Several automotive sites have reported on a story written in German. The story indicates that Mercedes-Benz plans to unveil a series of three electric concept cars at the Detroit Auto Show in January.
The luxury carmaker has given a nod to the Chevy Volt by emulating the range-extender concept as well, although keeping it in parallel.
The vehicle is known as the BlueZero E-Cell Plus. It will have a rechargeable lithium-ion battery pack that can deliver 62 all-electric miles. The on-board generator will be a Smart ForTwo turbo-charged 3-cylinder engine than can propel the car for an additional 310 miles.
It is different than the Volt in that this generator can both charge the batteries and turn the drivetrain, whereas in the Volt the combustion engine only acts as a generator. So in fact is it an extended range electric vehicle or simply a PHEV with a large AER? The engineering question that remains unclear is whether the combustion engine is used at all points of driving as needed or only when the battery is depleted and it the car is in charge sustaining mode. My inquiry to Mercedes-Benz has not been returned.
There will also be two sister concepts. The pure electric BlueZero E-Cell, which will be smaller and only contains a lithium ion pack without extender, is capable of delivering 124 miles. The Blue-Zero F-Cell will add a hydrogen fuel-cell range extender.
All three are expected to do zero to 60 in under 10 seconds.
Don’t expect to get these for under $40,000, and actually no known production plans have been made. To their credit however, Mercedes is expected to launch the world’s first first car using mass-produced lithium ion batteries in 2009 in their BlueHybrid S400, non-plugin hybrid.
Source (Auto Motor Und Sport) via (AutoBlogGreen)
Dec 13th, 2008 (9:22 am)The pleasure of first. For those that are not married to the Concept, not motivated by the label GM, it is apparent that the Volt will live on no matter what happens to Chevy
Dec 13th, 2008 (9:31 am)Dear All,
Delighted to see an article about technology again. I firmly believe the Volt is visionary and we will see many knockoffs. GM however will get my business if they can hold on.
NPNS =D~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 13th, 2008 (9:34 am)Maybe Mercedes is hedging their bets by going parallel. It lets the car keep going if the battery pack has a massive failure.
Dec 13th, 2008 (9:38 am)Yes it is very nice to see an article about technology again.
Wonder if the generator will be gas or diesel? Bio-diesel would present some interesting fuel options.
I much prefer the current Volt aesthetics and it’s EREV platform.
Oh, to fast-forward 5 years and just peek at what cars will be available then. The automotive world is changing very quickly.
Dec 13th, 2008 (9:44 am)Over 100 years ago Porsche built electric cars with an on-board generator.
http://jalopnik.com/382659/porsche-goes-green-builds-evs-in-1899-hybrids-in-1901
Dec 13th, 2008 (9:45 am)Dude, i think you mean 1.3L instead of 3L.
Dec 13th, 2008 (9:52 am)#5 Len
Amazing what would have happened if electric had continued instead of combustion engines. We really haven’t advanced so far. Those Porsche’s were state of the art…
I’ve been waiting to buy an electric car for for decades. It is always ‘just 5 years from now’…
Well – now it is still 5 years away. I have an electric bike and it runs with a hub motor and works great and has lead acid batteries – 110 year old technology… But it is still fun.
Dec 13th, 2008 (10:03 am)That’s the problem, many announcements, few release dates. Seems like we’ll be waiting for a long time. Well maybe we’ll get more information when they unveil it.
Dec 13th, 2008 (10:16 am)The gene has left the bottle !!
Dec 13th, 2008 (10:17 am)Don’t worry people. The electrics are just around the corner. However, in the meantime, now with the price of gas now “ironically” back at a low price, the manufacurers have plenty of gas only SUV’s and trucks to sell us. LOL.
Dec 13th, 2008 (10:29 am)The more options the better if you ask me. Now can we work on getting an EREV or PHEV for under $30K so at least 40% of the customers can afford it …. better yet under $20K so 60% can.
I know price may come down over time but $40K+ for a small electric car is out of most peoples price range. I know it is for me.
Dec 13th, 2008 (10:33 am)I think the real message is that the big car companies just won’t built electric cars. Especially not now with the general economy downturn and gas prices down again.
It really will fall to the new smaller car companies. If you think about it – it wasn’t the big train companies of the 19th century that developed the automobile.
And it wasn’t the big established industries that figured out how to built an airplane. A couple of bicycle builders figured it out.
Tesla and Zap and others will find a way. GM can’t envision a world without ICE engines. It really is who they are. If there is no ICE in there and it doesn’t weigh 3 tons then it doesn’t fit their paradigm.
Dec 13th, 2008 (10:43 am)Finally, a post not related to the financial crisis! Yay!
This sounds like a Prius type hybrid with a larger electric traction motor and much more battery. The cost over the Volt concept won’t be that much … just some software and a more sophisticated transmission. But this approach could end up being more reliable (ICE as backup) and more efficient (more control options).
Dec 13th, 2008 (11:22 am)“Several automotive sites have reported on a story written in German. The story indicates that Mercedes-Benz plans to unveil a series of three electric concept cars at the Detroit Auto Show in January.”
=============================
Even bigger new is that a automaker is actually showing up to the Detroit Auto Show this year.
Dec 13th, 2008 (11:52 am)It seemed pretty obvious this week that much of the conservative opposition to the automotive-industry rescue package was built on union-busting. MSNBC’s “Countdown” got a hold of an internal Republican memo that highlighted this point rather explicitly.
Countdown has obtained a memo entitled “Action Alert – Auto Bailout,” and sent Wednesday at 9:12am, to Senate Republicans. The names of the sender(s) and recipient(s) have been redacted in the copy Countdown obtained. The Los Angeles Times reported that it was circulated among Senate Republicans. The brief memo outlines internal political strategy on the bailout, including the view that defeating the bailout represents a “first shot against organized labor.” Senate Republicans blocked passage of the bailout late Thursday night, over its insistence on an immediate union pay cut.
/”Bust the UAW” is the new “Drill, baby, drill”
/how does it feel to be so easily manipulated
Dec 13th, 2008 (11:52 am)Concepts are all well and good, but:
“Don’t expect to get these for under $40,000, and actually no known production plans have been made. ”
There’s where the Volt has a clear advantage. They’re actually going to make the freaking car, in 2 years (well, assuming GM is around for 2 more years), at a decent volume (I’ve heard 10,000 in the first year, which isn’t very much for a volume seller, but compare that to the Tesla Roadster, which just shipped its 100th car).
Dec 13th, 2008 (12:09 pm)I also find it strange that they use a transmission. With a 60-mile battery, who needs it? Just more weight and efficiency losses.
Make it all electric direct drive, no transmission, with a gas/E85 ICE/genset range extender. Also make it 35 or 40 miles of all-electric range. Anything more is overkill for most people, and increases cost and weight.
But it’s nice to see that other car manufacturers are starting to get the idea. The more the merrier.
Dec 13th, 2008 (12:09 pm)ALL choices for transportation fuels are good (the fact that there ARE choices that is). Granted, concepts are just that, and without a “Lyle-equivalent” (and we all know that one of those doesn’t exist), all those concepts will remain just that – concepts.
I’ll second the reply of YAY for a non-fiscal thread.
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR!! NPNS
Dec 13th, 2008 (12:12 pm)I would expect to see these on the road before the Volt. Mercedes actually has a track record of jumping on emerging technology at the right time. Contrast that to GM who will probably release the Volt, then decide to take them all back and crush them – like they did with the EV1.
Dec 13th, 2008 (12:13 pm)Here is a link with slightly more information:
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/232827/mercedes-bluezero-first-pictures.html
The issue is that the meaning of “concept” is fairly elastic. It can truly be a concept, like the original Volt, or it can be something close to release, like the concept Honda Insight at the LA Auto Show. These seem closer to the Volt so I don’t think we’ll be seeing them in driveways any time soon.
As for the Mercedes PHEV based on lithium batteries, I don’t really see the point of extending kudos. The PHEVs are already of questionable value for the cost, and the lithium batteries will just tilt the cost/benefit further in favor of cost.
Dec 13th, 2008 (12:19 pm)I don’t care if the gas price is low at the present. We still run up a big deficit every year importing oil. High gas prices prop up Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venuzuela, and Russia even if we do import most of our oil from Canada and Mexico. Let the first 4 eat sand. They don’t hesitate to stick it to us at every opportunity and to use our own money to do so. EREVs and electrics seem to be the only near term way out of them shaking us down for our lunch money.
I say develop EREVs and export them to europe, India, and China.
Dec 13th, 2008 (12:19 pm)Hydrogen is the Holy Grail, but still years off for main stream use. You will see Hydrogen powering your house before your car.
The UAW killed the bill. Working for the same pay and insurance Toyota/Honda pays is stll a great package. They were stupid to turn it down. Granted the union bosses aren’t the ones who will get laid off, so why would they care?
Dec 13th, 2008 (12:20 pm)#17 Dave G
Dave, a couple of points:
1. The Volt will have a transmission. No way you can avoid one. (Really interested in how the Volt’s will work since Lutz was so high on it).
2. The 60 mile range is probably a 40 mile range. The range really depends on driving style, and the official European driving style is much less aggressive than the current US standard.
