Despite all of the abysmal financial issues plaguing GM and the “important changes” to business operations GM CEO Rick Wagoner plans to announce on Friday, GM continues to push ahead with the Volt program.
Multiple sources have stated that with all the slashing going on at GM, the Volt program and budget remains unchanged. In fact there is good evidence GM is actually continuing to work on a portfolio of future E-Flex vehicles.
Reuters is reporting that GM will be developing a range of plug-in vehicles to follow the Volt launch in 2010. These include a Cadillac luxury E-Flex and a Chevy with “SUV styling”.
Supporting this report is a recent exchange I had with E-Flex lead designer Bob Boniface:
Can you say anything about other E-Flex vehicles besides the Volt that you are designing now?
No…well I’m working on some other derivative concepts that use this powertrain. That’s all I can say. And they’re not four door Chevys. In other words, we’re playing with brand and were playing with category.
Nov 5th, 2008 (7:29 pm)wooooooooooooooooooooooo, first………all I gots take care all!!!
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (7:44 pm)the front of whatever that thing is is how the the volt should have been designed. way sweeter.
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (7:47 pm)Here’s what I see that must happen to save GM:
* Their retiree and health benefits are turned over to the federal government. Without that, there’s no way a smaller, more aggressive GM can survive.
* The federal government gives them billions to merge with Chrysler, or:
* The federal government gives them billions without Chrysler.
* People actually start buying more of their cars.
I’m thinking no amount of free-marketeer-bailout-GM Republican talking head can make that last one work.
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (7:52 pm)That vehicle is very beautiful.
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (7:58 pm)Campy:
Saturn Flextreme Concept
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (7:59 pm)The future is now…this is just the beginning of real innovation.
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (8:10 pm)Chevy with “SUV styling”
_____________________________
What in the world does that mean?
Will it have the aerodynamics of a brick with unnecessarily high ground-clearance and large aggressive tires?
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (8:23 pm)#7 John
I agree. What a strange way to say, “We are going to produce an E-Rev with an SUV body style”.
Chevy already has SUV’s so this is nothing new.
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (8:26 pm)Well I am certainly willing to do whatever little I can to help to make this happen. Many have offered to put up deposits. How about something like that? Every little bit helps, and it would generate some buzz, IMHO.
I had sort of given up on this but, if the Cruze is going to be delayed, how about on expanding on the XFE theme for the Cobalt and the Aveo? Better auto transmissions? Belt hybrids? Aero tweaks? All of the other stuff which has helped the mileage of the stick XFE Cobalt? Sorry guys, my wife is past her stick shift phase. This stuff is relatively cheap, quick and effective. How about some mileage bragging rights? For what it cost to develop the Cobalt SS, I bet GM engineers could get some really useful gas mileage.
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (8:30 pm)#9, Noel Park, All those things make very good sense. Inexpensive, low-risk upgrades that would make GM’s cars more attractive to consumers and command higher prices TODAY. Not happening. GM must be run by idiots.
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (8:32 pm)Wait, I’m confused….
With gasoline prices hovering around $2.50/gallon right now, should’nt we be buying those 15 mpg SUV’s again?
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (8:34 pm)Again, another beautiful concept pictured at the top of this thread…
When will GM ever get the simple fact, that if they build these exciting cars the people will buy them.
As I have said many times before…I have e mailed GM, left my personal number and told them (obviously on deaf old school management that runs the once great company into the dirt)
Build the awesome , beautiful amazing concepts. I don’t want them to fail but if they do….it’s from their own sword.
Build the concepts guys. It’s now or never. Wake up!
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (8:51 pm)There is a formal accounting aspect to the “multiple E-REV cars under development” reports we have received from GM from time to time. It involves how the sums of money used to develop the Volt are recorded on GM’s books.
In particular, so long as GM can convince auditors that E-REV is an intellectual asset that will be used for multiple product lines, the dollar sums involved in EREV development can be kept on the books as an asset, just as if GM had purchased a piece of real property. The idea is that the asset can gradually be sold to customers (car by car).
Recording the development costs as an asset keeps them from being counted as expenses, quarter by quarter. At the moment minimizing expenses and maximizing assets obviously is critical to GM, and there’s lots of money involved here, as the asset can properly include a part of everyone’s time who has some relationship to E-REV..
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (9:01 pm)Did you ever look at the execs pay packages and the market share clause in them ? Plus the last time a government nationalized an entire industry the exepay went to $200,000.00 with no frills . I wounder if the credit chrunch in the auto industry is internal or external . As internal would be trying to influance the market and get more pay at the stock holders cost . As a stock holder I would look at this in poor light .
GOD BLESS
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (9:01 pm)I just wish GM would take a chance and actually put something out that had a new (and possibly radically new) design like the picture above.
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (9:03 pm)This makes sense. Use the high-end Cadillac E-flex to offset the price of the lower-end Volt. Pretty much, Caddy owners partially pay for other’s Volts, but for their trouble get a lot better styling and luxury. The way things are looking, I would not be surprised if GM’s lineup in ten years was 80% E-flex and 20% trucks and vans, possibly through a Chevrolet sub-brand. It would be killing a LOT of brands, but GM would be out of the shadow of the gas-guzzlers by no longer making any of them under their own logo.
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (9:05 pm)I think the application of E-Rev to any ‘non-traditional’ platfrom…ie) any non compact vehicle is a no brainer.
Who doesn’t want a EV Truck, SUV or van? Who cares if it only goes 25 miles as compared to 40 in a aerodynamic small architecture?
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (9:14 pm)Hopefully the “important changes” they announce tomorrow includes GM Chief Executive Rick Wagoner stepping down!
Great news if Lyle’s sources are right that the Volt program will continue regardless of any other changes!
