GM Plans to Build Strong-Hybrid Small Vehicles But Will Spend Twice as Much Developing E-Flex Cars

December 15th, 2008 | Posted in: E-Flex, Hybrid

GM’s viability plan reveals their intended future development of advanced technology fuel efficient vehicles, as shown in Table 8 above.

The company already produces mild hybrids, such as the Malibu, which get about a 10 to 15% increase in fuel efficiency. These cars mainly improve efficiency by turning off the engine at stops, using regenerative braking, and providing electric motor acceleration assist. But, there is no ability to drive electric only.

GM also has so-called strong hybrids on the market. Using their 2-mode hybrid system, these cars obtain fuel efficiency increases of up to 55%. Right now they can only be found in large trucks such as the Tahoe. A smaller vehicle, the Saturn VUE is set to launch shortly.

One obvious question is why hasn’t GM applied this strong hybrid technology to a small, light car and get some high mpgs?

According to the table, it seems GM plans to after all. The business plan indicates a strong hybrid small vehicle program with a $315 million budget between 2009 and 2012. This is actually half of the Volt’s allocated budget of $758 million.

Since it appears such a car is part of their future plans, I wondered what vehicle they might have in store for us.

I asked product development spokesperson Dee Allen for an answer. He replied “I cannot comment on future plans beyond what is in the Plan.”

I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

It is good to see that GM plans to spend the largest portion of its R&D budget on E-REVs confirming just how important the Volt is to GM’s future.

It is clear though that the automaker thinks more should be spent on mild hybrids and strong hybrid large vehicles than strong hybrid cars.

What do you think the priorities should be? After all it may be your money.

Popularity: 2% [?]

(4 votes, average: 4.75 out of 5)

Loading ...

Posted by: Lyle

128 Responses to “GM Plans to Build Strong-Hybrid Small Vehicles But Will Spend Twice as Much Developing E-Flex Cars”

+1 Dave K. =D~ Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 7:29 am

Get the Cruze E-REV models to GM dealerships. Push the “getting off the OPEC habit” and “why even buy gasoline” points. They will sell faster than right now.

=D~

[Reply]
-1 beachliving Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 7:54 am

I hope this is true.. Seems like in the past all they really cared about was the pc of a hybrid and not making strong ones..

[Reply]
-1 Rashiid Amul Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 7:57 am

Lyle asks,
What do you think the priorities should be? After all it may be your money.

————-
A very good question.
My priorities would be this:
1) EREV
2) Turn every vehicle into an EREV until such time they can be BEVs only.
3) Improve Battery technology and forget the other three items on the chart since they will all be EREVs.

[Reply]
Jim I Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 7:58 am

Making a change to the drivetrain of an SUV would keep their existing higher profit market lines, and put them on the “green list” in their minds. It should also be faster to get them to the dealerships.

But they are smart to keep the high investment in the E-REV lines, as that is the long term future of the company, assuming there is a long term for the company…………

[Reply]
THOM Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 8:21 am

Obviously GM is not “sold” on the volt. Why waste money on current technology (which asian manufactures make far superior product) when the e-flex is the supposed BOMB!

[Reply]
Brad G Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 8:22 am

Lyle asks,
What do you think the priorities should be? After all it may be your money.

==========
1) EREV for all cars across GM’s line.
2) CNG with home charging units for trucks. The hybrid thing doesn’t work for trucks in the real world, yet.

[Reply]
GXT Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 8:27 am

E-REV is a stopgap, therefore it will not affect GM’s “long term future”, except perhaps to secure a bailout.

[Reply]
Eco Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 8:31 am

GM is going to spend all their product development time and effort meeting the California GHG standards, the least expensive way they can.

[Reply]
Bearclaw Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 8:53 am

What about aftermarket modifications to improve gas mileage of older models? has to be is public interest, not sure if there is any profit to be made in it though.
My priorities would be.
The Volt.
I would like to see an strong hybrid Aveo that gets better MPG then the Honda Fit.
E-REV SUV’s
Trucks with the highest gas mileage in the industry.
An EV or E-REV sports car cheaper then the Tesla, more then the Corvette.