Dec 13th, 2008 (12:22 pm)#15 Lurtz
It seemed pretty obvious this week that much of the conservative opposition to the automotive-industry rescue package was built on union-busting. MSNBC’s “Countdown” got a hold of an internal Republican memo that highlighted this point rather explicitly.
Countdown has obtained a memo entitled “Action Alert – Auto Bailout,” and sent Wednesday at 9:12am, to Senate Republicans. The names of the sender(s) and recipient(s) have been redacted in the copy Countdown obtained. The Los Angeles Times reported that it was circulated among Senate Republicans. The brief memo outlines internal political strategy on the bailout, including the view that defeating the bailout represents a “first shot against organized labor.” Senate Republicans blocked passage of the bailout late Thursday night, over its insistence on an immediate union pay cut.
/”Bust the UAW” is the new “Drill, baby, drill”
/how does it feel to be so easily manipulated
================================
That is the same memo that the UAW boss quoted form his press conference (couldn’t believe he quoted it actually)
Do you see the irony about using this as a source/example about manipulation?
You realize that you (and the UAW), just quoted as a example of manipulation that was a email with no sender information, no receiver information, no author of the email and no directly identifiable/reputable source that says it was circulated among Senate Republicans.
/I’m not saying it is not real, but it seems irresponsible to quote it and hold it up as fact…especially at that news conference.
Dec 13th, 2008 (1:04 pm)#24 Statik – “it seems irresponsible to quote it and hold it up as fact”
It’s not self-authenticating but it was confirmed by the LA Times as genuine and that it had been circulated. So it seems perfectly fine to me.
The larger issue seems to be that just because someone wrote a memo outlining a strategy doesn’t mean anyone actually acted on it. There are other explanations.
On the other hand, insisting on UAW worker pay cuts when that has nothing to do with the long term viability of the companies does suggest using the bailout as a pretext for going after the union, as does insisting that those cuts go into effect during 2009 when the stated concern is “long term viability.”
GM needs a lot more than union concessions, which in the scheme of things are relatively minor. Hopefully the person or group responsible for the restructuring will understand that.
Dec 13th, 2008 (1:07 pm)No Benzs in my future. Better to buy an electric from some USA startup if the Volt disappears. The Aptera looks more and more interesting, assuming that it ever gets to any sort of production. I think it would work for my commute, and boy would it ever turn heads!
Dec 13th, 2008 (1:11 pm)#25 DonC:
Right. GM needs some products people want to buy. If the Cruze and the Volt aren’t coming until 2010/11, I just don’t see how they make it in the meantime.
Dec 13th, 2008 (1:18 pm)#25 DonC
#24 Statik – “it seems irresponsible to quote it and hold it up as fact”
It’s not self-authenticating but it was confirmed by the LA Times as genuine and that it had been circulated. So it seems perfectly fine to me.
The larger issue seems to be that just because someone wrote a memo outlining a strategy doesn’t mean anyone actually acted on it. There are other explanations.
===========================
I guess that is kind of my thoughts as well. I’m not saying it wasn’t real, or it was not circulated, but there is no context. Is it a directive frm the Republican party or did it just show up in their inboxes? Was it generated by an authority or just a random person with access? etc. etc.
I actually thought they undermined themselves (or at least Bush did)when the White House threatened to move in while the Republicans/Corker where still at the table, trying ‘negotiating’ their deal. That was all over the AP at the time…if I was the UAW, I wouldn’t have shown up/capitulated anything either, knowing the White House was just going to ride in and save the day.
/the whole thing/couple days was just ugly…uneccesarily so.
Dec 13th, 2008 (1:23 pm)#26 noel park Says: “The Aptera looks more and more interesting,…”
————————————————————————————-
I also like the look of the Aptera, but the single rear wheel design would be hell in snowy or icy roads, so that rules out most of the country.
Also, I’ve heard the new head of Aptera doesn’t like windows that won’t roll down, so he is going to significantly change the design in order to accommodate that. I’ll bet the new version won’t be as sleek.
Dec 13th, 2008 (1:31 pm)#23 DonC Says: “The Volt will have a transmission. No way you can avoid one.”
————————————————————————————–
For the last 18 months we’ve been told the Volt won’t have a transmission. Electric motors have lots of torque across a wide range of RPMs, so there’s no need to switch gears like an ICE drive train. There may be some fixed gearing, but I’m pretty sure there’s no shifting. That means there’s no clutch, fluid, etc., and none of the efficiency losses that come with all of that.
What makes you think the Volt has a transmission?
By the way, in the future, there wont even be an axle. In-wheel motors will take over. Look at the Volvo ReCharge. GM is also looking at in-wheel motors, but doesn’t want to take the risk with the first rev of the Volt.
Dec 13th, 2008 (1:34 pm)Someone pointed this out in yesterday’s thread.
1) Standard voltages in Europe are higher then in the U.S.
2) European cars tend to be lighter weight
3) European climate tends to be milder then the U.S. with fewer temperature swings
4) Fuel taxes are extremely high in Europe
Given all this, It’s kind of suprising to me the EREV concept originated in the U.S. and not in Europe. You could conclude that the technology just hadn’t gotten far enough yet (sorry “Inconvenient Truth”), or maybe European companies lack the vision and innovation found in the U.S. (they are socialists), or you could always go the conspiracy theory route and say even those companies are in with the oil companies. Either way, it is kind of puzzling, but who cares really. It’s good to see that it’s catching on.
Dec 13th, 2008 (1:38 pm)#30 DaveG
Tesla has a trany, maybe that’s where DonC go it. I though the Volt isn’t supposed to have one though.
By the way, while electric motors produce torque over a wide RPM range, the efficiency with which it generates the torque varies significantly. I wonder when the Volt is in “Green Leaf” mode if maybe it will limit torque at certain rpm’s to improve efficiency.
Dec 13th, 2008 (1:41 pm)#22 Adrian Says: “Hydrogen is the Holy Grail, but still years off for main stream use. You will see Hydrogen powering your house before your car.”
————————————————————————————–
Hydrogen can never compete with its own energy source.
A “Hydrogen Economy” has no past, no present and no future
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
http://www.efcf.com/reports/E17.pdf
Dec 13th, 2008 (1:43 pm)Is MB providing any information at all regarding production plans? Hints, rumors, informal guidance, anything?
If not, we have been around this merry-go-round before. It is pleasant to think about and maybe will brighten up the MB part of the auto show, but the announcement really has no meaning, except that the PR firm thought it create some buzz At the most, it says only that MB is thinking about doing something, maybe.
When MB gives estimated production dates, let’s re-visit.
Dec 13th, 2008 (1:44 pm)#32 cautious fan Says:”Tesla has a trany, maybe that’s where DonC go it.”
————————————————————————————–
Tesla used to have a transmission, but they have done away with it. The new Roadster drive train now shipping does 0-60 in less than 4 seconds using a single gear. So no Transmission in the Tesla either.
Dec 13th, 2008 (1:47 pm)#32 cautious fan Says: “By the way, while electric motors produce torque over a wide RPM range, the efficiency with which it generates the torque varies significantly. I wonder when the Volt is in “Green Leaf” mode if maybe it will limit torque at certain rpm’s to improve efficiency.”
————————————————————————————–
From what I’ve heard, the firmware that controls the induction electric motor is very complex. I’ll bet they’re still tuning it. I wouldn’t rule anything out though.
Dec 13th, 2008 (1:49 pm)I don’t get it. instead of unveiling concepts, why don’t they finally start producing these ****** things?
this is so frustrating. nobody really gives a crap about some artist rendering or fantasy dungeons & dragons specs. either they make them or its just another PR garbage.
this is time to put up or shut up.
Dec 13th, 2008 (1:55 pm)#37 frustrated says “I don’t get it. instead of unveiling concepts, why don’t they finally start producing these ****** things?”
=============================================
Trying to view the concept a little more sympathetically, one might remember that the job of PR groups is to put things in the autoshow that make people think positively about the company. Right now that’s electric cars. In a way it is a wonderful time in that everyone can talk about the good things and all the limitations of real objects have yet to emerge. It is like every football coach before the start of the season.
This year MB has electric cars. Maybe next year it will have space ships. Who knows? It is fun to dream dreams, but one must not take them as reality.
Dec 13th, 2008 (1:56 pm)#25 DonC
Insisting on UAW worker pay cuts when that has nothing to do with the long term viability of the companies
____________________________________________________
1) I think you agreed yesterday the cost difference (ignoring retirees) is $700 / car. When a small car is selling for $15,000, that’s a HUGE difference. It forces you to cut corners elsewhere to try and make it up. That’s a long-term problem.
2) Retiree costs matter. To your previous point, I agree that it’s not a direct cost, that it’s going to be in overhead, but it’s still gotta get paid somehow. The price of the car I buy TODAY is $1,500 higher because of the benefits promised YESERDAY, but which are being expensed TODAY. The way to lower this cost/vehicle is to produce more vehicles and spread it out…..fleet sales. So the retirement cost constraint encourages managers to make decision that harm the brand…harming long term viability.
3) The Failing Three have one thing in common. High wages. That’s a significant correlation considering they’ve got different managers, different investors, different factories, different designers, etc. So if you blame it on the management, how do you account for 3 different management groups hired by 3 different boards (Republican conspiracy maybe)
What’s your solution for long-term viability?
