one is going to make any money on them during that time either.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Separated at birth.
You could basically SWAP the glass on these cars, that’s how close they are.
Though similar, if I had to choose on looks, the Insight wins.
You want a aerodynamic car that is small and looks good? Try a VW Jetta from 99-04. Girl car? sure. But still geeko-agressive-sexy.
I don’t need the concept. I just need a car that looks interesting. Heck, a Mini is interesting. A Smart is interesting. Volt is a yawn-fest.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:47 am
I suppose that it is appropriate to discuss 2 major automakers attempting to become more successful in the hybrid market, but one automaker has been more successful than all others combined…Toyota.
The question is…EV or not to EV? GM loves the comment…”We make vehicles people want.” Sounds like a good strategy, but it seems to me that large percentage of their models should be “vehicles people NEED”. It is tough convincing people that they need a new vehicle…especially if a slightly used one costs thousands less.
- Do people need a $40K+ EREV or $20K hybrid that gets 50mpg? Affordable price points for vehicles and fuel are a need.
- People need a vehicle with low depreciation (Honda is successful at this one).
- People need a reliable vehicle.
- People need a “home appliance” vehicle (aka low cost to use and maintain).
All that said…EREV is a need, but so is more affordable hybrids.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Does the Tesla battery weigh 2 tons? Does it perform worse than an accord? What a fricken joke. That’s the sound of someone saying “Oh crap who’s going to want our cheap knockoff prius (I’ve got a prius and can’t tell the difference) when the volt comes out?” They just spent a lot of money stealing Toyota’s design. Now Toyota is getting a bigger battery in 2010 and making it a plug in and GM is making the volt. Where does that leave Honda? with a 386 at half the price of a pentium 4.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:51 am
#39
“CNG is a wonderful, clean, USA produced fuel”
x2
When house shopping this spring don’t think a natural gas supply won’t be a selling point.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Man, the production version of the Volt looks much nicer and more marketable than the concept. I’m not a big fan of the “quasi-futuristic” Speedracer look. Am I the only one to notice that those bold Chrysler models (300, specifically) from 4-5 years ago look a little more dated today? And the Volt looks much nicer than the Honda “doorstop” shown above. Of course, there are those who for some reason will interpret this as some sort of rationalization from a GM fan. Nope, just an honest opinion.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:59 am
#44 nuclearboy - Boy was I wrong! I didn’t realize production Volt had captured the demographic of 15 year old schoolgirls who can afford a $40,000 EREV. The Volt’s success is now assured ! Huzzah !
——————————————-
This is EXACTLY why GM needs to conduct a REAL nationwide poll, run by an independent polling firm, to see exactly who would buy the production Volt. Does the styling of a car affect it’s sales ? Absolutely. We need demographics on who can afford a Volt, and how many of these potential buyers WOULD buy a production Volt. How many people in the Volt sales target demographic actually understand how the Volt works ?
Taking a poll here at GM-Volt.com is like preaching to the faithful. Independent national poll, please !
September 11th, 2008 at 9:00 am
“[Masaaki Kato ] claims EVs will only be useful as neighborhood runabouts”
If GM can make a 40-mile runabout that has a range extender, at a decent price, I’m all over that “shot.”
GlobeandMail by Jeremey Cato leans to Honda’s simple approach because he says GM’s approach is riskier. Well, high risk can lead to high rewards. IF GM can pull this off, Jeremey Cato should eat his words.
p.s., I haven’t heard about EESTOR in a while.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Autobloggreen has an interesting article, claims
quote Forster also told reporters that GM wil start building actual prototype Volts with production intent hardware this month and hopes to have 50 cars completed by the end of the year. unquote
That sounds very good for on time delivery, maybe a small fleet of test cars released to the public in early 2010? One can wish.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/09/11/gm-confirms-plans-to-sell-er-evs-in-europe-in-2011-50-volt-prot/#comments
September 11th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Both have it right. These are very different cars and each will have a strong market.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:15 am
#54 The Grump
“… We need demographics on who can afford a Volt …”
Yes, we do, but … first we need to know what it’s really going to cost. We’re heard from “Comfortably under $30K” to “In the $40’s”. Gm has made no statement that “The Volt will cost X US Dollars”. Until we know that number (X), we’re all just guessing.