[Reply]
Van Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 8:54 am

I see today, December 15, that China has put the first PHEV on the market locally, and expects to export a version to the USA in 2010. If the reports are valid, the cost is about $22,000 USD and has a AER of about 60 miles.

And so to repeat what was said before, the GM effort appears to be too little too late. Ford and Toyota have strong hybrids in the showrooms, rather than plans for future development.

[Reply]
Jean-Charles Jacquemin Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 8:55 am

Raschiid #3,

I think and vote like you but I’ll more emphasis on : 2) Turn every vehicle into an EREV until such time they can be BEVs only.

I think there are ways to retrofit some of our current ICE-only vehicules in some forms of EVS so I’ll add a 2bis :

2bis) Supply retrofitting kits for your current ICE-only vehicles in some form of EVs at a reasonable cost and without to much loss of functionality in the car.

JC NPNS

[Reply]
Jean-Charles Jacquemin Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 9:04 am

Van #10

And the BBC reporter seems to have liked to drive it, see :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7779261.stm

JC NPNS

[Reply]
john1701a Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 9:07 am

Ford’s new Fusion-Hybrid will have nothing competing with it from GM.

10 MPG better than Malibu-Hybrid means it won’t even be necessary mentioning Camry-Hybrid or Prius to show that GM is in big trouble.

4-cylinder FULL (strong) hybrids from GM are needed. This plan does not include them.

[Reply]
Dave G Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 9:09 am

I’m not sure hybrid SUVs makes sense. In the past 15 years, large vehicles have become fashionable. As people begin to understand the link between foreign oil & terrorism, and as signs for climate change become undeniable, large cars & trucks will lose their status appeal.

Since most people don’t really need these large vehicles, they’ll just buy a smaller car rather than pay a lot more for a 2-mode hybrid SUV. People that really drive off-road will still buy SUVs. Landscapers and farmers will still buy pickups. But the days of soccer-moms wanting a new Yukon are over.

Look for a comeback with the station wagon. They won’t look like the ones from yester-year. Maybe they’ll be called “micro-vans”, “sport-wagons”, or “extended hatchbacks”, but the concept is the same - make a small car that holds lots of people and/or stuff. That’s what people will want in the future.

Also, I think car makers are underestimating the future of green status. As SUV sales wane, there will have to be something that replaces that status symbol. Something that says “mine’s better”. I think plug-ins will fill that void more that people realize.

[Reply]
Guy Incognito Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 9:15 am

“What do you think the priorities should be? After all it may be your money.”

It will most certainly be our money Lyle, as was the $700 billion, now in the trillions.
Notice in the chart, of course, that the most expensive project is the EREV.
Product Development Spokesperson Dee Allen, from this article quoted as saying “I cannot comment on future plans beyond what is in the Plan”. This I find somewhat chilling & disconcerting.

I think Serial Plug-In Hybrids like the Volt should be a priority.
Don’t be deceived by low oil prices, OPEC is going to get sick of being forced to keep the prices artificially low like they have, in fact expect oil production cuts to be announced this week.
If our elected officials truly represented the national interest, and by it I mean the people, they could stipulate as part of the automaker bail-out, that Serial Plug-In Hybrids like the Volt MUST be produced.

[Reply]
Dave G Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 9:24 am

#6 Brad G Says: “2) CNG with home charging units for trucks. The hybrid thing doesn’t work for trucks in the real world, yet.”
————————————————————————————-
Unless they can make a truck that runs on CNG and/or gasoline, I don’t think it will sell. I think trucks will stay gas engine (or diesel) for a while. They will get a little smaller, lighter, and more efficient.

Also, I think people underestimate the potential of bio-diesel and ethanol from non-food sources.

[Reply]
Jeff Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 9:27 am

The amount of money spent on hybrid “Development” is NOT important… as intergrity.

What is important to the GM vehicle buyer is GM committing to their hybrid tech for the long term with actions and statements. Toyota has little trouble convincing their buyers that are committed to their hybrid design with a 10+ year history.

Examples of not committment:
- (action) Low volume production of hybrids
- (statements) “hybrids are not economical viable”
- (action & statement) annoucing that a model will have hybrid model, but cancelling it before producing it.

And of course, the tech must be competitive also. But as you say…it is important if it is our tax money that it be used wisely.