Dec 13th, 2008 (1:59 pm)#31 cautious fan
I think the main problem is the battery. I don’t think the concept of a plug-in hybrid vehicle itself is that innovative, you have just to get it to work in a production-intended car at a reasonable price. It’s not about announcements, about who is first to announce a plug-in vehicle, but to actually sell them in large numbers.
As for European fuel taxes: Well, I think they will find a way to tax electric vehicles once they make their break-through.
Dec 13th, 2008 (2:03 pm)When the U.S. Automakers file for bankruptcy DO NOT purchase any vehicle from them again. You have been warned. Just do not do it.
Dec 13th, 2008 (2:06 pm)Benz has the right idea, the Volt is off the mark. Both should sell well for their limited production volume.
Dec 13th, 2008 (2:09 pm)Great link on automotive jobs by state. Check out the wage differences between states. I wonder what the correlation is between how senators voted and their rank % jobs. I bet theres a strong correlation.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/12/map.us.auto/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Dec 13th, 2008 (2:33 pm)What does the public think about the Volt?
At last nights Christmas party my wife and I were enjoying a great dinner with several people we didn’t know. One was a guy, about age 40. We small talked about the stock market when out of nowhere he blurted, “I’m waiting for the Volt to come out”.
The Volt is going to be big folks.
http://garfwod.250free.com/Photos/Volt_release.jpg
=D~
Dec 13th, 2008 (2:39 pm)______________________________________________________
Check out the Eectric Mini Cooper’s main instrument cluster.
I like the simplicity…very clean.
http://gizmodo.com/5109197/photo-du-jour-an-electric-mini-coopers-dashboard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIcISTCivFk
______________________________________________________
Dec 13th, 2008 (2:43 pm)#30 Dave G; #32 Cautious Fan – Transmission
You need a transmission because you need to provide a speed-torque conversion using mechanical advantage. Basically you transfer the speed of the motor to force at the wheel. The transmission may be fixed and not use multi-gear ratios but it will still be a transmission.
As for being told the something different, Bob Lutz has said that the Volt’s transmission is incredible and of a design that “no one had even thought of before.” This is one of the more interesting unknown pieces of Volt technology. (Lutz talked about this in the online Q&A after the Volt was officially unveiled but the transcript of that session has not been published AFAIK. But nasaman and a few others had the exact quotes at the time.) This might be an interesting question for Lyle to ask once the bailout stuff has settled down.
Dec 13th, 2008 (2:45 pm)Will this thing be diesel or gas? I’d assume diesel. It makes a lot more sense from an engineering perspective and it doesn’t suffer the stigma in Europe.
Dec 13th, 2008 (2:47 pm)#46 DonC
Do you mean a reduction gear? That’s different from a trany. I’ve never heard of a single speed transmission. I’m not a gear head though.
Dec 13th, 2008 (2:54 pm)hi CDAVIS #45,
“… simplicity…very clean.”
________________________
You’ve got to love ‘simple’. I would suggest a slightly larger oval shaped display.
The test driver said, “The Mini slows down when you lift the throttle. It never really coasts”. I drive a GEM electric and know what he is saying. But, in my opinion it DOES coast. On a slight downgrade you pretty much maintain your speed. It won’t ‘coast’ on a flat, it slows.
=D~
Dec 13th, 2008 (2:58 pm)#46 DonC says “Basically you transfer the speed of the motor to force at the wheel. ”
==============================
It might be better to think in terms of power. ICE engines produce higher power at a higher number of turns per minute (rpm). Wheels often need to turn a low (or lower) rpm. The transmission provides a gear ratio to let the engine be the former and the wheels be the latter.
Doing that is not needed so much with an electrical motor, as (unlike an ICE) it can produce high power at low rpms. So perhaps we will get to see what Lutz is talking about, and what tricks it performs.
Dec 13th, 2008 (3:03 pm)I, for one, am thrilled, that the Germans have adopted the EV with fuel cell range extender configuration. Fuel cells are most effective in E-REV configurations, needing to only produce 70 hp to maintain the state of charge for typical driving, as opposed to 150 hp – 250 hp for a configuration without a large battery.
There is some argument to be made that a direct gear from the engine to the wheels is more efficient at sustained highway speeds, than simply using the generator to motor link, but I am happy to let the engineers and program managers argue that point.
Dec 13th, 2008 (3:22 pm)#39 Cautious Fan – “What’s your solution for long-term viability?”
That’s a very interesting question, but let’s talk about the wage issue first. The issue I have is not necessarily the focus on wage rates, it’s the fixation on UAW wage rates. GM has higher wage rates than Toyota at all levels. The CEO makes more; the white collar workers make more; and the assembly line workers make more. What is dishonest and disingenuous is singling out the UAW workers. If wage rates are too high and need to come down then let’s reduce wage rates from top to bottom. But the “blame the UAW” crowd never so much as mentions white collar workers though their wages and benefits, for both active and retired workers, are at least as serious an issue.
On the numbers, what you’re quoting is not exactly what I said. What I’ve said — and what is more or less inarguable — is that the pay gap between assembly line workers at GM and Toyota amounts to about 2% of the final car price. For a $15K car that would be $300. The $700 figure you’re quoting is for all vehicles which would include a lot of trucks, and also includes some retiree costs, which should not be included.
FWIW my guess is that GM management would be happy to forget the pay gap if they could get rid of the work rules. Those rules seem to be a huge impediment to lean manufacturing techniques if for no other reason than you’d need a year to understand them.
Getting to the question of long term viability, GM has to produce better cars. The designs have to be better, the performance has to be better, the handling has to be better, and the reliability has to be better. If you listen to Bob Lutz this is what he’s saying. If GM builds cars people want to buy it will make money. If it doesn’t then it won’t. Note that this may mean GM can’t compete in the econobox space, but perhaps it should leave that to the Koreans.
Of course the question is: can you make competitive cars if your wage rates are higher? That’s a valid question. What we do know is that BMW has opened new plants in high wage Germany rather than in low wage Eastern Europe because it believes that the worker expertise and flexible assembly lines more than make up for the wage differential — and those wage differentials are far higher than what we’re dealing with when we compare GM in Michigan and Toyota in Alabama.
I’m also intrigued by the idea that at least one company, perhaps Chrysler, should assemble cars for other companies. In the bad old days chip companies always fabricated their own chips. That was expensive and a lot of companies with great ideas failed because they couldn’t master the fabrication process. At some point some failing fab outfit started manufacturing for companies with new designs but no manufacturing expertise. Now that’s how it works. The design is totally split from the fabrication, and the result is all these single purpose chips that run everything from your computer to your cell phone. There seems to be the same opportunity in the car industry, with lots of companies like Tesla, Fisker, and Aptera having innovative ideas but no manufacturing expertise.
Dec 13th, 2008 (3:32 pm)JUST A GUESS
I would think the transmision would serve to improve miles per charge and miles per gallon on flat roads and in general during hwy. speeds. I don’t think we need all of the torque of the electric motor in such driving conditions. I ASSUME it will be computer controlled and infinitely variable.
STILL JUST A GUESS
Dec 13th, 2008 (3:46 pm)#52 DonC
You’re main solution seems to be that Detroit needs to design better cars.
They’ve been trying desperately to do this for 20 years now. They’ve made huge improvements in quality, in features, Chrysler has been very creative on styling and new ideas. Really smart people have been trying really hard to implement your idea for 20 years, and they companies are still failing. Something is STRUCTURALLY BROKEN here.
Note that gov’t control of an automaker hurts your solution. When the gov’t tells you what to build, rather than letting consumers tell you, this problem gets worse. I agree with you that there are some innovative new concepts out there that may work. The beauty of a free market is that the better concepts are allowed to flourish, and bad ones die….quickly. If we let freedom work, we’d see these innovative new ideas far more quickly.
Dec 13th, 2008 (3:58 pm)ENOUGH of the concepts already! I have money and am waiting. The first automaker with a battery electric gets my hard earned dollars. The next car I buy will be electric, period.
Stew.
Dec 13th, 2008 (4:01 pm)Non-Plug in?
FAIL..
No Plug, No sale. Not even a test drive, not even a consideration.
Dec 13th, 2008 (4:12 pm)#56 Mark Says:
Non-Plug in?
FAIL..
=====================================================
All three versions are plug in.
Read the link in post #20 for more info.
Dec 13th, 2008 (4:31 pm)#29 Dave G:
Oh dear! I think I mentioned here once that I had read that they hired a guy from Saleen, LOL. Probably another cool pipe dream up in smoke. Too bad.
Here in Socal we don’t have to worry too much about ice and snow, hehehe. At least bad motorcycle riders like me might have a little better chance of staying upright in the rain with 3 wheels!
#31 cautious fan:
I think that, for all of the reasons you listed, they have developed 50+ mpg diesel and gas cars in Europe already. The complex and expensive technology of the Prius, for example, lets a larger, heavier, American style car get almost as good of mileage as a smaller conventional European car. So the motivation hasn’t been there.
#46 Don C:
Yeah, I remember that too. Thanks.
Dec 13th, 2008 (5:02 pm)(I thought John Cole was a libertarian George Bush conservative… And Ben Stein? The guy that made “Expelled”? –Lurtz)
Also, isn’t it ODD to have US Senators negotiating wage and benefit levels with the employees of private companies? These Southern Senators were actually NEGOTIATING WAGE LEVELS with the UAW leadership in a back room while they were filibustering the bill. Is that outrageous? Unheard of? What. The. @#$%?