With trade-in and money I’m saving up, I believe I should be able to realistically afford something in the low, to maybe mid $30K’s (with a small loan, not the $800/mo people have been mentioning in the past threads) when the time comes. But in all honesty … I have no idea because I have no idea what it’s really going to cost.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:19 am
mmcc #30 says,
But on this anniversary of 9/11, I am still extremely pissed at the animals that attacked the USA, and to those who still harbor them behind the veil of “religion”. The sooner I can stop sending money to the middle east the better.
—-
You are not alone thinking that way. I could say more, but you did fine with it.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Honda is right in the short term. BUT, GM is right in the long term.
Hard to believe an American company with long term views
September 11th, 2008 at 9:21 am
#54 Grump.
I am just pointing out that the people on this site are not a good representation of what Americans want. My wife for instance, who could buy the Volt tommorow if it were available, also likes the production model too. I would just suggest that the highschool kids are more likely to define what’s cool in our pop culture nowadays and thats why I noted my daughter in the post.
If all I looked at were this site, I would swear that the Prius was a collossal failure. No one would buy this ugly peice car and Toyo could not give them away. The problem is, In Howard County, MD, I am seeing Prius’ everywhere I look. Clearly the views on this site should not be used for marketing.
I also reiterate my point from yesterday. The volt V1.0 is really not a car for the masses. It is a car to lure more people into chevy dealers. They hope to sell you a Cruze or whatever that little model is they sell. Better yet, now that you showed up you can sit in the Malibu or Impalla. You want a tough looking car, here, sit in the Camaro.
The hope is that people will see GM in a different light. The Volt is a great start. Follow through on the Beat, Cruze and equivalents. Get Two-mode hybrids in more cars. The Volt will help bring people into the showroom who may have never considered GM.
Dealers need to pre-order that 175 foot tall inflateable gorilla with the “electric car is here” sign to install outside of the dealership so they can blow it up at the end of 2011.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:21 am
#9 ..
I hear you man. I love the Volt, but I was hoping for the cool looking Chopped style of the prototype. Having said that, I think the Volt is the better option because the Honda does not change America’s dependence on oil, it only defers it to a later date. The Volt doesn’t either, but it has the potential and gets us ALOT closer to that goal.
#33 NuclearBoy.
Your numbers look great and I agree with your assesment completely, but there is one other wild card that makes me like the Volt over a traditional Hybrid. The Volt does not change our dependence on oil at first, but it makes a MUCH BIGGER step in that direction and it is a platform that has the potential to get us damn near completely off gas usage. In 10 yrs, if you have to buy a new battery pack for your Volt do you think it will carry your car 40 miles on a charge..? 50 miles…? Maybe 70 miles..? As the battery technology evolves, your Volt’s range can grow with it. Assuming GM builds a good platform.
If I decide to buy a Volt I do so knowing the risk, but I also have some hope that my Volt can be given to my daughter in 10 yrs as her college car and it will have a new batter pack that takes her WAAAY beyond 40 miles for a charge. 100 miles would be so assume in 10 yrs..
Just for reference my 2 cars are a 1987 Jeep Grand Wagoneer and a 2001 F150,….. so Yes I do keep cars 10 + yrs. My son is taking the truck to college in 5 yrs.. So I need a new car in 2011ish time frame and the Volt is appealing, but price, government tax incentives and my total distain for how America has become a hostage to gas/oil are all factors.
One last small factor. I HATE going to gas stations. I would love to cruise 1500 miles without stopping. And that is statistically what I expect to get per tank with a Volt.
Go Volt
September 11th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Guys..
Dont get upset about the volt exterior. We havent seen the pics in all the angles. It may look good in flesh than in pics. Please reserve your judgement till you see the VOLT in detail in all the angles.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Im sure they tested the concept and were not imppressed with the results.
Just like cylinder deactivation…ford isnt doing it because they say it doesnt work. Chrysler is doing it claiming it works wonderfully.
The truth: A dodge ram pickup doesnt get any better gas mileage than the ford.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:40 am
JB #43 says,
Wow…it’s amazing how much the Honda insight and Volt look so similar.