[Reply]
Jason M. Hendler Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 9:28 am

I am glad GM has been working all these parallel paths, so that they are able to put together a broad assault on gasoline consumption. It is still unclear which solutions the market will desire, especially with gasoline prices swinging wildly between $1.50 and $4.50.

It does seem clear, by the recent news of Mercedes developing both a BEV and a Plug-in Feul Cell Vehicle (PFCV), that GM’s development of an E-REV is the right stepping-stone to the future. The E-REV will penetrate the market, gaining consumer’s confidence, so that the obvious evolution to BEV and PFCV will occur.

[Reply]
Cautious Fan Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 9:52 am

My opinion, right now GM has to get profitable. The Volt needs to be treated as a halo vehicle which can help drive sales of other more profitable, high volume vehicles. You’ve got to be able to rationalize it with a business plan. Whatever makes sense for returning to sustainable profitability as quickly as possible, that’s my vote. If that means you slow down on Volt production to move resources to hybrids, so be it. I trust that GM can act in it’s own self-interest.

[Reply]
BiodieselJeep Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 9:55 am

Rachid is pretty much in line with my guess. I’d bet, however, that if both Rashid and I were in charge of GM it would have folded a long time ago. Honestly, we ain’t gonnna have a hybrid/EREV-only company making money anytime soon.

Just to add what many people have said, how about a 20 mile EREV? Or even a 10 mile EREV minivan? The mere NOVELTY of an EREV would sell a lot, and 10-20 miles is a VERY helpful range for short-drive vehicles (mini vans/station wagons). City-cycle mpg on loaded minivans is horrible, and there should be enough room with these mid-sized format vehicles to put in the battery pack.

[Reply]
Dave G Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 10:01 am

#7 GXT Says: “E-REV is a stopgap, therefore it will not affect GM’s “long term future”, except perhaps to secure a bailout.”
————————————————————————————–
I disagree. I think the combination of EREVs and bio-fuels is the long term solution.

“Heavy duty and long distance transport by land, air and sea will be powered by “the last drops of oil” or hydrocarbon biofuels”
http://www.efcf.com/reports/E17.pdf
(page 19)

Liquid fuels have way better energy density than any battery, including EEStor. Liquid fuel filling stations are everywhere today. Converting a filling station pump from gasoline to E85 is relativly trivial.

Obama’s pick for energy secretary is a strong supporter of bio-fuels. In a recent speech, he said that due to overproduction of food, many acres of farmland are currently not in use. If we genetically engineer energy crops (like we’ve genetically engineered LibertyLink corn), Steven Chu says today’s unused farmland can produce enough cellulosic ethanol to completely replace U.S. gasoline consumption. Even if he’s only half right, that’s a big piece of the pie.

The combination of ethanol and EREVs can completely replace gasoline, so why spend trillions of dollars building a new filling station infrastrucutre?

[Reply]
Dave G Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 10:14 am

Bush doesn’t set auto bailout timeline
http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/15/news/economy/bush_bailout/index.htm

[Reply]
Sheltonjr Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 10:20 am

#3, #11

I dont think BEV will ever be a large part of Americas fleet. Some may want a BEV only car as a second car for commuting only, but range anxienty will always be an issue.

I would rather carry around extra weight in my car get unlimited extended miles vs. carrying around 150 miles worth of batteries that I would hardly use but still would not get me to New York from Maryland.

First!! Money should be spent on reducing the cost/size of the battery pack.

Second! Money should be spent on alternative generator drivers to reduce the size/weight and alternative fuels for the generator, such as:

Bio-Diesel, CNG ICE engine,
Small High power Rotary engine running on alternative fuels,
Fuel Cells,

[Reply]
Adrian Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 10:51 am

The current car and small SUV hybrid, if you review some reviews of them, are a PR nightmare. We all know the tech is old school, but the reviewers are not nice to GM’s current hybrid selections. GM needs to get ’strong’ hybrids out their now. Sure, wages/other employee chagres will prevent much of a profit on these cars but they have to win the PR battle. Think of every tech battle since the 80’s and the winners always win the PR fight (VHS, Blu-Ray to name two).
Some great battey breakthrough is needed. Either GM, another car company, or a university has to figure this out for hybrids to be profit centers. If a company can’t make a profit off of it, they shouldn’t make it.
Research, research, research.