Still, autoworkers remain angry with the senators who tried to negotiate wage and benefit concessions from the union, then scuttled the House-passed bill that would have granted the loans and set up a “car czar” to oversee the nearly insolvent companies and get concessions from the union and creditors. Their top targets were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.); Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who led negotiations on a compromise; and Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), who has been a vocal critic of the loans.
Just think about that for a minute. That kind of interference is on the level of Terry Schiavo interference. US Senators from “right to work” states with foreign auto plants trying to NEGOTIATE WAGE AND BENEFIT LEVELS with workers of private companies doing business IN OTHER STATES. That totally blows me away.
US Senators are openly colluding with foreign auto companies to drive down the wages of American workers. Something to think about the next time you hear “You’re either with us or against us.”
And as a side note, as someone who has never really cared much for unions, I am as shocked as anyone to see myself defending the UAW this vigorously. I guess I am just taken aback by how brazen the efforts are to blame this on the workers and to let the economy explode just to destroy unions. It is pretty mind-boggling, and that is even after a pretty amazingly awful eight years of suck.
*** Update ***
Also, well-known pink commie Ben Stein was really in rare form last night on Larry King:
BEN STEIN, ECONOMIST: Well I think what happened was that the Republicans were sick of the bailout and they were also sick of the idea that the autoworkers had voted Democrat so many times and turned Michigan into an entirely Democratic state and they’re also a little envious on behalf of the constituents of the way—the imaginary super wage benefit legacy cause.
But I think they made a terrible and unpatriotic mistake. We’re teetering on the brink of a depression. We can ship money to Iraqi warlords and giant cargo planes. We ship money all over the world. We can’t ship it to help our own people? We can ship it to Goldman Sachs and rescue people that get $100 million a year but we can’t rescue an autoworker and his family? That’s crazy.
***
STEIN: But it is going to do a lot to deal with the onrushing depression business. That’s the problem. The problem isn’t the about business model of GM has failed. We know its failed. The business model of Goldman Sachs has failed. We’ve got a lot of failed business models.
What we are having is an onrushing depression. We have got to stop it now. We have got to have a government contra-cyclical action that stops it. If we fall off a cliff into depression, it will be so much worse than any of the bailout costs. You cannot imagine it. You do not want to let this go into Great Depression.
***
STEIN: I absolutely agree, absolutely right. The government shoved tens of billions of dollars down the throats of banks who said, we don’t even want it. Now Detroit and the workers there who are decent Americans are begging for it. For gosh sake, let’s do the right thing.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=14653
Dec 13th, 2008 (5:12 pm)#54 Cautious Fan – “They’ve been trying desperately to do this for 20 years now … Something is STRUCTURALLY BROKEN here. ”
I think this is not true and that they are doing something different. Rather than my giving an interpretation, let’s have Bob Lutz explain what GM was doing up until a couple of years ago. According to Lutz, marketing would come up with a product and a price point. That would go to engineering who would design for the price point. When engineering was finished the vehicle would go to design. What you ended up with from this process was a very mediocre car which hit the price point and had the requisite margin.
Lutz now claims that the process has been fundamentally changed. The idea for the car still originates in marketing, but rather than going to engineering the car first goes to design, which is instructed to create a best in class design. After design the car goes to engineering which is charged with meeting or exceeding the specs on the competition. Of course there will be back and forth, and cost will be a consideration, but the requirement is that the design as well as the fit and finish will at least meet the competition. If the price target or margin has to be sacrificed, so be it.
This process will yield a much better car, though the price will be higher or the margin lower, or both. This makes sense because if you can’t be the low cost producer you can’t make an average car. Right now GM is a high cost producer of a discount brand. That is not a sustainable position.
Of course critics will say that GM has promised change before and delivered more of the same. That’s a point well taken. However, if you look at the most recent cars they really are much better and are, arguably, best in class in at least one or more regards. If GM hasn’t changed then its NA operations is a goner, no question about that.
BTW: What makes you think I want the government to tell GM what to build? I no more want the government designing cars than I want Bob Corker negotiating union contracts. Both ideas are absurd. I’m just not a member of the “they should die because they built SUV” crowd. (That crowd seems to be populated with left wing environmental types and right wingers who championed the SUVs in the first place). I do, however, believe that the correct price signals need to be sent, be it through tax incentives, gas prices, cap & trade, or a combination of things.
Dec 13th, 2008 (5:42 pm)DonC #23 says,
The Volt will have a transmission. No way you can avoid one. (Really interested in how the Volt’s will work since Lutz was so high on it).
————-
DonC, I have been here from the beginning. Either you are wrong, or I missed the memo on this.
Dec 13th, 2008 (5:49 pm)Down here we don’t by products from Deetroit. They have been spoon feeding those northerner’s garbage on wheels for decades. We got plenty of great cars being made down here in God’s country. Shut’er down Detroit, the sooner the better.
THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN !!!
Dec 13th, 2008 (5:57 pm)Das ist ein wunderbar auto.
The world knows who really makes the best cars.
Benz (of course), the inventor of the modern car, still makes the world’s best cars. End of Story. We already have better electric vehicles all over Deutchland running today. Wake up americans, the rest of the world has moved on. Follow us and we will take you to the new frontier. Don’t be afraid.
Dec 13th, 2008 (6:14 pm)#61 Rashiid – “Either you are wrong, or I missed the memo on this.”
There you go again, Rashiid, missing the memo again! LOL
I think I’ve correctly identified when and where Lutz talked about the transmission. Lyle has never posted anything about it, though nasaman was quite excited about it.
If memory serves me correctly there were two questions. One was that, understanding the torque curve for an electric motor wouldn’t require gearing on an ICE car, how the Volt would use its transmission to give maximum performance. Lutz responded that the transmission was “top secret” and was so nifty no one had even thought of it before.
The second question was a follow-up. It was that, given that the top secret Volt transmission would be an inspiration to Tesla, would the gearing be other than 1:1 (or something like this). Lutz answered by agreeing that the Volt transmission would be an inspiration to Tesla. (Hard to pry things out of people during on-line chats!)
Unfortunately GM has apparently stopped publishing the on-line chats and I didn’t save my copy.
Dec 13th, 2008 (6:20 pm)As the world turns .. (cont.)
Bernanke also has questioned whether the automakers have sufficient collateral to secure emergency loans from the Fed. And critics worry that other companies might take risks knowing the central bank could help bail them out too.
If, for example, the Federal Reserve agrees to lend the automakers $15 billion, the Treasury could deposit maybe $5 billion with the Fed to be used first if any of the automakers defaulted, said Vincent Reinhart, director of the Federal Reserve Board’s division of monetary affairs from 2001 to 2007. “From the Fed’s standpoint, it makes them feel more comfortable, and politically, Bush hasn’t used all the resources in the TARP,” he said.
Asked whether GM thinks using the TARP money for direct loans or as collateral on loans from the Fed would provide the automaker with enough help in the short-term to avoid a collapse, GM Spokesman Greg Martin on Saturday replied “Yes.”
_________________________
Stay tuned. Will Bernanke see things GM’s way? Can the auto giant stave off loan defaults? Will president Bush’ pen ever run out of ink? Time will reveal this… as the world turns.
=D~
Dec 13th, 2008 (6:53 pm)52 DonC
You are missing one of the most significant problems with the union. The bigger issue is that as companies, such as GM, have to idle workers, they still need to pay 95% of the union workers wage.
This makes it nearly impossible to scale back your spending when you still need to shoulder this burden, when you most need to remove it.
Also, I think your $300/car adder for a $15k car is really not close to reality. I posted the labor involved for the major automakers to build a car. (See Repost below of figures). The actual labor hours to build a 15K vs. a $30k car are not significantly different. A more reasonable cost adder would be in the $600-700 range based on my calculations below of $852.50.
The union is not the whole problem of course, but it is a definite piece of the puzzle that needs to be solved before US car makers can begin to truly recover. I agree that the white collars and COO’s, CEO’s and others need to make similar salary adjustments.
<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>
JEC
1)
“GM says the average UAW laborer makes $29.78 per hour, while Toyota says it pays about $30 per hour. But the unionized factories have far higher benefit costs.”
2)
“GM says its total hourly labor costs are now $69, including wages, pensions and health care for active workers, plus the pension and health care ”
3)
“Toyota says its total costs are around $48. The Japanese automaker has far fewer retirees and its pension and health care benefits are not as rich as those paid to UAW workers. “
————————————————–
Labor hours to build a car:
Toyota: 29.9 hours
Nissan: 30 hours
Honda: 31.6 hours
GM: 32.4 hours
Chrysler: 33 hours
Ford: 35 hours
So GM pays about $21/hour more for labor, and if it takes 32.4 hours => $680, plus compared to Toyota this adds 2.5 hours => $172.50 for a total additional cost adder of $852.50
Dec 13th, 2008 (7:15 pm)Is it news that Canada ponied up 3.5 billion (2.8) billion to the auto industry? They haven’t broken down how they are going to dole it out…but it is approved, so that should help ‘the cause’ a bit.