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (9:44 pm)nuclearboy #15
That looks very close to the flexstream which GM will produce. Unless it has aero problems etc it might look very close to the concept.
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (9:49 pm)Look at those wheels. Will it be called the Saturn Max?
http://garfwod.250free.com/Photos/NaziIronCross.jpg
=D~
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (9:57 pm)I’D ADVISE YOU KEEP THE SYTLES YOU HAVE. THE SKY AND SOLSTACE ARE BEAUTIFUL.
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (10:06 pm)Isn’t anyone listening?
Does anyone here want to drive a high tech, over priced, ground effects, belly drag’r?
Where is the basic small SUV electric car? A car with mainstream features and options. A car that one wouldn’t know used electric power except for the quiet ride and never moving gas gauge.
Is this so difficult to make? Too much profit in this? What seems to be the problem?
=D~
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (10:20 pm)I always thought that car looked better then the Volt and much more realistic – except for the stupid segue scooters they had in the back. If my beater keeps running and the Flextreme concept car comes out in 2012 I might buy that instead of the Volt if it has the same 40 AER.
I’m thinking we will see a 2 seater sports car as well. Saturn Sky EREV would be sweet.
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (10:21 pm)Here’s what I see that must happen to save GM:
* Their retiree and health benefits are turned over to the federal government. Without that, there’s no way a smaller, more aggressive GM can survive.
—————————————————————————
“Turned over the the federal government” is a nice way of saying force the taxpayers to pay for it. Why should I be taxed to pay pensions and healthcare to GM’ers, over and above Social Security and Medicare, which everybody gets.? Nobody is giving me any of those extras. Why are GM people special privileged characters?
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (10:47 pm)I think this is great GM needs to get EVs of all models on the road, the sooner the better, the sooner we get off the dependency of oil the better the country will be and the better GM will be so they can start selling cars again
Lyle, thank you for that last post, a lot of us had to vent and you were smart enough to let us do it and get it out of our systems, I’m not a Obama supporter but Obama is now our President to be and we as Americans must get behind him and get our country going
NO PLUG, NO SALE, GO OBAMA, GM JGTVWOTR
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (11:06 pm)Casey #25
“I think this is great GM needs to get EVs of all models on the road, the sooner the better”
*** *** ***
I agree. If GM can deliver several models while most car companies are working to develop their first, they can get a real jump on the EV market. Planning and delivering are two different things however.
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (11:17 pm)This is why GM, Ford and many others unfortunately earned their defeat:
They should have learned by now they should simply send the damn “SUV” name to freaking hell. These guys do not realize that Tahoe, Mustang, Charger, etc is what is getting them torwards misery? Forget SUV, folks. Even if it is electrical, it is still too heavy and no one actually needs them. I expected that those ugly Mustangs, “rebirth” of Chargers and few other gas guzzling out of fashion vehicles would just bring distraction to American companies.
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (11:20 pm)Listen and listen good. If you can not survive in the free market you should not survive. Its a simple concept really. Oops but I forgot you leftist Stalinist are fond of telling us what we should like and buy.
B.O. gets the same treatment the left gave Bush. Too bad. You started it. Now you get to eat some yourself.
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (11:40 pm)firsty nice job on the chevy volt production model, despite what other people in forums have stated, i think the prototype dosent look anywhere near as good! few questions for you tho:
when will this be available to us here in australia?
australians LOVE there rear wheel drives, will there be a RWD variant for people who like cars that actually handle? (after all BMW got it right with there tv adverts that state “the best way to propel an object is from the rear”) plus a bit of drift action is always fun – unless the car is front wheel drive, then its a nightmare!
and question 3 last but not least, i have email chev to no avail asking them why the EV1 had a better range????? <- anyone answer this one???
im not bagging chev one bit, think the volt looks great and cant wait to buy one, CSIRO here in australia has managed to creat a super efficient battry that does away with the need for titanium, and uses a composit plastic instead, this should bring down the main price factor in the volt!
Definatley a step in the right direction chevy, but if you dont hurry up and get this thing on the road its going to be obsoleet before it hits the streets, every major car manufactor is on either the E-REV, EV, or PHEV train at present moment and with 40mile range, – put it this way would get me to work (32klms) but wouldnt get me home on pure ev alone. PLEASE build us a car that will get us aussies 100 klm range on elec alone – stuey
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (11:40 pm)GM just put a ditty up on their ‘fastlane blog’ and the first time I have seen GM acknowledge the likelyhood they may cease to exist.
Here is the quote:
—-
“You see a lot of discussion in the news – and even in the comments of this and other blogs – about the state of the domestic auto industry and what the current economy means for the industry’s future. Some of you have even expressed the belief that this is something GM and the US industry brought on ourselves, and that the domestic industry should be allowed to fail. “So what if Detroit goes down,” the thinking seems to go. “It doesn’t affect me.” However, the reality may very well be that it does affect you.
The Center for Automotive Research has just released a study that examines the potential ramifications of two scenarios involving significant downsizing of the Big Three, and what such a development could mean to the larger economy. We didn’t write or fund this report… but we thought that you should see it, because it might make you think of things you hadn’t before.”
http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives/2008/11/food_for_thought_-_automotive_downsizing_and_how_it_could_affect_the_economy.html
As always from the the PR department at GM, no author associated with it, the CAR report can be found here:
http://www.cargroup.org/documents/FINALDetroitThreeContractionImpact_3__001.pdf
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (11:42 pm)statik, can you cut and post it here mate?
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (11:42 pm)If the other electric plug-in they’re referring to is the Chevrolet Orlando crossover with the SUV styling, I’d be tempted to skip the Volt and go for that instead. Its styling successfully combines high-techy electric with SUV.