———–
Funny. I was thinking how much the Insight looks like the Prius.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:41 am
#35, #36, #57
Agree, they both have it right. THere is no one size fits all auto (Model T RIP). GM should be making both…the Volt and something Insight-like with super high MPG and low price. If everyone drove one or the other we’d probably be able to easily survive on domestic oil production.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:43 am
You must all remember, with the Volt we are cutting use of oil but we are also cutting out the foreign car market (perception of course) but the term “Made in America” can stick with the Volt like glue. Since GM, Ford and yes even Chyrsler have improved quility this may become a powerful term again. Toyota and Nissan can’t ever use that term. It still has power to persuade buyers. With the Volt being built in America and getting off the use of oil, GM has a good marketing tool. Now will they capitalize on it?
September 11th, 2008 at 9:44 am
This is for all who come up with a price tag of $22,000 for a Prius for cost comparision purposes.
That number is published on their website for the base model but is not the reality. Last weekend I was at a local Toyota dealer asking for Prius and he told me the company ships Priuses with some minimum options on them and they have no say over what they get. Since the demand remains so high the customers are waiting in line (8 to 12 months long waitlist in the midewest) to grab whatever they can get after that wait period.
All said and done he said expect to pay between $25,000 and $30,000 when you get your car.
I checked for a used a year or two old Prius with low mileage (first, they are hard to find as no one wants to sell them) and it was the same story - a range of between $25,000 and $30,000.
My point is - coming up with that low price ($22,000) for a Prius skews up the comparision a lot in favor of the Prius.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Any parallel hybrid doesn’t cut it for me, you are better off with a compact car.
For me series hybrid or full EV is the way to go and I will embrace any car that can provide that. In the next 2 years, I could afford a Fisker, but the support network isn’t there. So the Volt it is.
Honda’s proposal for a cheap parallel Hybrid is only an excuse to surf on the green wave. You find better compact car outperforming this car (even within Honda offer).
Close 50 mpg from a 100% ICE isn’t that rare these days and more are coming providing a better offer then the current Pruis or that future Honda (The Cruze being one).
So if you really want to the top green car in 2 years, you need a car that provide more then that, the Volt or any series hybrid will beat that by saying… NO MORE GAS for 95% of your need. If you need to go further, the ICE will top off the battery.
Battery will continu to improve (and fast) meaning in 3 to 4 years, series hybrid will be even more attractive, as for parrallel hybrid, they can’t get much more from the ICE, so as for the next Prius, they had a bigger battery and a plug… hell better go all the way and do a series hybrid….
I want it red.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Dang! That Honda Insight is one Mugly Other!
The production Volt, while incredibly mommyfied with the redesign, is still a lot better looking than the Insight.
My question is … are they going after the right market? Mommies want minivans and typically don’t spend over $25K for a car, no matterwhat. If they’d kept the edgy look they’d attract all those who will spend extra for a sports car, and although the Volt is not supposed to be a sports car it certainly is priced like one and started out with looks to attract that crowd.
Anyway, serial vs parrallel, I say serial because I hate combustion, and although the serial has an ICE, I’m suspecting it will last forever with very little maintenance compared to a normal car. Besides, I’ll drive less than 40 mi/day almost every day so the Volt makes more sense. I think if you frequently drove long distances the Insight might be better even in the long run. Not for me though.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Conventional Japanese philosophy, nothing new to see here. I’m not slamming that by any means; this has served them very well in the past.
If you want a Camry-size vehicle, for 5 people, to perform like the Camry (including range), I think 2 tons is optimistic. But the Honda spokesman clearly does not “get” the all-important Volt premise: Use electric power for the most common type of driving: short range commuting, and use gasoline for the rest.
I don’t think his comments were a slam against the Volt, and GM, as much as they are against Toyota; which has stepped a bit beyond the traditional Asian carmaking wisdom with the plug-in Prius. I think Honda would just love to surpass Toyota as the primo Japanese carmaker; especially by out-Toyota-ing Toyota.
It’s a great big highway out there, there’s room for both approaches, IMO.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:00 am
One thing I noticed in the picture above is that both the Honda and the Volt both are starting to resemble a bullet more. That’s the most aerodynamic shape there is. That’s why the trains in Japan are called bullet trains.
http://www.destination360.com/asia/japan/images/s/japan-train.jpg
I think GM’s designers should get on the computer and look at a lot of different aerodynamic shapes … cars, trains, submarines, jets, fish … whatever. They might just stumble across the perfect design that gets the aerodynamic numbers they’re looking for AND looks good. As cool looking as the Corvette if possible.