Side note: We did it without the circus coming to town either…heck our gov’t isn’t even functioning right now, lol.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081213/canada_auto_workers.html?.v=2
Dec 13th, 2008 (7:33 pm)67 Statik
“Side note: We did it without the circus coming to town either…heck our gov’t isn’t even functioning right now, lol.”
———————————
But, maybe Canada should have made more of fuss. If they (Big 2.8) have such a small economic impact in Canada as I have heard you state in previous posts, then maybe shame on them for not making this a more debated issue.
While the debates in US definitely take on a circus like look, if you watch CSPAN or other networks, I still think there is a lot of smart people that are working on difficult decisions that will affect our economy. You can only take so much from the media.
JMHO, of course.
Dec 13th, 2008 (7:34 pm)67 Statik
“Side note: We did it without the circus coming to town either…heck our gov’t isn’t even functioning right now, lol.”
———————————
But, maybe Canada should have made more of fuss. If they (Big 2.8) have such a small economic impact in Canada as I have heard you state in previous posts, then maybe shame on them for not making this a more debated issue.
While the debates in US definitely take on a circus like look, if you watch CSPAN or other networks, I still think there is a lot of smart people that are working behind the scenes, on difficult decisions that will affect our economy. You can only take so much from the media.
JMHO, of course.
Dec 13th, 2008 (7:51 pm)This has to be one of the ugliest cars I’ve seen to date. You’d really have to be in love with the Mercedes-Benz name to purchase one of these cars for 40,000.
Dec 13th, 2008 (8:03 pm)#68 JEC
67 Statik
“Side note: We did it without the circus coming to town either…heck our gov’t isn’t even functioning right now, lol.”
———————————
But, maybe Canada should have made more of fuss. If they (Big 2.8) have such a small economic impact in Canada as I have heard you state in previous posts, then maybe shame on them for not making this a more debated issue.
While the debates in US definitely take on a circus like look, if you watch CSPAN or other networks, I still think there is a lot of smart people that are working on difficult decisions that will affect our economy. You can only take so much from the media.
JMHO, of course.
==============================
I’ve seen a few polls on the popularity of the bailout money, and they seem to mostly be in the mid 20s, so not many people across the country are for it, lol. Hard to say if that is due to intense regionality….or common sense.
They do (Detroit auto) have a relatively small impact to Canada (other than delaerships…which are omnipresent everywhere in NA)…they are almost exclusively in southern Ontario. Of the big three, really only GM has a large footprint…I expect them to get 800 million now and another billion or so in the new year. Leaving at most 1 billion for the other two.
Before this announcement, I really thought the biggest waste was Chrysler asking for 2 billion when they have next to nothing for manufacturing/jobs up here. I’m hoping they just get token money.
I can’t help but notice the industry asked for 6.8 billion, and they got 2.8. Hopefully, most of that shortfall will be stiffing Chrysler. We are still balancing budgets up here (for another few months, lol), so we can take a flyer on something like this…I guess. (Personally, I hate it…but you can’t always get your way, thats life).
Dec 13th, 2008 (8:10 pm)As a mechanical engineer myself, the biggest compliment I could ever recieve would be someone copying my idea. The Volt is going to be copied many times over and hopefully improved upon by the infusion of fresh outside perspectives. That said, GM is far ahead at this point and will recieve huge benefits from this in both the short and long term if they handle this intelligently. They must stay the course and not be stupid enough to think they can just keep the tech they developed under wraps. In fact, the best thing they could do would be to license the tech to Ford so it can become more widespread and accepted by the public. The only way to stay ahead of the game is to continue to innovate, taking advantage of their head start.
And I am super interested to find out what the secret transmission is like…
Dec 13th, 2008 (8:13 pm)statik #67
All those Toronto socialists coming to the aid of GM. Nothing surprises me about Canadian government give-aways. Next they’ll be spending a billion on gun control and another billion on a special opportunities fund which is basically unaccounted.
That would be the equivalent of the US spending 35 billion on corruption. But not to worry, Canada will always vote for their beloved Liberals.
Dec 13th, 2008 (8:28 pm)#64 DonC Says: “I think I’ve correctly identified when and where Lutz talked about the transmission.
…
Lutz responded that the transmission was “top secret” and was so nifty no one had even thought of it before.
…
Lutz answered by agreeing that the Volt transmission would be an inspiration to Tesla.”
————————————————————————————–
OK – you got me. I always thought a “transmission” was something that had a clutch, gears, fluid, etc. But now it looks like the word “transmission” could mean, well, just about anything. So I won’t argue what the word “transmission” means.
Instead, let me make the following points.
• Tesla has done away with switching gears. Their new v1.5 drive train uses a single gear.
• Lutz frequently comes out with marketing fluff.
• I would be willing to bet that what Lutz calls a “transmission” is really some unique new firmware algorithms for the AC induction electric motor. Tuning the firmware differently could make huge differences in the way the car reacts to the acceleration pedal. So I’ll bet he’s talking about a software transmission.
• Moving forward, gears will seem like LP records. The future is direct drive. Check http://www.hipadrive.com . Gears, axles, CV joints, transmissions … all that stuff is going away. 2000 RPM at the wheel is 150 MPH. More details here:
http://home.deds.nl/~daihard/electroCar/Hi%20Pa%20Drive.pdf
Dec 13th, 2008 (8:38 pm)#52 DonC
That’s a very interesting question, but let’s talk about the wage issue first. The issue I have is not necessarily the focus on wage rates, it’s the fixation on UAW wage rates. GM has higher wage rates than Toyota at all levels. The CEO makes more; the white collar workers make more; and the assembly line workers make more. What is dishonest and disingenuous is singling out the UAW workers. If wage rates are too high and need to come down then let’s reduce wage rates from top to bottom. But the “blame the UAW” crowd never so much as mentions white collar workers though their wages and benefits, for both active and retired workers, are at least as serious an issue.
___________________________________________________
Hopefully I am quoting the correct person here. This is a very good point. The UAW represented employees are the lowest paid employees on average at GM. There any many white collar workers that make more than the unionized workers. Any many of them are supervisors on the floor, not the higher ups. Once you get to a certain level you gat added benefits like a company car. That includes the car, insurance, gas (?) and the plates and trust me, they are not driving Cobalts. They are driving Corvettes, Caddies and other expensive vehicles that me as a union employee could not afford the payment on.
Here is what needs to happen. GM and the others need to reduce everyones salary to that of the UAW represented employee. Thats right, Lutz needs to make the same $28 I do. Drop many of the negotiated benefits that do not affect health care. Trust me there are things that could be done away with without going after our health care and from what I was told by a RN I know, our insurance is not that great. No bonuses for anyone as long as the companies are loosing money and still owes on any loans.
The gov’t needs to give the auto companies the loans to work out their plans to become more viable. The gov’t needs to loan GM and the others the money needed to fund the VEBA accounts in addition to the $14 billion. This money os to go directly to the UAW (and IUEW) to completely fund VEBA and the union will immediately take over retiree healthcare (the companies biggest cost). Retirees will keep their pensions as that fund is suppose to be funded. Current employees should be given an option to keep their pensions or switch to a 401K plan. Those that choose the 401K option will be given a lump sum payment based on their time with the company and then 5% (?) match on funds till retirement.
Vehicle lineup
1. Chevy Volt -plugin (with option to have more later if business demands.
2. Chevy and GMC trucks 1/2 thru 1 ton, GMC 1 1/2 ton and bigger.
3. Chevy Tahoe, Sububan GMC Yukon and Caddy Escalade – sorry but some people like these and will continue to buy. They can all be built on the same assembly line so costs can be kept in line.
4. Chevy Express and GMC Savana – some people still need these as well, they could take a vehicle from #3 and build at the same plant as the van to keep costs down
5. Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon – need redesigned, name change
6. Chevy Traverse, GMC Acadia and Buick Enclave – Large crossovers, basically drop the Saturn and move Chevy production to MI from TN.
7. Chevy Equinox, New Buick – small crossovers
8. new line of small cars- something small like they use in Europe, all Chevies, engineering is already done so cost would be minimal
9. Chevy Cruze – Could also bring out the Orlando Concept on this platform.
10. Chevy Malibu, Buick Regal – smaller midsize sedans
11. Chevy Impala, Buick Lacrosse Cadillac STS – larger midsize sedans
12. Buick Lucerne, Cadillac DTS – full size sedans
13. Cadillac CTS (V) and SRX – CTS in Sedan, Coupe Convertible and Wagon
14. Chevy Corvette, Cadillac XLR – XLR would be a limited production supercar
15. Chevy and Buick Roadsters – replace the Pontiac and Saturn. Would be built in KY with the Vette.
16 New line or RWD sedans and Coupes (like G8) – Chevy Bel Air, Buick Riviera, Pontiac GTO (niche) , these are really nice cars and need to stick around. Chevy would be a 2 or 4 door, Buick and Pontiac would be 2 door only.
17. Chevy Camaro
This plan would need: (keeping in line with GM’s current plans)
17 assembly plants (some plants, Hamtramick and Saturn have multiple lines in the same plant)
2 (3?) foundries (1 steel and 1 aluminum)
2 transmission plants (1 fwd, 1 rwd)
5 engine assembly plants. ( Duramax, V8, and 3 plants to build the large number of V6 and 4 cyl)
? Metal fab plants (this would vary as some assembly plantsa have their own)
Selling Delco as they have mentioned would allow them to loose 1/3 to 1/2 of the wharehouses.