That’s what’s great about GM’s concept vehicles: their styling is usually what would work on a production car (okay, no debates on the concept/production Volt, please
). This is in contrast to what some of the other ridiculous stuff you see from other, ahem, unnamed car companies *Cough*, google nissan pivo, *Cough*.
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (11:45 pm)#28 Freemon
Nobody hates how the left bashed Bush for the last eight years whether it was deserved or not more than me, but that was yesterdays blog, let it go, don’t lower yourself to that level, lets get back to the most important subject getting the Volt on the road.
NO PLUG, NO SALE, NO WAY, LJGTVWOTR
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (11:48 pm)anyword yet on final MPG while ICE is running?
(Quote)
Nov 5th, 2008 (11:56 pm)After the VoltNation event at the NY Auto Show this March, a couple of us walked over to where a gorgeous red Saturn Flextreme E-REV (like the photo at the top) was prominently displayed. By contrast to even the concept Volt, it made me weak in the knees —good thing it wasn’t for sale or I might have bought it on the spot! This incredible design comes from Opel, like the extremely successful VUE, and I’m really hoping Opel/Saturn will build it!!!
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (12:07 am)Just another plug for a wagon body style of some sort. My criteria for buying a car is I have to be able to fit a bicycle in the back, preferably without removing the front wheel. A small-ish wagon, maybe with a seat folded down, can accomplish that.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (12:30 am)36 Jake
Well you wont get a bike in the back of the Flextreme
But it does have a built in drive on:off storage receptacle for a pair of Segways!!
I thought that was cool- I love Segs, and they are kind of a fitting companion to E-Flex
WopOnTour
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (12:51 am)look at all the room in a suv or pickup to hold extra batteries not cost worthy yet but soon I hope
NO PLUG NO SALE
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (1:01 am)Guys,
Take a Vallium..
We should know by now that cars we have never seen before(like the one above) are cars that we may never see again.
But it is stylish..
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (1:24 am)I think if they ever get the Volt out and get some experience behind it technology will catch up and EV cars will be just as good as gas cars are now, probably better, at least quieter, (is quieter a word?) and no oil changes, boy am I waiting for that
NO PLUG NO SALE, LJGTVWOTR, =D—
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (5:16 am)29 Stuey
and question 3 last but not least, i have email chev to no avail asking them why the EV1 had a better range????? <- anyone answer this one???
That’s easy. GM took out half the battery and wacked in an extra two seats, so now it’s a four seater and not two. Looks better as well IMHO.
PLEASE build us a car that will get us aussies 100 klm range on elec alone – stuey
Hey good news, it already exists, It’s called the Tesla Roadster, like the EV1 it has only two seats. 350km range as well, it’s all good mate.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (5:35 am)Statik #30
Thanks Statik(s), it amazes me that you (both) have this time to find all the gems (of information) you get on the web.
I think Lyle and a some bloggers like Statik, Nasaman, RB , NZdavid, tagamet, etc should write a book in a few month on the evolution of this blog and the economic conditions in which it has grown.
NPNS
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (5:42 am)Nasaman #35,
Right Nasaman and if you are interested here are pictures of the new Opel Meriva, don’t you find some close characterics with the Opel Flextreme concept ?
http://forum.avtoindex.com/viewtopic.php?t=14851
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (7:04 am)Emo car is pensive.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (7:11 am)#30 statik — on GM statement and CAR report
=======================================
Thank you for these excellent links. It is jolting to see such an explict recognition by GM of a situation that you and everyone have been pointing out for months if not years.
The timing of the shift obviously is political, and the message is that a collapse must be avoided by a big infusion of federal government funds, the right course of action for Obama.
There is another side. Although the report presents the Detroit industry framed as “if not us, nothing”, it ignores a number of other auto companies already operating US assembly plants, which would expand if Detroit ended. More realistically, a C11 or even C7 filing likely would lead to some other company, including cores of the existing ones, picking up the healthy pieces in some refashioned form after shedding most of the debt load. For example, GM truck operations probably could be a huge and profitable company all by themselves.
I personally hope that GM finds a way to continue on, make parts for my truck, and soon build the Volt. However experience teaches one to be cautious about government intervention, which has and will have unanticipated consequences.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (7:36 am)I would guess the Orlando would be the SUV thing they were talking about. Making a Caddy one, I think would be over kill.
As far as Expanding the XFE on the Cobalt with the auto, I think it would be to work to put into it when 1-2 years later it will be redesigned. The are currently putting all the 6 speed autos they can build into the Malibu, G6, Aura, Impala and the new SUVs. Once they get the plant up in running here in the U.S. to build the 6 speed it will be easier to put it into more vehicles.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (8:04 am)I’m glad to see GM is expanding the E-REV platform. Although there is a market for 4 passenger sedans, there is also a big market in the US for utility vehicles like SUV’s and pickups.
And why do people buy SUV’s? Because GM makes them extremely comfortable, safe, and reliable. They are also very practical, from carrying 7 or 8 people (the soccer mom scenario) to hauling firewood, bark mulch, building supplies, etc. (with or without a trailer). When it snows, you have good ground clearance and the option for 4WD. They have one major drawback; they use too much fuel.
I can envision smaller SUV’s (Cadillac Provoq) and even a small pickup based on the E-REV concept. This allows for 4WD, more passenger and utility capability, and still probably a reasonable AER (maybe 30 instead of 40). Now these vehicles will use a 1.4L engine operated at its best efficiency, in lieu of a 5.0 to 6.0 liter engine which spends most of its time operating at low load (low efficiency).
Seems like a winning concept to me.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (8:07 am)Of course they will build other models based on the E-REV design platform. It would be silly to think anything else.
How the manufacturers stay alive until they can get them out the door is the real question at this point.
There is going to be pain felt by people, whether they are retirees, or current employees, I think that much is pretty clear.