Maybe they can use this bullet train as a starting point. They can’t have a pointed nose on the hood for safety reasons though.
http://www.rampantscotland.com/graphics/bullet_train1a.jpg
September 11th, 2008 at 10:13 am
69 frankyB - Exactly what ICE only car gets 50 MPG ? (I’ll have one of what frankyB is drinking - make it two, shaken, with ice)
————————————————————————-
61 NuclearBoy - What I’m trying to say is this:
GM needs to know how many potential Volt buyers in places like Des Moines, IA - Bangor, ME - Winter Garden, FL - Boise, ID - and Sacramento, CA believe the Volt is only a BEV, and only goes 40 miles - period.
I want the Volt to succeed. There is still a lot of misinformation out there - GM needs to know who the potential Volt customers are, where they are, and how much education is needed to get them into the GM dealership to demand a Volt.
The little polls taken here at the GM-Volt.com site don’t mean much, because we wouldn’t be here if we weren’t interested in the Volt. Only a comprehensive nationwide poll can truly assess if the Volt will succeed wildly, or become a niche car like the original Honda Insight.
The new Insight, at $18,000+, is simply too good to pass up. GM needs to wake up and ask the potential customers what they think about the new Volt. Honda already knows it’s customers - “Build a quality car, build it affordable, with good mileage, and sell it at a reasonable price”. That’s why they succeed.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Someone said that the only thing that could kill the electric car was cheap gas.?
http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/topstocks/archive/2008/09/11/the-death-of-opec.aspx
September 11th, 2008 at 10:17 am
They are both correct. GM needs a fantastic Hybrid everyone can afford.
GM also needs the Volt and the technology spread throughout the product lines.
By the way did these guys Honda and GM use the same wind tunnel and software to come up with an aerodynamic shape.
Some one pahleeeze figure out a way to flow air smoothly around muscular wheel wells and wide tires with wheels that have depth and design.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Wow, I’m surprised at Honda’s take on EV’s.
This is very unusual indeed; after all, its the American car companies who are notorious for being short-sighted & known for ignoring market demographics, requiring hefty Federal bail-outs to stay solvent.
Sounds to me like Honda is getting a little to top-heavy.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:20 am
If Honda wants to lose market share its their right.
They could always go back to where they started, selling mopeds.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:22 am
#39 TheGrump - We already import significant natural gas (mostly from Canada). If we converted our fleet to CNG we’d soon be right back in the same boat. That said, CNG for fleet vehicles is a great idea and could play a role in reducing oil imports.
#42 Wgc - if you halve the battery pack you halve the power and battery life. 0-60 in 15 seconds and battery replacement at 75k miles doesn’t cut it.
#48 Statik - do you have a link for 60 mpg Insight? Sounds high considering their architecture. Also, has anyone seen Insight dimensions? I’m pretty sure it will be smaller than Civic; a good niche but probably in a completely different class than Prius, Volt, etc. I can’t find any hard numbers, though.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:29 am
EV technology is a crucial technology that needs to start to be development and perfected. GM is on the right path towards developing and implementing the technology.
The problem, however, lies in the notion that the Volt will not make any significant difference in the transportation over the next 10 years or so. Even though GM is trying to be the leader and the innovator they are failing when it comes to capturing the current market. They need a $20,000 hybrid vehicle like the Prius or Insight to capture the current market that wants an affordable car that will cut their fuel usage in half. They don’t currently have that and the Cruze won’t be coming to NA fast enough and likely won’t offer the fuel economy of a Prius or Insight despite offering very good fuel economy.
Looking towards the future is great but you have to start by establishing a good position in the present.
Many people are concerned with oil consumption and lowering the dependance on foreign oil. It’s not going to happen overnight and it not going to happen with any one product or solution. It will be a slow process which encompasses many products and changes. It starts with what we are seeing now. More fuel efficient vehicles, such as hybrids and other high mileage conventional vehicles. It also starts with drivers altering their consumption patterns to use less fuel. These are the easy things to do. Further innovation will get us closer and the need for “backstop” technology is crucial.