I am sure I could come up with more but i am tired of typing.
Dec 13th, 2008 (8:41 pm)People keep saying Toyota has less pension costs because they have not been around as long. This is not correct. They don’t have pensions at all. No pensions and no health care for retirees. You get a 401k like most of the rest of us. The salerys are not significant, it is the retiree costs. That and the silly work rules. If we had universal health care in the US, there would only be the pension issue. Move to 401k and dump the silly work rules and there shouldn’t be any issue.
Dec 13th, 2008 (8:48 pm)#72 ccombs Says: “In fact, the best thing they (GM) could do would be to license the tech to Ford so it can become more widespread and accepted by the public.”
————————————————————————————–
IIRC, GM was doing just that. God knows what the banking crisis has done to those negotiations though…
Dec 13th, 2008 (8:55 pm)#76 Len Says: “People keep saying Toyota has less pension costs because they have not been around as long. This is not correct. They don’t have pensions at all. No pensions and no health care for retirees. You get a 401k like most of the rest of us. The salary’s are not significant, it is the retiree costs. That and the silly work rules. If we had universal health care in the US, there would only be the pension issue. Move to 401k and dump the silly work rules and there shouldn’t be any issue.”
————————————————————————————–
Interesting. Well then the UAW should make concessions on pensions and work rules, and forget about wage comparisons. As I understand it, the UAW has already made some of these concessions in 2007, but they won’t take effect until 2010. That’s too long, so they will have to bring that in.
The only problem is that all this stuff is complicated, so they cant do it overnight. They could do it by March 31, 2009 though. I believe that’s what they’re asking for at this point – more time to thoroughly evaluate all the implications of the concessions.
Dec 13th, 2008 (9:05 pm)#66 JEC – “Also, I think your $300/car adder for a $15k car is really not close to reality.”
Your point about the layoff policy is well taken. That’s a big difference though only when cutting production.
I hadn’t thought to cost out the difference based on the number of hours it takes to assemble a car, but it’s a very good idea. Nice job.
When you do it, it turns out that the numbers show that my estimate of a $300 labor cost difference on a $15K car was high. The big mistake in your numbers is that you (incorrectly) included pension and benefit costs for retired workers when looking at GM workers but didn’t include those costs when looking at Toyota workers. If you compare apples to apples, the total costs of UAW workers is about $55/hr and total costs of Toyota workers is $45/hr (you say $48 but close enough). (As I’ll explain latter, if you include retiree costs you’re actually counting the same costs twice)
The second mistake is assuming that the number of hours taken to assemble a vehicle is independent of size. This is incorrect. For example, it takes Chrysler less than 14 hours per vehicle to assemble a Jeep Wrangler but more than 30 hours to assemble its average vehicle. As evidenced by this as well as by the fact that as Toyota and Nissan have added more trucks to their mix their average time to assemble a vehicle has increased, larger more expensive vehicles take more time to assemble. The relationship is not linear, and can be changed by factors such as whether a vehicle is in the first or last year of production, but it generally holds.
Now, while I’d quibble with your numbers — in 2008 Chrysler used 30.37 hours to assemble a vehicle just like Toyota — we can agree that the numbers generally say that it takes about 30 hours to assemble the average vehicle in the US. Now if the wage gap is $10/hour, that means for the average vehicle there is a difference of $300. For lower end and smaller vehicles that number will be smaller, so for a $15K a good guess might be $250 or so. IOW no big deal and a bit lower, rather than higher, than my $300 guesstimate.
At this point let me return to why you can’t count retiree costs as part of current worker compensation. A UAW worker makes about $40 in compensation and $15 in benefits, including pension and future health care benefits. A Toyota makes $40 in direct compensation and $5 in benefits, including pension and future health care benefits. The important bit is that the additional benefits earned by all workers are paid for during the period they have worked. The benefits are earned and the payments for those benefits are ACCRUED. IOW while they are not actually paid out to the worker, from an accounting standpoint those benefits have been paid.
Once you understand the concept of accrued benefits you should understand why retiree pensions and health care costs can’t be included in the pay of current workers: they’ve already been counted. When the retiree worked his or her hours, their pension and health care costs are paid and set aside in a separate fund. That’s part of their $55/hr compensation package. Once $15/hr benefits have been paid, you can’t claim that, when the worker retires and receives the $15 he is owed, that the money is actually being paid to active workers.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, let’s go over this again with an example. Assume GM only has two UAW workers: Jim and Pete. Both make $55/hr — $40 in direct compensation and $15 in benefits. GM puts the $15 aside in a separate for them when they retire. Now Pete retires. He’s due the $15 in retiree benefits he earned last year. So here’s the question: how much is Jim making per hour this year now? Is he is still making $55/hr, which is what he was making last year? Or is he suddenly and magically making $70/hr — the $55/hr he’s actually making plus the $15 GM paid Pete last year? The answer should be obvious.
Dec 13th, 2008 (9:48 pm)Does anyone have an idea of whether any kind of work is continuing on the Volt ? There are things that are critical that don’t involve much cash outlay beyond personnel, such as computer programming, and some others that are automated, like long term battery tests.
But is anything happening, or are we in a downtime mode?
Dec 13th, 2008 (10:02 pm)I’d drive it, though I would prefer a true plugin series hybrid like the Volt.
Dec 13th, 2008 (10:19 pm)#80 RB – “But is anything happening, or are we in a downtime mode?”
Good and bad news on this front. During the hearings they interviewed some guys in a bar in Detroit who were watching the hearings. One of them worked in “Pre-production” (don’t’ know what that is exactly but seems self descriptive), and he said that if it wasn’t for the Volt they wouldn’t have anything to do.
So seems like the Volt is steaming ahead. In fact with all top management focused on the bailout things might be moving faster.
Dec 13th, 2008 (10:26 pm)I’d like to weigh in on the the unions and their wages:
(I have stayed away because it is such a ‘hot potato’ issue, and I am already getting enough ‘action’)
If you cook at Taco Bell you make $8, if your a chef at the Nobu you make $80.
Who cares what the average Toyota wage is compared to GM? What does that have to do with the price of cheese?
A GM worker shouldn’t be making anywhere near what a Toyota worker makes. Toyota makes money, lots of it….GM loses money, lots of it. This isn’t like a pay equity debate between a man and a woman for the same job.
GM needs to have workers at max $14 hour to even compete against Toyota…and that is what we are talking about here, competing. GM in order to survive has to take a greater share of a shrinking market. Pay equity is not going to get it done.
If a union worker won’t accept that $14 job, there are about a million other people in Michigan that will take it in a heartbeat, and that is what this bailout (or a bankruptcy) is really about…breaking the back of the union and ripping the heart out of debtholders (and solve another dozen problems, lol)… attempting to not only keep Detroit auto alive, but make it a viable entity, so that someday in the FUTURE (not now) millions of American workers can once again have a secure job that pays a good wage by a American company.
Dec 13th, 2008 (10:46 pm)Just a quick note about UAW and white collar wages at GM v. the foreign manufacturers. The first is that the union wages sets the floor. It is difficult to have supervisors earn less then the people that they oversee, so if the wage is high at the bottom rung, it will be high from the bottom up the mid level. Why would an team leader bust their hump to become an area supervisor without a pay bump?
Additionally, GM and the domestics have been in a state of stagnation or contraction for quite some time. I would expect that the current age of a white collar GM employee is higher than toyota. In fact, after the last round of layoffs, I doubt that there are many salaried people left in GM that hired in before about 2000. I would also expect that an older workforce has a higher salary than a younger one – hence GM’s relatively high white collar salary.
Frankly, the problem with the union IMHO is not the wage, but the work rules and quality of the worker. If the union really wanted to help themselves, they would have peer review boards or something that would thin their own ranks – they could go to management and say “this is what we have done to make ourselves a competitive workforce”, rather then defend drunks and sleepers. That would improve the public image of the union.
-my rant continues – I am also a little frustrate with some of the complaints about the decisions that GM made in the past and the concessions that they gave to the union. Would activist shareholders have allowed GM to fully fund the pensions – or would they demand greater dividends? Would GM have made big SUV’s and offered stiff discounts that destroyed brand image without fixed labor costs? etc. etc. It is hard to judge these decisions when you have the benefit of hindsight. In my mind it is pretty amazing that GM made it as long as they did. If now is the end, then it is the end, but I am still impressed by the run that GM has had.
Dec 13th, 2008 (11:14 pm)BYD – Volt’s competition
Interesting article……………
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7779261.stm
“This is a plug-in electric car, hence the acceleration, but when the electric battery runs out after 80 miles (128km), the petrol engine switches in seamlessly.”
“This new dual mode rechargeable car makes its launch appearance in China on 15 December, “
Dec 14th, 2008 (1:24 am)#83 Statik – “GM needs to have workers at max $14 hour to even compete against Toyota”
Didn’t want to wade in but couldn’t help yourself, eh? Ba ha ha ha ha ha!
Actually your discussion of wages misses the point, which is that worker salaries are not a major part of GM’s problem. At most wages represent 10% of the cost of producing the car. Better to figure focus on the 90% than the 10%.