But I sure hope it works out…..
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (8:32 am)#3Lurtz Says: Here’s what I see that must happen to save GM:
* Their retiree and health benefits are turned over to the federal government. Without that, there’s no way a smaller, more aggressive GM can survive.
—————————————————————————
#24 Tom Harwick Says: “Turned over the the federal government” is a nice way of saying force the taxpayers to pay for it. Why should I be taxed to pay pensions and healthcare to GM’ers, over and above Social Security and Medicare, which everybody gets.? Nobody is giving me any of those extras. Why are GM people special privileged characters?
—————————————–
GM Retiree health care is already gone (Jan 2009).
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (8:42 am)#42 Jean-Charles Jacquemin
Thanks Statik(s), it amazes me that you (both) have this time to find all the gems (of information) you get on the web.
I think Lyle and a some bloggers like Statik, Nasaman, RB , NZdavid, tagamet, etc should write a book in a few month on the evolution of this blog and the economic conditions in which it has grown.
NPNS
——————————–
Thanks. Your killing me with the plurality of my existence reference though…still just one of me, hehe.
Here is a link to a short CNBC piece about the ‘closed door meeting’ with Pelosi this morning:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?play=1&video=920934217&__source=yahoo%7Cheadline%7Cquote%7Cvideo%7C&par=yahoo
First on the agenda is the current ‘25 billion retooling loans’…which is now widely accepted to be lifeblood cash. Detroit automakers have already got the process put on the fast track for payout (got it done in less than a month, must be some kind of record). The problem now is the wording of the deal, as it was written as originally intended.
Because the deal was asked for as a ‘loan for retooling/to be competitive,’ and not as bailout, there are conditions that have to be met to gain access.
The first is, “Can you reasonably be expected to pay it back”? In GM’s case…not likely to get the nod there. Then there are basic balance sheet asset requirements…that GM can’t meet. And lastly, the money has to spend on actual expenses AFTER the application has been filed…and GM has canceled all R&D, save for the Volt through 2010, so thats kind of a problem.
Can Pelosi still get the money out without fufillment of the legislation? It is supposed to be ‘progress payments,’ can they avoid that too? I don’t know…I confess my knowledge of the US governance system for financial aid is lacking. Maybe someone else can fill that in.
I wager the second item on the agenda is the implementation of the second ‘25 billion’ that Obama campaigned under, (now with no strings)…they probably will use the word ‘urgently’ as many times as possible.
They should be carrying a lot of weight to the meeting as all 3 CEOs are there WITH Gettelfinger (president of the autoworkers). We might see some kind of plea to offload worker costs as well, hard to say.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (8:44 am)#30 statik
As always from the the PR department at GM, no author associated with it, the CAR report can be found here:
http://www.cargroup.org/documents/FINALDetroitThreeContractionImpact_3__001.pdf
——————————-
The report was authored by the Center for Automotive Research’s David Cole, Ph.D., Chairman
Sean McAlinden, Ph.D., Vice President for Research
Kristin Dziczek, Senior Project Manager
Debra Maranger Menk, Project Manager
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (8:58 am)Just as an info :
Toyota has just annouced that it will reduce its production by more than 500,000 vehicles worldwide from now until March 2009.
Link :
http://www.rtbf.be/info/societe/entreprises/toyota-reduit-sa-prevision-de-profit-annuel-de-plus-de-50-54289.
NPNS
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (8:59 am)#49 kdawg
GM Retiree health care is already gone (Jan 2009).
————————-
Responsibilty is gone directly…there is still the nagging issue of actaully funding VEBA.
The UAW already delayed 1.7 billion of payments this July (which they still owe…and are currently paying NINE percent interest on) and they owe another 5.3 in 2010.
Thats 7 billion they need in 14 months. I mentioned this in the last post, but it is possible that if the ‘25 billion retooling’ money is found to be inaccessible to GM to keep the lights on, perhaps they can get the gov’t to allocate it direct to VEBA? That is sorta a ‘investment in the future’–splitting hairs, but you never know. The UAW certainly would be tickled pink to get that, and GM would like to get that responsibility away from them.
That is just a WAG…but the 7 billion they owe is almost exactly GM’s share of this ‘retooling’25 billion.
/just saying
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (9:06 am)FOX NEWS – Big three Automakers and UAW to meet with Nancy Pelosi today to discuss another 25 Billion Loan on top of the 25 Billion already approved.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (9:07 am)#47 BillR says “I’m glad to see GM is expanding the E-REV platform.”
===================================
Yes, me too. It’s good to keep in mind that what is being done is limited to concept and perhaps preliminary design, which (as noted in #13) may be more for accounting reasons than production intent. Hard to tell with all the smoke and mirrors. But we have not seen much action toward production even for the Volt, so production of any others is way out there on the time line, apparently.
With the Volt delays, I am beginning to think of it more as political symbolism than a real car. Hope that is wrong.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (9:10 am)#30 statik says,
http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives/2008/11/food_for_thought_-_automotive_downsizing_and_how_it_could_affect_the_economy.html
As always from the the PR department at GM, no author associated with it, the CAR report can be found here:
http://www.cargroup.org/documents/FINALDetroitThreeContractionImpact_3__001.pdf
——————————-
#51 kdawg says,
The report was authored by the Center for Automotive Research’s David Cole, Ph.D., Chairman
Sean McAlinden, Ph.D., Vice President for Research
Kristin Dziczek, Senior Project Manager
Debra Maranger Menk, Project Manager
————————–
Your right, that read funny.
What I meant was that the GM fastlane blog link above my comment had no author at GM…not the CAR report below. The CAR report was obviously put out by the Center for Automotive Research, hehe.