[Reply]
MetrologyFirst Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 10:59 am

DAve G @14:

What is your evidence that people do not need large vehicles? Who says “soccer moms” don’t want them? They are certainly “out of fashion” but it doesn’t change the fact that A LOT of people drive them and need them.

The first maker that puts together a large or midsized SUV or crossover or microvan or whatever you want to call it, that seats 6-8 and gets 30-35mpg will not be able to keep up with demand.

Thats a fact of American life.

The real question is do all of us who commuter to work need to do it at 35mpg or can we do it at an equivalent of 200-300mpg. Or better? Our car makers need to address the long and short mile requirements of a typical family.

[Reply]
GLV Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 11:08 am

One of the reasons I think the Volt is exciting to people is because it is what I refer to as a bridge technology. In other words, it allows us to use the existing infrastructure (i.e., gas stations on every corner), while also allowing us to tap into new technology (i.e., the electrification of the automobile). This gives us the best of both worlds and all the flexibility we need to use the car as we see fit.

I’ve seen TV shows about cars in Brazil that not only are capable of using anywhere from 0 to 100% ethanol (similar to E-Flex), but in some cases CNG as well; and all automatically (no need to adjust timing or switch over equipment), you might think of it as “E-Flex Extreme.” The wonderful thing about this type of automobile technology is again, the flexibility to use what is available while infrastructure adapts to new technologies.

So, to answer your question Lyle, I would like to see GM (and the other automakers), license/adapt this technology for production vehicles in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. It’s already in production cars in Brazil…it shouldn’t take that long or cost that much to make it work here.

The same approach could be used for Hydrogen (assuming that becomes a viable alternative in the future).

[Reply]
GXT Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 11:17 am

21. Dave G:
If batteries stay expensive then E-REV will never catch on. If batteries improve then E-REV will be supplanted by long-range electric vehicles.

I have no doubt that batteries will improve. Therefore there is a relatively small window for E-REV and not something to stake a “long term future” on.

[Reply]
Rashiid Amul Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 11:21 am

Rashiid #3 (me) says,
My priorities would be this:
1) EREV
2) Turn every vehicle into an EREV until such time they can be BEVs only.
3) Improve Battery technology and forget the other three items on the chart since they will all be EREVs.

===========
I want to clarify this a bit. I don’t expect Battery Technology to improve drastically in the near future. Nasaman has stated more than once, that battery technology improves at a glacial space.
This does seem to be the case. Perhaps this can change because so many companies are getting into this field. I certainly hope so.

So in short, EREVs will be here for a while. The cost of production, like everything else, will go down over time. No clue how much time though.

Someone above mentioned range anxiety. Range anxiety will go away when the battery technology and/or battery recharging technology are much improved. Again, I don’t see this happening anytime soon, but I strongly believe it will happen someday.

One more thing I would like to say and it is about me.
I really hate the word “never”. This will never happen or that will never be invented. There have been enough idiots in our past that have declared this, only for us to see it happen.
I believe there is nothing that humans won’t be able to achieve.
As a species, we are intelligent, tenacious, competitive, passionate, and greedy. These qualities push us to succeed. It is only a matter of time. Give us that time and investment, and it will get done.

[Reply]
N Riley Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 11:31 am

My suggestion to GM:

1- Make all compact cars fully electric by 2012. These cars would be commuter cars and around town cars. Include a small pickup truck model in this line as soon as possible. Shoot for 120+ miles per charge. Use any battery technology that would accomplish this goal.

2- Make all mid-size cars be EREV Volt-like vehicles. Same for current small pickups. Shoot for 60 miles per charge with 50+ miles per gallon when on extended range mode.

3- Make all full-size cars and trucks strong hybrids by 2012. Shoot for over 35 miles per gallons for cars and over 25 miles per gallon for trucks. Increase these as you can.

4- Plant to not produce any fully 100% ICE cars or trucks by 2015.

5- Stop wasting time and money on hydrogen development unless fully funded by government. Personally, I think it should be killed.