Yet even focusing on 90% of the costs is a distraction. The problem isn’t on the cost side, it’s on the demand side. Which is another way of saying it’s all about the cars. Your workers can work for free, but if you’re not building cars people want to buy you are still going to lose money. Focusing on the wage rates just removes the onus on management to come up with better product. The real business plan would be: we’ll deliver great products that people will pay a premium for. Is this possible? I have my doubts. But the Cadillac CTS is a start. The Cruze could build on that. And the Volt could really start them on a whole upwards trajectory. Time will tell.
Anyway, while you ponder that, in case you’ve missed it, here is a video of your favorite car, the i-Miev. Seem a little squishy on the launch date. LOL Also note the range: 100 miles but really more like 80 miles in NA and, by the way, you can lose 12 miles of range if you turn on the air conditioner on a hot day! It’s cute though, and pretty roomy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfaJS_7ZaFA
Dec 14th, 2008 (3:52 am)I have spent years in the production industry. And I know how the average floor worker cycles from being somewhat happy to being somewhat pissed off. This Yin Yang is just how it is.
I have been watching GM ads and have noticed assemblers in the “pissed off” mode. Two examples of this: a guy rubber mallet pounding the inside of a car door to make something fit better (I presume). Another was a guy violently tugging on a production machine and then giving the camera a dirty look.
If nothing else, please try to get the remaining floor people to present GM in a good light. This doesn’t cost anything and will no doubt save jobs later down the road.
=D~
Dec 14th, 2008 (6:20 am)Statik says:
A GM worker shouldn’t be making anywhere near what a Toyota worker makes. Toyota makes money, lots of it….GM loses money, lots of it. This isn’t like a pay equity debate between a man and a woman for the same job.
Not true anymore. The 18Billion profit Toyota was looking at, in the latest projections, is now a 1.1 Billion LOSS.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/12/report-toyota-l.html#more
Dec 14th, 2008 (7:29 am)hi NZDavid #88,
Odd, Yahoo financial just rated Toyota as an outperform. This world has gone crazy. More than ever, reality perceived isn’t the case.
Today one L.A. financial analyst had some advice for the middle class. He said, “It’s not a matter of making more money right now, the trick is preserving what you have”.
_______________________
I think GM will be sent the requested billions from Canadian interests and the TARP bank survival fund. I don’t know what to think about the wage automotive stand off. I just want to see the wheels of the Volt on the road.
=D~
Dec 14th, 2008 (8:14 am)#82 DonC said “One of them worked in “Pre-production” (don’t’ know what that is exactly but seems self descriptive), and he said that if it wasn’t for the Volt they wouldn’t have anything to do.
So seems like the Volt is steaming ahead. In fact with all top management focused on the bailout things might be moving faster.”
================================
Thank you for that datum. I doubt they are moving faster
but if some of the calendar-limited work is still inching forward, that is very good. As people have said many times on this blog, there are a lot of details, especially in software-hardware relationships, that have to be perfected through some cycles of trial and error Until told otherwise, I’ll be optimistic and imagine that is happening.
Dec 14th, 2008 (8:20 am)$55k and you can get your electric car today!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-6FTBQt2qU&feature=related
This makes the Volts $40k price seem like a bargain basement special, AND the Volt includes the actual car.
I always love when these wealthy actors get on their soap box about “green” and saving the earth, and that they paid for this vehicle to help save the earth. Never mind that he owns 10 other vehicles and that the “green” vehicle he bought contains more of the earths natural resources than the average Joes car (I am sure Tom bought some carbon credits, like Al Gore, to offset his X100 carbon foot print). Tom Hanks thinks normal washing machines run off 240, well sorry Tom, but us “regular” people’s washing machines use120. Now your average electric dryer uses 220V, so if I give you the benefit of the doubt that you just slipped and said washer, then ok, but I really doubt Tom has had to go into a dark, cold basement and tear apart his washing machine or dryer.
Ok, I am off my slam of Tom Hanks…..Have a nice Sunday everyone!
Back to Unions…..ah maybe not….
Dec 14th, 2008 (8:46 am)#90 RB
“As people have said many times on this blog, there are a lot of details, especially in software-hardware relationships, that have to be perfected through some cycles of trial and error”
——————————————————————————
RB, one thing I can guarentee you is that the software will NEVER be COMPLETE. The software will reach a “release” state at some point, but it will NEVER reach be complete.
The motor control algorithms for ac induction motors have been around for 25+ years, and they have been running successfully in factories with “incomplete” software. These algorithms are in a constant state of “tweaking”.
I would believe that the actual motor control software is “released”, but the unique methods of the power transfers between pure battery and generator are still being refined (I know Lutz has mentioned this long ago, about how their is a noticable affect when the generator kicks in, so they are probably working that still)
In my past life I did work on testing of the Boeing 747-400 back in the 80′s. This aircraft was the first, true parallel system. The 747-400 has 4 engines and an APU (Aux power unit), and the trick to achieving a true parallel system was the need to transfer power to separate busses (5 of them, 4 for the main engine, 1 for the APU). The turbine shaft drove a mechanical CSD (Constant Speed Drive), which generated the 400 hz used on aircraft. To transfer power you first have to sync up a bus, which meant modulating the speed of your CSD’s. The Boeing aircraft was able to work in any of the possible configurations (full parallel, split bus, separate bus) to keep the aircraft powered up. You really do not want to lose power to your avionics, but if the passenger losing his video display was acceptable in emergencies. Oh, I forgot about the ground power transfer, since the aircraft actually would be required to make a seemless power transfer from the ground cart to the APU or the main engines. Oh, yeah do not forget about the RAT (Ram Air Turbine), if you are unlucky enough to be on a plane and they deploy the RAT it’s time to place head between your legs and ….. The RAT will drop out of the nose of the aircraft if all other power sources fail. The quality of power from the RAT is crap at best, but it will let the guys in the cockpit have a chance to keep the bird in the air. (Oh the stories of the RAT….are incredible and I have not the time our typing skill to tap those in…).
Anyway, what was the point….oh yeah. The Volts software state and the difficulty of those power transfers. The 747-400 controlling software is orders of magnitude more complex than any previous used on any aircraft. My rough estimate as far as lines of code and amount of testing and redundacy would be at least an order of magnitude greater then any previous split bus power control algorithms.
I expect the Volts software will not be as complex as a 747-400, but compared to any other control algorithms, I am sure GM has its hands full.
Dec 14th, 2008 (10:01 am)American Corporations are deathly afraid of unions because the government always supports them so strongly. Unions think they are impregnable. But for all the good they’ve done over the years in helping all American labor , they have also caused mighty destruction. They believe they “own” the work they are given to do and they can sue to win the work back if the employer seeks out a more favorable environment. The work ethic is generally very lax in a union shop and the attitude toward management is frequently hostile. I have supervised union employees and most of them were responsible and did a fair days work. Some of them were exceptional employees, hard working and smart. But there is always a large contingent of disaffected ne’er do wells and malingerers that affect the performance of the whole group. The union will protect these people no matter what consequences it may have for the employer. If you cannot get evidence for a criminal conviction, you probably cannot discipline or fire poorly performing individuals. The company was always intimidated by the union and was afraid to go to court or arbitration ( for good reason). My conclusion is that any well paying right-to-work shop will outperform a union shop because of a better work ethic, the ability to dismiss malingerers and increased tasking flexibility(no absurd work rules). Our government, by its longstanding and unreasonable support of unions, has crippled American industry. What would happen if GM closed a Michigan plant and moved it to Mississippi? If you answer the question correctly, you know why the UAW must be chastened for the good of American labor and industry.
Dec 14th, 2008 (10:49 am)#83 statik Says: “A GM worker shouldn’t be making anywhere near what a Toyota worker makes. Toyota makes money, lots of it….GM loses money, lots of it.”
————————————————————————————–
Yes, I think you’re onto something here. Profit sharing. It’s the purest form of capitalism, and it works!
Today, both Toyota and GM are losing money, but if we rewind the clock 6-8 months, Toyota was profitable and GM was losing lots of money.
Let’s say the UAW took a 10% pay cut in exchange for profit sharing. It would be tuned so that, when the company’s profits are normal, they would make back that 10% in profit sharing. When the company does really well, they could make 20-30% in profit sharing. When the company is not profitable (like now), they make no profit sharing, which means 10% less than they’re making now.
As you work up through higher level employees, the percentage of total compensation through profit sharing would grow, so that senior executives would make 90% of their compensation through profit sharing.
In order to prevent any get-rich-quick schemes that damage long-term viability, some or all of the profit sharing would be averaged over some number of years.
The points here are:
1) Everyone has a direct financial incentive for the company to do well.
2) CEOs of unprofitable companies would not make millions of dollars.
3) Given the times, the UAW might be willing consider this.
4) The UAW will probably also have to make concessions in befits as well.
Dec 14th, 2008 (11:23 am)#88 NZDavid said,
Statik says:
A GM worker shouldn’t be making anywhere near what a Toyota worker makes. Toyota makes money, lots of it….GM loses money, lots of it. This isn’t like a pay equity debate between a man and a woman for the same job.
Not true anymore. The 18Billion profit Toyota was looking at, in the latest projections, is now a 1.1 Billion LOSS.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/12/report-toyota-l.html#more
========================
True enough, that is a good point. If they start to lose money the Toyota guys have to take a haircut as well. (Actually Toyota already has plans to restructure wages).