The positive in Toyota and Honda’s approach is that they are developing backstop technology, ie. hybrids. GM is involved in these technologies as well but not to the same degree. Honda and Toyota can work concurrently on EV and hybrid technology and slowly build it up and implement it. GM is going strongly into EV technology and should they fail or not implement it well enough I don’t think they have a very supportive safety net.
I think both Honda and GM are working on positive solutions but with different approaches and different risk and corporate strategies. It will be interesting to see which venture pays off better.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Well, he’s right: electric vehicles are pretty much unsellable. I’ll not buy one, because, frankly, a one-shot handful-of-miles range is very inconvenient and potentially scary. It could be a second commute-only car, but that’s a lot of extra money and space, and just generally lame. Count me out.
But the Volt’s not an EV, and it doesn’t have those problems, while it DOES have an EV’s advantages. So: cool.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:38 am
On Volt Sytling: In 2006 GM made a last-minute decision to launch E-Flex at the 2007 Detroit Show. With no time to build a new car, GM pulled a rolling shell from their concept car pipeline and slapped a cord on it. Originally intended to showcase advanced plastics and such, this impractical schoolboy notebook sketch of a concept was never intended for production. Anyone who thought this design would survive the wind tunnel simply was not paying attention. I said long ago the production Volt would look like a Prius with a couple small styling cues from the concept.
The Volt’s only issue is price. If it really costs $40k+ to build a small, four passenger EREV then Volt and E-Flex are doomed. If $40k is heavily padded (e.g. warranty cost based on 100% battery failure rate) to help get gov’t tax credits, distract competitors, etc. then the Volt’s styling is just fine.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:38 am
I was just curious about the Insight.
If they are selling these in the US in the spring of ‘09 as the official website states, why are they showing a concept car at the Paris autoshow in Oct.?
September 11th, 2008 at 10:41 am
I’m becoming more and more disappointed in Honda. Obviously they know how to make money and they are making advances in EV and fuel cell technology, but why not push this technology to the public rather than swim in ICE profits as long as possible. I am already upset about all of the money they are wasting on the Clarity. I understand that the Clarity earns Honda ZEV credits in CA and gives them green credit, but with the world moving into an energy crisis, why waste money on much more expesive, much less efficient, fuel cell technology when their engineers have to know that EVs are the better solution. Imagine what a company like Tesla Motors could do with all the millions wasted by Honda in leasing their small fleet of Claritys. Anyway, I’ve never owned an American car, but I will now consider GM, even if I can’t afford the Volt, simply because I think they are making the better decision.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:43 am
#33 nuclearboy - Great job of laying out the factors that go into the decision. Just as an aside: The Volt will be way more fun to drive. The Prius and the Insight are\will be somewhat tedious - to make sure the ICE doesn’t kick in immediately during city driving you need a really light foot. Not the end of the world but I’d love to get back to zipping from red lights. LOL
But in the end your decision is not going to have anything to do with what’s in your decision table. The real reason the Volt is going to sell is the tech. In tech the best gets all the attention and the market share, and the Volt will have the cool tech. The financial idea is more like spend $40K and get a cool EV or spend $28K and get yesterday’s battery assist ICE. Lutz has it right — we’re talking desires not needs. For needs a Prius or Insight will do. I want a Volt.
As for numbers, CA is headed for a million homeowners having solar systems on their roofs. These are not cost effective but it’s taking four or five months to get them installed because of the demand. Most things in life are not financially driven.
#68 Vats - Thank you for pointing out the fact that a Prius is $28K. I’m not sure it changes the spread terribly. The Prius at $28K and the Volt at $40K isn’t all that much different than a Prius at $20K and a Volt at $35K. But it’s far more realistic.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Just to clarify…
Honda isn’t losing market share to anyone; they’re taking it away from every other car maker on the planet… including Toyota. And they’re not sitting on their hands either. Honda will introduce a new Fit this Fall, the new hybrid Insight in the Spring, a newly tweaked hybrid Civic is available right about now, a hybrid version of the Fit is coming for 2009, and the sporty CR-Z, possibly in hybrid form, will start production in 2009.