This has no author (not the CAR report)
http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives/2008/11/food_for_thought_-_automotive_downsizing_and_how_it_could_affect_the_economy.html
/sorry about the confusion
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (9:16 am)statik asks “Can Pelosi still get the money out without fufillment of the legislation? It is supposed to be ‘progress payments,’ can they avoid that too? I don’t know…I confess my knowledge of the US governance system for financial aid is lacking. Maybe someone else can fill that in.”
=========================================
She can’t do it by herself, but the Congress sets the rules, and they can spend money on anything they want under any plan they decide. Pelosi has the advantage that the House (her turf) generally originates spending bills, and she an Obama will command a majority. Getting it through the Senate and the President very quickly will be harder, as usually Senators ask for things in return, which takes a while to work out. What President Bush will do at this point is a real wild card — he may prefer to push it all over to Obama’s term, as a GM bailout is not going to be popular in much of the rest of the country (my guess is that there will be not so much “in principle” opposition as people who will ask “why just Ohio and Michigan, why not us too?”).
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (9:21 am)Regarding improved battery technology for BEV’s and E-Flex type vehicles, has anyone else here heard of these two companies ?
http://microbubbletech.com/CNTbattery.html
http://www.electriccitymotors.com/
I stumbled upon these the other day.
I was wondering if their claimed technology has been verified by a 3rd party. If so, it would seem logical to me that they might partner with FireFly…
http://www.fireflyenergy.com/
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (9:46 am)Lurtz Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Here’s what I see that must happen to save GM:
* Their retiree and health benefits are turned over to the federal government. Without that, there’s no way a smaller, more aggressive GM can survive.
What???????
Why on earth should those of us who have no Retirement or Health Benefits pay to support GM retirees Benefits?????????
The UAW should kick in the money. They are the ones who agreed to contracts and promised benifits without getting the company to set any money aside to pay for them. Bankrup the UAW to pay the benifits.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (10:03 am)a two Door volt derivative? I can only hope.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (10:04 am)Everyone (especially GM management) should read Vincent’s message (#12). That says it all. The Volt concept was a breath of fresh air. The Volt production is a fart, and in fact, an expensive fart. The concept car pictured above is sharp, but by the time GM produces it, it will become dull. Its amazing to think GM produces the Corvette, which is consistently a world class car and a good seller, but somehow GM doesn’t transfer this type of thinking onto the rest of its lines. I am not referring to the Corvette’s sportiness, but rather it’s exciting and unique styling, as well as its mechanics. And more importantly, its priced very aggressively for its class. If GM was able to drop the Cadillac price by 10%, it might take market share. Business is easy: match exciting styling with dependability and aggressive pricing – and the economic crisis for GM will be over! Anyone listening?
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (10:11 am)I have not read everyone’s comments yet, but I want to say that if GM would build the Flex vehicle as shown by the picture above, they could sell them like hot cakes. That is a distinctive vehicle that is also beautiful. Get them made, GM.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (10:12 am)I keep seeing more & more electric cars, windmills, and other green technologies. I’m wondering when this bubble will burst. At least we will come out w/some new technologies.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (10:20 am)#11 Guy
“With gasoline prices hovering around $2.50/gallon right now, should’nt we be buying those 15 mpg SUV’s again?”
——————————-
Well, it would be nice if they could sell all of the big SUVs and trucks on the dealer’s lot and the ones already made. That would add a lot of cash to GM’s bank account.
As Noel Park (#9) pointed out, it would seem GM should be looking at simple design changes to increase mileage. That would help, but they must increase quality. Labor and management have got to find ways to increase quality of the work before the buying public will start purchasing GM vehicles over the foreign competition. As the old sayings goes: “QUALITY GOES IN BEFORE THE NAME GOES ON”.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (10:37 am)When the estimated Volt price began to drift north of affordable, I held out hope that GM would initially sell Volts at a low price to get them established in the market. I suppose GM can’t afford to do that now. So, GM will ask a premium for the Volt. Will a premium-priced Volt keep GM in the game? GM is wobbling. I see an opportunity for the competition to go for a knockout.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (10:46 am)#62 N Riley Says:
I have not read everyone’s comments yet, but I want to say that if GM would build the Flex vehicle as shown by the picture above, they could sell them like hot cakes. That is a distinctive vehicle that is also beautiful. Get them made, GM.
——————————
I heard they put it in the wind tunnel and it got better results going backwards. J/k
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (10:53 am)John #61
Corvette a good seller ? Sales dropped 52.9% compared to last year, link :
http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewmonthlyreleasedetail.do?domain=74&docid=50002
Note : Corvette performance is better than Hummer however : -64.6 %.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (10:57 am)Hello GM we need an electric pickup truck. Pickup trucks are the bread winners for GM anyway DId they forget that? It s truck buyers who are willing to pay$40K for a new Vehicle by the millions. Let toyota make the no profit roller skates.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (11:00 am)#11 Guy
“With gasoline prices hovering around $2.50/gallon right now, should’nt we be buying those 15 mpg SUV’s again?”
——————————-
#64 n riley
“Well, it would be nice if they could sell all of the big SUVs and trucks on the dealer’s lot and the ones already made. That would add a lot of cash to GM’s bank account. ”
—————————–
GM gets paid when the dealer orders for their lot.
They are just praying the dealer reorders a ‘09 SUV to replace the one they cleared out.
(Less likely now if GMAC is the individual dealer’s backer. Over the last 2 months, GMAC cut off a number of dealers completely…and the rest now have to make minimum 5% payments per month -AND- pay the balance in full within 180 days)
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (11:02 am)#68 randy Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Hello GM we need an electric pickup truck. Pickup trucks are the bread winners for GM anyway DId they forget that? It s truck buyers who are willing to pay$40K for a new Vehicle by the millions. Let toyota make the no profit roller skates.