[Reply]
Jason M. Hendler Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 11:47 am

N Riley,

Making all small cars electric means making all small cars expensive, killing that market segment for GM, as Americans typically buy the largest car that they can afford. The current strategy of the Chevy Cruze is sound for providing a very high mileage vehicle in a package Americans desire, starting at $15K.

[Reply]
Tom Kadzielawski Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 11:52 am

GM should stop developing mild hybrids.

If they would just put their 2-mode hybrid system into a small car with a unique body style and name, they would have a legitimate contender to the Prius and upcoming Insight.

[Reply]
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 11:58 am

Here’s my meeger 2cents…

0: STANDARDIZE on battery platform so one battery module can be plugged into any other car. Not the 16530 cells like Tesl but call it a V Cell.
1: Drop every ICE engine PERIOD.
1.5: Drop funding and research on Hydrogen. It’s “FOOLS GOLD”
2: Build my Volt Dangit!
2.5: Build 100% small EV’s for commuters, 60 mile range.
3: All new small and medium cars be EREV.
4: Make all new Truck/SUV hybrid AT LEAST 40MPG.
5: Design, Build and sell affordable retrofit kits to convert current GM vehicles to EV or Electric assist like this guy does: http://www.salidaconversions.com/index.html

[Reply]
N Riley Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 11:59 am

#30 Jason

I don’t agree that producing compact cars as all electric would necessarily make them too expensive. If you remove all the ICE components and put in batteries and electric motors, the cost will not be that much higher, if any. We have seen other auto companies state they intend to produce BEV in the near future that will cost less than $20,000. Why can’t GM do the same?

[Reply]
Texas Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 11:59 am

1) Full electrified platforms for all classes (small, med, large, special).

2) Drop all weak and strong hybrids that require traditional transmissions. They are not going to be able to compete and I believe it’s a waste of resources to have so many different technologies being developed all at once.

3) Support current technology to stay competitive with what the market wants but…

***** NO NEW NON-ELECTRIFIED PLATFORMS *****

I know GM wants to have all the bases covered but I feel it’s time to bite the bullet and go all in. If they go with full electric platforms they can then have a full line of different battery sizes paired with different range extenders from diesel to CNG to flex fuel.

You put a small battery in and a larger ICE and no plug and you have your “weaker” hybrid. Less battery cost and warrantee issues.

You put in a larger battery, a smaller ICE and a plug and you have your “stronger” plug-in hybrid (E-REV).

You put in a very large battery and no ICE and you have your pure EV.

I think there needs to be a very focused development for the electrification of the automobile. I know it’s scary but GM is in the perfect position right now to break free. At rock bottom it’s easiest to make radical changes.

P.S. If GM doesn’t do this then Chrysler should! They have no International position and thus cannot compete without doing something fantastic and outside of the box.

[Reply]
N Riley Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 12:04 pm

GM needs to be pushing to remove the ICE from its line-up as fast as they can do it. They need to push the idea of being as “green” as they can be to gain as much public support as they can. Any ICE left in their line-up should be built to run on many types of fuel as possible. Gasoline and diesel should be enemy #1 in GM’s eyes. It is in mine now.

[Reply]
N Riley Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 12:09 pm

GM needs to have vision and push their agenda. They must plan properly and produce strong, viable vehicles that compete in today’s market and help to position GM for tomorrow’s markets. Tomorrow’s market will be BEV and EREV technology. Large trucks and buses will need improvements and GM needs to develop plans to help remove gasoline and diesel from these vehicles as well.

[Reply]
Texas Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 12:11 pm

I wanted to add that going forward with a full commitment to the electrification of the automobile will put any of the Big 3 in the safest position to adopt any of the new technologies that become available.

A new nanotechnology fuel cell comes out? It will be much easier to make a new range extender than to convert a mechanical transmission vehicle. EEscam turns out to not be a scam? Just swap out the lithium-ion battery and you are almost there. A new biofuel becomes available? Drop in a new biofuel compatible range extender and you are on your way.

The point is that traditional, weak and strong hybrids are not going to give you any hedge for future technology. The development of these old hybrids is throwing good money at soon-to-be (if not already) obsolete technology.

Hedge your bets, go with electric drivetrains!