Honda plans to have sales of around 500,000 hybrid units right around the time that Chevy kicks out it’s 10,000th Volt. Now with that many highly efficient Hondas on American roads and so few of the celebrity priced Chevy Volts, who do think will be providing more energy independence to the masses?
September 11th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Honda ICEs are the best and most efficient. So why in the world would they be gung-ho to give up their core competency and primary competitive advantage, which has taken them over half a century to develop, and go to EVs that don’t use ICEs? Do you really think it’s a surprise that Nissan, which has no obvious competitive advantage producing ICE vehicles, is more willing to go with EVs than Honda or Toyota? Winners don’t like to change the rules. No surprise here.
As for which company is right: I’ll just point out that Toyota, which says EVs are “not ready” for prime time, is scrambling to get battery capacity for EVs. Do you listen to what it says or look at what it does?
September 11th, 2008 at 11:03 am
#85 hermant
I love Honda. Yes it’s doing great right now because it, alone of all the car makers, stuck to its mission of making fuel efficient cars.
JMO: Things are changing and Honda is in for some rough going. EVs are the future and Honda has no obvious competitive advantage in EVs. If they stick with the ICEs too long they will be in trouble.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Saw this on the Autobloggreen site…..
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/09/11/gm-confirms-plans-to-sell-er-evs-in-europe-in-2011-50-volt-prot/
“Forster also told reporters that GM wil start building actual prototype Volts with production intent hardware this month and hopes to have 50 cars completed by the end of the year.”
They better keep these 50 on the test track.
Now, if one was left unlocked, running while an engineer stepped into a Dunkin’ Donuts….(heh, heh, heh…exxcellent….)
Edit: I now see that #56 Ziv beat me to posting this tidbit. Nevermind.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Honda has seldom been accused of being innovative. They tend to sit back, allowing others to innovate and then improve upon the work of others. There is nothing wrong with this. It is just a different way of doing business and Honda has been very successful.
GM, on the other hand, really has to take a chance with a “game changer” if they are going to survive beyond the short term.
So, I agree with others. Both companies are right! Time will be the best judge of who had the best game (business) plan. I hope it is GM!
September 11th, 2008 at 11:11 am
The answer depends on how you look at it…
Engineering wise, I believe GM has it right. I embrace the E-REV powertrain because you have the potential of charging the battery however you want. On-grid electricity, power from your solar panels, ICE, rotary engine, fuel cell, treadmill, wind power, geothermal, etc… And, personally, I like the idea of an all-electric powertrain because of the instant torque and demand. The potential driving experience of this powertrain has yet to be tapped for the average American.
Financially, Honda has it right. Despite public perception, Honda is a very innovative company. They develop their own technology but they don’t use it until they prove the technology is more reliable and less expensive then their counterparts. With the Insight, it looks like they waited until they could produce a cheaper parallel hybrid than the Prius along with better fuel efficiency. Also, Honda doesn’t have to create an expensive advertising public campaign to explain how the parallel hybrids work and try to change the market like GM will have to do with the Volt for the E-REV powertrain. By the time Honda creates their cars, they fully understand the market.
So, time will tell…
September 11th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Why doesn’t GM just lease the batteries? Renault/Nissan and Diamler are both considering leasing battery packs already. http://www.betterplace.com claims that the Nissan/NEC Li-Ion packs that have 125 mile range in the 5 passenger Renault EV sedans can be leased for about $0.06/mile (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spF618DcWkI&feature=related at about the 3 minute mark). With a 12k miles per year lease, that would only be a $60/month lease for the Nissan battery, and since the Volt pack is smaller, it should be even cheaper. Without including the cost of 2 battery packs in the cost of the Volt, they should be able to undercut the price of the Prius and maybe even the Insight and the gasoline savings alone would more than cover the battery lease price compared to a Prius or Insight. If leasing the batteries allows them to make the car cheaper to own and to operate than current hybrids, then they could really turn the tables.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:13 am
The end is near.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Gm is doing three or foursiffernt hybrids or fiver including FCEVs.
Two of those those duplicate the Honda approachs for simple hybrids and FCEVs.