————————-
Buy this Ford Truck
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/11/05/ford_demos_f_150_leccy_pick_up/
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (11:20 am)hi kdawg #70,
“Buy this Ford Truck”
______________________________
Why would anyone want a big macho truck that uses no gas? I can always borrow my neighbors Scottsdale. Well, I can sometimes borrow my … well, there is always U-Haul.
Does Interstate Battery manufacture li-polys or li-ions? That would be a good marriage.
=D~
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (11:29 am)hi kdawg #66,
“I heard they put it in the wind tunnel and it got better results going backwards. J/k”
______________________________
Oh, and by the way. It was too quiet with that rounded nose profile. So they decided to R&D the aero to a more angular look to produce wind noise for pedestrian safety.
=D~
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (11:37 am)#15 nuclearboy
“I just wish GM would take a chance and actually put something out that had a new (and possibly radically new) design like the picture above.”
________________________________
That’s what I’m saying, man. They don’t need to change the look of this concept to get air flow savings. They need to just build the darn thing and watch people jump all over it. But, mark my words. If they decide to build it, it will not look anything like the concept. It will look like every other compact on the GM lot. Lets get some excitement out there, GM. Get the great designs off the drawing boards and onto the streets. I know it takes money, but the new administration is going to be throwing more money your way than you can spend. Every one is going to get a lot of money. Heck, we are all going to be floating in money. Except the top 5%, of course.
But, yeah, lets get the vehicle out the door no later than 2012.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (11:47 am)#24 Tom Harwick
“Why should I be taxed to pay pensions and healthcare to GM’ers, over and above Social Security and Medicare, which everybody gets.? Nobody is giving me any of those extras. Why are GM people special privileged characters?”
——————
AGREED 100%. Those workers deserve some protection, but no more than the “average” worker in the U.S. If I lost my pension with my company, the government has a program where you can file for relief. Problem is you get a small percentage of what you might have gotten through your actual plan before it failed. If this congress gets involved, we will be paying full retirement and health benefits to auto workers just because they are a large voting block. Not “fair” in any way you look at it. This new administration wants to be fair by spreading the wealth around, but lets be fair to all parties concerned. Keep our taxes out of paying excessive pension relief.
I believe that what the GM spokesman meant to say when he said SUV, was probably “cross-over” vehicle. A cross-over vehicle is really a small SUV. I don’t think he intended to mean GM is going to build large SUV type vehicles. Of course, once they get the hybrid and/or EREV technology to fit the large format SUV, I see no problem with them building large SUV vehicles. As long as it has decent EV mode distance and very good mileage overall.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (11:48 am)62 N. Riley said…..
ATTN Bob Lutz et al: “…..I want to say that if GM would build the Flex vehicle as shown by the picture above, they could sell them like hot cakes. That is a distinctive vehicle that is also beautiful.”
(I’ve read all the comments here on the Opel-designed Flextreme concept, and everyone agrees that it’s a beautiful design that should be a best seller!)
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (11:56 am)Seeing the Flextreme concept brings back fond memories of the now deceased Volt concept…
better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all…
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (11:56 am)After GM files Chapter 7, the Volt program will be purchased by Toyota. There might be a schedule hiccup associated with the transition, but ultimately Volts will be produced with higher quality, and for a cheaper price. Will you still buy one?
I’d like for GM to succeed but they have repeatedly proven themselves (along with the rest of Detroit) as incapable.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (11:56 am)@#74 N Riley
The GM pensions are already protected.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (11:59 am)#77 Renecki says:
I’d like for GM to succeed but they have repeatedly proven themselves (along with the rest of Detroit) as incapable.
———————-
Didnt GM just celebrate its 100 year anniversary? Seems like they have succeeded much longer than a lot of other companies. I’m not saying they will not go bankrupt, but they were (are) a successful company to last over a century.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (12:10 pm)I’ve been following the automotive market pretty closely since the mid-’80s. For me that’s when the clock started and the Big 3 began to really face competition … their health deteriorated and meaningful success has evaded them since.
Several recent products, including the Volt, gave me new hope … but these small wins cannot save these dinosaurs from extinction.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (12:14 pm)True,. how many American cars do you still see on the road from the 80’s? You probably see more from the 70’s. Even the early 90’s are scarce compared to Japanese cars. And that was supposedly before Americans had figured out Japanese reliability.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (12:19 pm)Hey Lyle,
With all the financial problems GM is going through rigth now, I think it would be wise for GM while developing the Chevy Volt, to have on the market right now an less cost normal and simply hybrid like Toyota Pruis. This would have helped GM make some money. I may be wrong, but by the time being, I started to agree wioth those who say that GM’s big problem is management. What do you think guys?
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (12:21 pm)#77 Reneckl
After GM files Chapter 7, the Volt program will be purchased by Toyota. There might be a schedule hiccup associated with the transition, but ultimately Volts will be produced with higher quality, and for a cheaper price. Will you still buy one?
I’d like for GM to succeed but they have repeatedly proven themselves (along with the rest of Detroit) as incapable.
——————————
I doubt Toyota would have any interest in the Volt program for any price. Rightly or wrongly, they do not believe either Lithium technology or full EV drive vehicles are viable product for them to produce.
The concept Plug-In Prius was no more than idle chatter, until the rebate prop was in the works…then it immediately went mainstream in Toyota’s system and now is being fast tracked to scoop those rebates up.
Besides, if Toyota wanted a ‘Volt-type’ product, they would just build their own…there is no way they want to take on all infrastructure/employees/comittments that go along with assuming the Delta II platform. A billion dollars in R&D is nothing to them.
—
Regardless to that, your question is, “…ultimately Volts will be produced with higher quality, and for a cheaper price. Will you still buy one?”