[Reply]
N Riley Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 12:16 pm

I don’t know if GM should be trying to produce after market conversion kits to convert their current ICE vehicles to BEV or EREV. I do like the idea of GM helping with the design of these kits by setting up a small work group that would communicate with kit builders and provide technical help when necessary. GM should encourage conversions and congress should too. There are plenty of possibilities for conversion, but GM could help develop the best solutions. Ford and Chrysler could pitch in and help. Maybe even a combined work group from all three companies to start with to function like a clearing house. Other auto companies could be invited to join as the work group gets their feet under them and the need for their help grows.

[Reply]
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 12:35 pm

@N Riley 38

I also think that there should be some sort of tax incentive to convert a current ICE vehicle. This should help get those dirty non SMOG compliance vehicles to clean EV’s. Hell, if there was a kit for my Auto Trannie 97 Saturn SL2, I’d buy it right now.

I do hold firm on the standardization of the batteries though. This would make GM the standard in battery power modules in that most mfgrs will make them to GM specs and would open a market for third party dealers for the battery. Look at at that, I just created jobs!

[Reply]
N Riley Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 12:40 pm

#39 CaptJackSparrow

I agree about the battery standardization. But that is a big hill to climb. I just don’t know how it will be accomplished at this time. Maybe it could evolve into a standardization later. Sometimes standards do have the problem of stifling creative ideas that could change a technology for the better. Standardization may work as far as fittings to the other equipment and in size of the battery shell. At some point third party battery companies could come into being to serve the conversion market.

[Reply]
N Riley Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 12:44 pm

My 2000 Nissan Frontier Crew-cab pickup has a V6 and automatic transmission. It is a very good pickup truck, but gas mileage is only 16 mpg around town and about 19 on the highway. If the cost to convert it was not too costly, I would rather convert it than purchase a new one with a conventional power train. Of course, it only has a tiny bit over 70,000 miles on it after 8.5 years of use. But still…..

[Reply]
Cautious Fan Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Only GM is best positioned to determine their best strategy and product mix. They’ve got the information, and the incentive to do a good job. Backseat drivers, like me, lack both in large quantities.

Goldratt’s third constraint, “People are not Stupid.” Stupid is to assume the other guy is.

[Reply]
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 12:56 pm

@Cautious Fan

“Stupid is what Stupid does……”

Forest Gump.

I couldn’t resist =^)

[Reply]
Chaim Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Don’t waste R&D money on on any hybrids. They do very little to help us kick the foreign oil habit. Focus on EREV technology as well as ALL ELECTRIC.

[Reply]
Chuck Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 1:19 pm

BYD beats GM to the punch, 1st mass market plug in now on sale in China for $22k equivalent. Coming here in 2010

http://www.cnbc.com/id/28236421

[Reply]
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 1:31 pm

@Chuck 45

If the aim was here in the US then they beat GM to the punch. However, I’m in the US and to me it only counts it the punch hi the US.
That’s great though that they came out with their version. Competition is always good.

Just my shallowness here, their car seems/looks a little dull. At least the pics I see are. However, i’m sure it performs very well.

[Reply]
N Riley Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 1:31 pm

If the Bush administration does give GM and Chrysler a “bridge” loan, I hope there are strong conditions attached. Senator Corker’s bill was a good starting point and could be good for GM. The big sticking point with any plan is the UAW. Just how far does the UAW want to go to insure GM’s success? GM’s success is the UAW’s success, in my opinion. Certainly GM’s failure is the UAW’s failure. I have often thought in the past, when faced with the possibility of a pay reduction or a loss of my job, that I would always come down on the side of reducing my pay rather than losing my job. Of course, it would all depend on the situation and the percentage of the pay cut. What is wrong with the UAW accepting the contract changes they have agreed for the future to be put into place now? Seems like it would not be that much for them to swallow. I know that I am getting tired of this whole exercise, like most of you, I am sure.

[Reply]
Jim in PA Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 1:32 pm

OK, here is my brilliant plan (because, ya know, I am sooo qualified…)

1.) Eliminate gas engines in all cheap compact cars and all large trucks/SUVs and instead install advanced diesel engines with mpg ratings comparable to today’s strong hybrids. Today, a diesel Jetta gets the same mpg as a Prius. So why mess with the hybrid?