So if Honda is correct, then so is GM. If GM succeeds with its advanced approaches, Honda loses.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:19 am
#14 Norman D. Robinson Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 6:41 am
“I will still go with the “Volt” over the Honda. However, I’m still very upset about the possible styling of the production version of this long awaited car.
Everytime I look at the posted PICS it upsets me knowing what we started out with (Concept). Why does this car have to look so…!!!??!!!”
“Why does this car have to look so…!!!??!!!” Is that a real question or more of a complaint? If you been reading the info on this site you would know that the severe requirements of aero absolutely dictate the current styling. I was thinking that perhaps in the future when the batteries become more robust and there is an abundance of energy in this car, the design can be less focused on aero and more on pure style. But then, maximizing energy use will always be on the table and so these cars will always be (to a greater degree than less) about slicing through the air with the greatest of ease.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Honda finally has it right because they are actively pursuing HEVs, particularly the new Insight sedan. GM has it right because they are designing and building the Volt, plus 2 mode hybrids, improved BAS hybrids and more hybrids overall.
We do NEED more hybrids.
We do NEED factory PHEVs.
We do NEED factory EVs, even if the range is only 100-150 miles.
GM, Honda and others have it right because they appear finally committed to building better cars, and by better I mean cars that burn less gas.
There are no panaceas on the horizon, but so what? Do better. Build better. Try harder. Continue to improve. Those are the signs of a company that’s got it right.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Good pictures. Now add the Prius and Honda Clarity. Nothing like the Volt concept there. Why? Because the Volt concept is not an intelligent technical design for a car that has the Volt’s objectives. Toyota, Honda and GM all know that the laws of physics yield a limited number of shapes for good aerodynamic performance.
Also, by the way, the Volt is arguably the best looking of the lot. In any case, even if you do not agree (beauty is in the eye …), in the looks department, it competes.
Remember Bill Clinton’s “It’s the economy, stupid”? Well, it’s the battery technology and cost, …
September 11th, 2008 at 11:31 am
I just spent the morning watching the memorial ceremonies for the 7th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Gob Bless all of the casualties and their families.
TheGrump@39 said in part
“…4) Would you PLEASE stop saying LJGTVWOTR ? No matter how many times you post this, it’s NOT going to speed up the Volt’s launch date - 26 months to go is still 26 months to go, no matter how many times to (SIC) say LJGTVWOTR…”
And this is what bothers you??? Maybe you’d “feel better” at Autobloggreen.com. You won’t have to suffer the heartbreak of seeing LJGTVWOTR.
Regarding hybrids vs the Volt: I still believe that using no gasoline is always better than using some gasoline (let the flames begin - it ain’t going to change that fact).
Be well,
Tag
No plug, no sale. LJGTVWOTR!!
LJGTVWOTR!!
LJGTVWOTR!!
LJGTVWOTR!!
LJGTVWOTR!!
LJGTVWOTR!!
LJGTVWOTR!! (Once for each of the 7 years since 9/11)
September 11th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Tag, let’s not get our knickers in a bunch, there bud
Instead, LJGTVWOTR. (sorry ’bout that, Grump). A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step — and that step is Volt 1.0. (my apologies to Confucius).
September 11th, 2008 at 11:37 am
We should each do what we can to help reduce our use of petroleum based products, namely gasoline and diesel. The Volt will not be in volume production until 2013 or later. In the meantime I see no problem with a person buying a Prius or Honda Insight if it enables them to greatly reduce fuel consumption. If those cars are unavailable at the time, buy a high-mileage car to tide you over until the Volt is available to you. Continuing driving a gas guzzler (like I drive) is not going to reduce your consumption of fuel. If we, as a nation and as an individual, are committed to reducing fuel consumption maybe we should start a process where we “junk” our current vehicles in favor of higher mileage vehicles. That would cost money, I understand that. I am going to do just that. I drive a 2000 Nissan Crew Cab pickup that gets 16 mpg. As soon as I can next year, if not sooner, I am going to purchase a car (Chevy, Honda or Toyota) that will be much more fuel efficient. I expect to double my mpg numbers, but it will be more expensive than keeping the pickup on the road and buying fuel for it. But, I am committed to reducing my consumption even to the point of spending money (in the thousands) over what I have to to get to and from work and to travel as I need. Question is, are you?