Still makes costs between the two relative. If Toyota is going to lose 1.1 billion after projecting 18 billion dollars for 2009, what is a reasonable projection for GM in ’09 after already losing 21 billion through 3 quarters of 2008?
Dec 14th, 2008 (12:07 pm)#94 Dave G
There already is profit sharing, the problem is that there has to be a profit to share. I think it has been at least 8 years since we have had profit sharing. Also you have to remember that the UAW employees make what the higher up decide to make. We have no decision on what car we make or what engine we build. Everyone wants to punish the union worker for something they have no control over. We have to fight with the company a lot of times to keep the work we have rather than see it go to Mexico or China. The union workers really have no decision making when it comes to the process of making a vehicle.
Most of the wrk were do is ever controlled by a machine. The assembly line controls how fast a worker has to work in a assembly plant. Management controls that, not the unionized employee.
Dec 14th, 2008 (12:09 pm)#86 DonC
#83 Statik – “GM needs to have workers at max $14 hour to even compete against Toyota”
Didn’t want to wade in but couldn’t help yourself, eh? Ba ha ha ha ha ha!
Actually your discussion of wages misses the point, which is that worker salaries are not a major part of GM’s problem. At most wages represent 10% of the cost of producing the car. Better to figure focus on the 90% than the 10%.
Yet even focusing on 90% of the costs is a distraction. The problem isn’t on the cost side, it’s on the demand side. Which is another way of saying it’s all about the cars. Your workers can work for free, but if you’re not building cars people want to buy you are still going to lose money. Focusing on the wage rates just removes the onus on management to come up with better product. The real business plan would be: we’ll deliver great products that people will pay a premium for. Is this possible? I have my doubts. But the Cadillac CTS is a start. The Cruze could build on that. And the Volt could really start them on a whole upwards trajectory. Time will tell.
Anyway, while you ponder that, in case you’ve missed it, here is a video of your favorite car, the i-Miev. Seem a little squishy on the launch date. LOL Also note the range: 100 miles but really more like 80 miles in NA and, by the way, you can lose 12 miles of range if you turn on the air conditioner on a hot day! It’s cute though, and pretty roomy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfaJS_7ZaFA
======================================
======================================
Your right, wages (depending on how you do the math and calculate the legacy costs) are between 10-15%. You are also right that if the demand is not there and youcan’t sell the product, this is all ‘moot’ (which is why my own personal opinion is for them to go bankrupt, lol…but that is not happening at the moment, so I have to move past my own opinion).
But 10-15% is a huge number in the car business, if you have half the labor costs of your competition, then you have a 5-7% profit margin built into every car. Right now GM gives Toyota a extra 4% margin on every car because of labor…that needs to change if GM is to survive.
More important that that is people want cheap, efficient cars. The magic number now are cars that fall in the $9,999 to $19,999 range…not $40K SUVs. That is where the wage component comes in.
Right now:
Toyota 30 hours to make a car x $50 = $1,500
GM 32 hours to make a car x $68 = $2,176
New hotness:
GM 32 hours to make a car x $20 = $640
Price swing (GM’s cost) PER CAR would be $1,536 ($850 a car cheaper than Toyota)…when the market demands $9,999-$19,999 cars, that is a monster.
—–
As you say there are a lot of other factors into GM’s cost, and I want to be just as hard on them. (A example would be debtholders…most they should get is 25cents, top-top).
The issue isn’t whether it is right, or is it fair…the issue is, can they do it? The answer is yes they can. They lay it out in black and white in January, this is what you take by March 31st, or we take our money back and you can have a big bowl of nothing if you don’t accept.
Anyway, we are going to disagree on this one for sure…so I will just leave it at that, lol…and we’ll start fresh on the next thread.
/peace
Dec 14th, 2008 (12:50 pm)#86 DonC
Anyway, while you ponder that, in case you’ve missed it, here is a video of your favorite car, the i-Miev. Seem a little squishy on the launch date. LOL Also note the range: 100 miles but really more like 80 miles in NA and, by the way, you can lose 12 miles of range if you turn on the air conditioner on a hot day! It’s cute though, and pretty roomy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfaJS_7ZaFA
===========================
Had to comment on the i-Miev though. Thanks for the video, I had not seen that.
I did note the range comment as well, the guy said that the range was 100 miles, but on US HIGHWAYS/Highway mode it would only get 80 miles (1:04 of the vid). I think that is pretty good, (I assumed the 100 miles was a ‘city/optimal’ number), especially if we are comparing that to the Volt’s 40 miles range (which is not calculated on the higway or even verified in any form at all).
If this thing is available before the Volt, there is no way to convince me (or many others) to wait for the Volt (especially with GM’s situation). If it pulls a ‘real world’ 80 miles on the highway, that is still more than enough for me (that is actually the originally advertised number when it was only NiMH powered), I have another vehicle to go to if I’m travelling farther.
Taking a step back from the whole thing…I think maybe the problem between us on this subject, and the obvious conflict one half of the board has (E-Rev vs Pure EV) with the other, is the angle from which we come at it, our own personal priorities.
Personally I don’t come at it from the angle of cost savings, or convenience ie) What if I need to go more than the range? What if I get a phone call there is a emergency 60 miles away and I have already driven 50? etc. These are not questions that are a concern to me…I’m confident I can deal with these situations when the time comes, even if they are slightly annoying if they come to pass.
My angle is green…that is number 1. I have a need to drive a pure electric car, that I power myself from renewable energy (specifically solar). I realize that the Volt maybe close to fitting that bill…but the fact it has a gas cap does not send as good a message to automakers I purchase it from as no cap at all, the same goes for people that see me and that I influence.
The Volt says, “I use electric power most of the time, but sometimes I use gas” The i-Miev says, “I only use electric power, I can’t use gas” I’m willing to make small sacrifices for that statement. Heck, I will pay extra to make that statement.
That being said, the Volt is my ideal ‘backup car’…so everybody wins in my own personal situation. I’ll trade in my still non-existent Insight for the still non-existent Volt, lol.
Dec 14th, 2008 (2:12 pm)I am not sure on the transmission stuff, i too love it. I am sure they would have gone through input,rpm max power (may be more factors ) graphs and found and optimal points . I think tesla may found 2 points where these graph intercepts. That may be the reason they look for a two mode transmission to take advantage of both optimal points on different driving situations. Putting the motor to max efficiency or an optimal efficiency and take advantage of it my some other mechanical system.
Other way may be changing the motor properties itself buy activating some coils when and only needed. so there may be spare coils and they work only when needed ( same engine shut of principle they use for tahoe). This can be done using software and relays.
Lets see how GM thinks on it. I am sure they have nice and great engineers there.
Dec 14th, 2008 (6:19 pm)This BlueZero E-Cell Plus is kind of nice.
It looks good, but I’m not sure the back wheel has a shield over it or not. If it does, I don’t find that particularly attractive.
The 62 mile EV range is great and the fact it has a generator is great too.
With Tesla’s 225 mile range on all electric, I wonder how much range it would have gotten if it had a generator on board.
Dec 15th, 2008 (4:23 am)101th comment!
Looks cool and performance sounds good/fair.
Dec 15th, 2008 (9:57 am)Even if GM is gone and the Volt is never produced, it is nice to know that you will be able to buy a Volt-like vehicle one day soon. Problem is only the richest of us will be able to afford the price. I know I can not.
Dec 15th, 2008 (11:35 am)#73 ED M
“All those Toronto socialists coming to the aid of GM. Nothing surprises me about Canadian government give-aways.”
Our Government is located in Ottawa…not Toronto, and the bail out is tied to the US granting it first… (learn about the country first please..)
” Next they’ll be spending a billion on gun control and another billion on a special opportunities fund which is basically unaccounted.”
THanks..but we have gun control..have had it for like forever…You can buy, it is just more rigorous background check…keepps our NATIONS murder rate lower than most of your larger cities…(again..learn about the country first please..)
“But not to worry, Canada will always vote for their beloved Liberals”
Ummm dude…we have had a conservative Government for a while now, and just had another election re-electing them…The liberal party not only last the last electrion, they lost what they had by about 50%…not really beloved I figure.. (again..learn about the country first please..)
Have a nice day
Jan 12th, 2009 (9:59 am)Thanks Dave G., for the links in your post #74 about PML’s in-wheel motors. I deleted the last part of one of those links and found this interesting text:
(((which is poorly formatted: unless your monitor is a mile wide you have to move right and left to even read it)))
http://home.deds.nl/~daihard/electroCar/ElectroCarEmail.txt
anyway, good stuff about unsprung weight and brakeless braking in there, among other topics.
But maybe Michelin’s high-RPM, geared-down in-wheel motor/suspension system, “Active Wheel”, will prove more viable?
Apr 4th, 2009 (9:25 pm)Hi, just to mention that here in Europe, we have a new concept of electric car coming out at the end of 2009. It’s called “Bolloré” made by the association of Pininfarina and a french industrial working on new battery concepts.
If you understand french see the link below.
http://www.techno-science.net/?onglet=news&news=6379
It’s fully electric, has an autonomy of 142 miles and runs up to 80 miles/hour. At this moment I can’t find something better on the market.
I’m waiting for it release with much interest.
Sep 22nd, 2009 (1:53 am)Sound like typically top shelf Mercedes vehicle concepts, but what percentage of the population will be able to afford them?