I personally will buy anything right now, from any auto manufacturer, I don’t even need it ‘chearper or better,’ provided it meets my most basic criteria. A car capable of electric drive at all posted speed limits, with more than 2 seats…that I can service locally.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (12:33 pm)#28 Freemon Sandlewould
“B.O. gets the same treatment the left gave Bush. Too bad. You started it. Now you get to eat some yourself.”
—————————-
I have been a good supporter of George W. Bush through most of his administration. I have agreed the democrats never gave him a chance to govern without back stabbing and calling him all sorts of names he did not deserve. After supporting him, I departed somewhat after the Iraq invasion. Not because I did not believe it was the right thing to do, but because I thought it was not carried out properly after “victory” was declared. That was the fault of the generals who did the planning and the defense chief who agreed with the poor plan. Bush accepted the plan, which made it his problem. We needed at least 50,000 additional troops in Iraq at the beginning of the war with their sole duty to close the borders of Iraq from all sides. George W. Bush, if you like him, hate him or whatever, was a good president who got sidetracked by Iraq and let his administration take their eyes off the economy. I do remember numerous administration officials, along with a number of republican senators and congressmen telling congressional committees there was a problem with Freddie and Fannie that was going to cause a real problem The leaders of congress did nothing.
I do not want to see Obama have to deal with the same back stabbing and name calling the democrats did to George W. Bush. I want to see a bi-partisan effort made to solve our problems. The republican leadership has indicated they will be willing to work with obama, if he meets them halfway. We need to keep them both to their words and make sure they work together. But, we do not want to see Obama treated like George W. Bush was by the Democrats or the media. It is time to move on and change the environment and attitudes in Washington or we need to force change by any means whatsoever is available to free thinking men and women.
So, let us stop this name calling and get our sleeves rolled up to help our new president on January 20th. We need him as much as he needs us. I am willing to give him breathing room to “govern” under the constitution for us all. He is all of our president, not just those who voted for him.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (12:36 pm)#62 N Riley
#75 nasaman
#76 Murray
YES
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (12:56 pm)I doubt Toyota would have any interest in the Volt program for any price. Rightly or wrongly, they do not believe either Lithium technology or full EV drive vehicles are viable product for them to produce.
__________________________________
Not too many still believe that anymore.
Neither the configuration nor Li-Ion were able to meet that criteria… and still don’t.
Selling large quantities for a profit has always been the goal.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (1:27 pm)all those people that recommend GM make more small cars.. They cant, they either lose or make little profit on them.. recently I read that, and that they make about $10k per SUV.. but people stopped buying SUV.
Dont know why this is so..
Luckily the Volt is priced like an SUV and so they will make a profit on it.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (1:32 pm)# 83 statik wrote…
“I personally will buy anything right now, from any auto manufacturer, I don’t even need it ‘chearper or better,’ provided it meets my most basic criteria. A car capable of electric drive at all posted speed limits, with more than 2 seats…that I can service locally.”
AMEN !
I think the i-MiEV is going to sell well in North America when it gets here.
I view future E-REV vehicles as the “backup” or “vacation” car in the garage.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (1:39 pm)As most of us know today GM is going to beg for money.
If they get it we ALL should get shares of stock equal to our tax payer bail out. If they can not make a competitive vehicle… see ya!
Rick you need to flip burgers for a while for a reality check!
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (1:49 pm)#86
statik
I doubt Toyota would have any interest in the Volt program for any price. Rightly or wrongly, they do not believe either Lithium technology or full EV drive vehicles are viable product for them to produce.
__________________________________
# 86 john1701a
Not too many still believe that anymore.
Neither the configuration nor Li-Ion were able to meet that criteria… and still don’t.
Selling large quantities for a profit has always been the goal.
———————————
Maybe Walmart would be interested in the technology. Heck, they are getting into credit cards now.. why not cheap electric cars built in China?
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/nov2008/db2008115_188039.htm?site=cbs&campaign_id=djm
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (2:03 pm)#84 N Riley
#28 Freemon Sandlewould’s…“B.O. gets the same treatment the left gave Bush. Too bad. You started it. Now you get to eat some yourself,” …is ignorant because nasty politics did not start with attacks on W. It seems to me that Freemon Sandlewould’s nasty politics won’t get us out of the cycle either. So, I dismissed Freemon Sandlewould as an angry troll and did not attempt to engage. I thought it wouldn’t be worth the effort. But your attempt at imparting wisdom was well stated.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (2:04 pm)#25 Casey:
Thanks.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (2:05 pm)GM and everyone in this discussion group is ignoring the biggest problem to using electric vehicles, charging their batteries. Given that the batteries are created that can do everything needed, if you attempted to plug them into our electric grid for charging today you would just cause black outs. On demand charging would be a fatal mistake.
The Electric Grid that services the entire country needs to be upgraded to enable real time computer management and control. Otherwise the current 19th century design will fail when we attempt to charge millions of these large PHEV batteries. There would not be a problem if we allow Electric Grid Computers to SCHEDULE when any battery is to be charged. It could be charged immediately or in a couple of hours depending on the current electric grid load and when electric power for charging was requested.
Now, a significant amount of electric power is always being wasted because more power is being generated than used to prevent blackouts. However, computers could use millions of electric vehicle batteries to balance power generation to usage with a safe minimum of excess power being wasted. The present DUMB system wastes huge amounts of power 24/7 and especially at “off peak” times.
Recently Electric Power Companies have begun to install smart meters with microprocessors that can communicate once a month over the electric lines with their billing computers to replace human meter readers. They can shut off or turn on power at the meter from their computers. Having microprocessors in charging stations REQUEST charging from the Utility’s computers is possible today using additional software and inexpensive hardware.
Everyone, except OPEC, would benefit. We need to do this NOW not when we start seeing cascading blackouts!!