September 11th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Who here thinks that when Honda publicly states that they don’t currently find battery technology ready for public transportation use that it means that they don’t PLAN to integrate battery technology when it IS ready? They have been in the right place at the right time too often for any of us to underestimate their strategic vision.
Honda’s business model has never required them to “bleed” money in order to benefit from the “cutting edge” R&D that companies like GM perform. They probably already have a secret name on Lyle’s list to get one of the first Chevy Volts and will immediately take it apart, figure out exactly how it works, and quickly produce a better, more reliable and cheaper version. That’s what they’ve always done!
So the answer to the question about which approach is “right” must be BOTH! GM has the right to lead the costly R&D effort to produce the world’s first E-REV and Honda has the right to profit from it.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:41 am
David @ 94:
Aero restrictions DID NOT dictate the design of this Volt.
The aero performance/design of this specific car was dictated by a single specific functional limitation, namely 40 MPC.
Why 40 MPC was written in stone on a tablet is another question. Someone else needs to answer that.
We need to at least put credit/blame where credit/blame is due.
Sorry for being so difficult. But this argument sticks in my crawl.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:41 am
9 Norman D. Robinson.
Drag on a 500 hp car with a full tank of gas is not even relevant. It could be an antimatter brick (and probably is) and it wouldn’t make a difference.
_____________________________________
47 Mike-Ro
51 Gsned57
Tesla -All aluminum frame
- All carbon fiber body
- 2 seater
900 pound battery pack plus weight of advanced controllers.
___________________________________
54, 73 The Grump.
Good points.
10,000 Volts produced in 2010 initially.
INITIAL DEMOGRAPHICS = ALL SOLD OUT
2011 - 2020 = New models on the e-flex platform and incrementally improved Volts.
_________________________________
56 Ziv
Why do so many folks think they can have a hand built prototype Volt (doesn’t meet FMVSS, not crash tested) that would expose GM to massive lawsuits and public ridicule of their pre-production shortcomings
September 11th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Interestingly enough, Honda is planning to sell Li-ion motorbikes next year:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/09/report-honda-ya.html#more
#91 Blake - leasing does not change cost. It just changes the timing of the payments.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:48 am
#100 hermant: “Honda’s business model has never required them to “bleed” money in order to benefit from the “cutting edge” R&D that companies like GM perform.”
They’re bleeding plenty on fuel cells. That’s Honda’s moon shot.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Honda has to say that they will never build an electric car. Right up until the day that they build an electric car. Because Honda needs to continue selling Insights while REEV technology gets developed and finds it’s own niche in the market. They don’t want people to get in the “no plug, no sale” mentality of waiting a few years to buy a car. They want to sell you an Insight next year, and then an REEV or pure-EV in 2012+.
When they do finally bring out an REEV, I’m certain they will make a very nice one. Perhaps one that uses one of their ultra-quiet high efficiency portable generator motors that they have already developed.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Improving car efficiency is good no matter how you do it. However, I think GM and others are heading in the right direction by developing electric cars. I see a wide variety of electric cars in different price ranges coming to market in the next few years. If an affordable commuter is all you need, there will be a variety of 2-seater electric cars available. If you want an electric family sedan, the Volt will be the first and best choice. We also have to remember that breakthrough battery technologies such as EEStor may be on the horizon and will end the debate about battery performance.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
MetrologyFirst @ 101:
I guess I don’t follow you. Are you saying that the 40 MPC was a random choice and with a lower number the design/styling could be different? I thought that the 40 MPC was chosen because that would accommodate 75-80% of daily commuters. And with that goal, the final design had to take that into account.
Help me out with your argument. Thanks.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Kato doesn’t get it. 16 KWH is a magic number for battery. The power from the overnight wall outlet charge is about this number. So, EREV is the way to go. A pure EV might need special electrical outlet to charge the battery.
The selling price of Volt would be about $20k after rebate. The battery cost for GM is about $3500. That is based on the $10k battery replacement cost. The battery would cost a dealer $5k and it would cost GM about $3500. Or, $2k is the cost of 300 cells, plus $1500 for the housing. So, Malibu -2.4 L – transmission +1.4L + AC motor + 2x battery -$7k rebate= $20k. Also, from the production Volt picture, it looks like a $20k car.
100