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (2:08 pm)It looks like the Saturn EV !! I like it !!
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (2:34 pm)@ #93 John E. Adam
I dont have time to find links to all this, but i’m pretty sure its been stated that our grid could handle millions of PHEV’s. In fact, the electric companies would love it because of all the power not used at night could be stored in cars. There have also been a lot of articles about the car to grid flow, for when more power is needed than can be produced with coal etc. Green energy is great, but if you cant store it, it will never be a major power player. I would let the grid store energy on my personal batteries, then buy it back later at a higher price.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (3:52 pm)#59 Starcast
“The UAW should kick in the money. They are the ones who agreed to contracts and promised benifits without getting the company to set any money aside to pay for them. Bankrup the UAW to pay the benifits.”
—————————
Since the UAW spent so much money getting Democrats elected this election cycle, not counting all the hundreds of other elections, you would think they could get out of politics and use the union members’ money to actually support the union members. Instead, they spend most of it on union management and the Democrats. That is one reason I do not like unions. It is a rip off these days. A long time ago, workers needed unions, but I don’t think anymore. They are just leeches living off the workers.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (4:00 pm)#58 Exp_EngTech
The Electric City Motors link was really interesting. The model for sale is the “Current” and is priced at $28,500 or so. At $.02 a mile cost versus $.35 a mile you could recover your cost in about 8 years not counting savings on oil changes, maintenance, etc. Now that is still a little long to recoup your cost. Am I wrong? One of you math wizards check my numbers. Savings of $.33 a mile with 10,000 miles driven a year or $3,300 per year divided into initial cost of $28,500 (not counting taxes, delivery fees, etc).
Get me a dealership today. I think you could sell everyone you have on the lot. Would sell much better at $20,000.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (4:10 pm)#95 kdawg,
I said that it is possible to charge all of the vehicle batteries but not all at the same time!!! If most people arrive home at 5:30 PM and plug-in their PHEVs for ON DEMAND CHARGING, that would cause blackouts. If instead the charger REQUESTS permission to charge, waits until it is scheduled and receives permission to charge the distribution network will not fail. You would still just plug-in the vehicle, but the computers would decide when the current would actually flow. Without computer control we waste power and invite blackouts.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (4:18 pm)I think most of the Volt charging will be done at night. That is why GM is including a scheduling program to allow you to plug in now but delay charging until later at night. We will see more modifications and controls on charging as versions 2, 3 and etc come out. By that time there will be many different electric or plug in vehicles on the market. But it is something that is being studied by the automakers, the electric utilities and the government.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (5:06 pm)#99 N Riley,
Without computers scheduling when any charging session occurs you risk blackouts. If you drive 40 miles to work you will want your batter charged sometime during the day as well as when you return home. Computer scheduling will work 24/7. This is a fine point. The electric utility companies are just starting to use smart meters and are thinking about controlling thermostats to prevent blackouts. Scheduling is not being considered at this time.
Here is what AEP is actually doing, http://www.aep.com/citizenship/crreport/energy/gridsmart.aspx : <>.
AEP’s gridSMART will be much better than current technology, but without scheduling massive blackout will still occur. As a consultant I designed their Distribution Outage Reporting system 10 years ago. DOR’s database had 40 million reported outages on it from a 20 year period. I would rather avoid disaster management.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (6:29 pm)Thomas L. Friedman provides a very interesting discussion of the proposed “smart grid” in his current (no pun intended) bestseller, “Hot, Flat and Crowded”.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (7:26 pm)101 noel park,
I like Friedman. I wish I had his friends in high places. He is correct about needing a “gas tax”, but he has never mentioned butanol as an alcohol fuel far superior to ethanol. That is amusing since butanol fermentation helped win WWI & II and was developed by Chaim Weizmann, the first President of Israel.
Friedman obviously does know about the “smart grid”
http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/publish/industry/Thomas_Friedman_to_speak_at_GridWeek_Clinton_gets_the_Smart_Grid_Trilliant_obtains_financing_Flashy_energy_dashboard_GE_snaps_up_Smart_Grid_company_New_BPL_Global_offering_Important_standard_for_home_area_networks.html
, however the article does not mention scheduling anything. They see the “smart grid” as a way for a customer to optimize their power usage.
Scheduling PHEV charging would enable the Electric Utility Companies to much more closely balance generated power to customer demand at any point in time. Currently there are probably numerous coal burning power plants belching CO2 and there is no demand for the power they generate. Their only purpose is to prevent blackouts in case of sudden demand spikes. I would rather their power be used to charge PHEV batteries 24/7.
(Quote)
Nov 6th, 2008 (7:57 pm)If the One Million Solar Roofs project succeeds in California, what will happen to all that power not being used during the day? Well the power from those solar roofs could be scheduled to charge the batteries of the homeowners car plugged-in 40 miles away at work without a long extension cord. The “smart grid” could determine how much power it was getting at any point in time from “environmentally variable” solar power and it could SCHEDULE its use without wasting any.
On a sunny day California Roofs could charge PHEV batteries in Oregon. On cloudy days the system would know its limitations.
(Quote)
Nov 7th, 2008 (1:13 pm)Great looking car! I’d buy it in a heart beat. One problem though….It looks as if R&D is doing a great job, but I am sure once the “Pocket protectors” and the “Suits” get a hold of it, it will wind up on the trash heap of history.
(Quote)
Nov 7th, 2008 (2:24 pm)#104 Jack Gabus,
You might want to see what the US Military is doing with this technology,
http://www.hybrid-vehicle.org/hybrid-truck-hemtt.html
After a blizzard or huricane, the GM Volt could generate all the power for a house.
The The HEMTT A3 (Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck) is big enough to haul a bunch of traditional vehicles to your trash heap of history.
(Quote)