2.) The govt should then put more investment into biodiesel to reduce dependence of foreign oil.

3.) Continue to leap-frog hybrid technology by advancing the EREV concept of the Volt.

[Reply]
N Riley Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 1:37 pm

#46 CaptJacksparrow

BYD’s car may be a little dull, but if it performs like they are talking about, dull will be pretty in my opinion. Four door sedan capable of carrying five and maybe going 60 miles on a charge. All of that and only around $22,000 U.S.? I wish we had some of that dull over here now.

It may take me a while to ever want to purchase a Chinese vehicle. I know that it is coming, but I want to resist as long as I can. I don’t like to purchase anything made in China, but how hard is that? Nothing against the Chinese people, just their government and how that government plans to use that money.

[Reply]
ziv Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 1:39 pm

More bad news due to the downturn, Th!nk is stopping production and laying off at least half of its workforce. I wouldn’t want to buy the car personally, it’s too small, and has too short a range, but any EREV’s, BEV’s and PHEV’s produced are a good sign of things to come. Hopefully they will get their financing straightened out.
Doesn’t sound like they are completely dead though it does sound grim.
_He said it was hoping to restart production in the first quarter of 2009._

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUSLF23844320081215

[Reply]
N Riley Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 1:41 pm

#48 Jim in PA

Diesels are nearly outlawed in this country when you consider the environment laws on the books today and those coming. I agree the newer diesel engines are much better and would be a good solution. But, getting them accepted would be a problem.

[Reply]
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 1:49 pm

@ziv 50

Damn….
That was my second pick if GM Volt didn’t make it.
Now I need to find another second pick. for a commuter car of 25mile round trip.

[Reply]
Rashiid Amul Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 1:49 pm

#47 N. Riley says,

Just how far does the UAW want to go to insure GM’s success? GM’s success is the UAW’s success, in my opinion

———
Well, here is my opinion. The UAW will suck GM dry. They will continue to suck until there is nothing left.

Like you, I would rather take a pay cut than a job cut.

[Reply]
Electriciti Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 1:50 pm

CaptJackSparrow @ #32
I agree with all of your suggestions.
And I believe that the laid-off engineers, technicians, and production people are the perfect resource. They should be grouped together, and put them to work in some of these existing idled plants. These individuals should be in a good position to design and build retrofit electric drives for converting exisiting ICE vehicles. In fact, that could be a good place to put some of the bail out money the auto companies are soliciting

[Reply]
Mike D Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 1:50 pm

The current 2008 malibu hybrid is literally the worst midsize hybrid car that exists. 24 city / 32 highway??? That’s very close to the fuel numbers of a REGULAR pontiac G6. My feeling is that GM’s updated version of that car will be a significant improvement and will use their two mode hybrid system from the tahoe, etc. This will be due to the fact that GM is most likely aiming for competition with the 2010 Fusion hybrid (38 city/ 33 highway).

[Reply]
Dave G Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 1:59 pm

#27 GXT Says: “If batteries stay expensive then E-REV will never catch on. If batteries improve then E-REV will be supplanted by long-range electric vehicles.”
————————————————————————————–
OK, let’s say you can cut the battery cost factor by a factor of 10. So a Volt battery costs $1000 instead of $10,000. You still have the following problems:
1) It’s still big and weighs 400 pounds for a 40 mile range.
2) You still can’t fast-charge it.
3) Even if you could fast charge it, there are no fast-charge filling stations.

Problems 1 & 2 may be improved with technology. Elon Musk predicts that battery density will improve at a rate of 9% per year. So that will take a while.

EEStor seems to have a viable technology, but the purity level required to make it doesn’t seem to make it economically viable. Compare it to silicon wafers. The raw materials to make silicon are literally dirt-cheap. So why are highly processed silicon wafers for electronics and solar cells so expensive? It’s the purity required, and the amount of energy required to produce that level of purity. I think the same will be true for EEStor.

But even if we get to the point where a cheap, small, light battery pack can travel 300 miles, people will still have range anxiety until they know they can fill it up anytime, anywhere, in around 5 minutes. So you’ll need a full infrastructure of fast-charge electric filling stations to address the range anxiety issue. This will cost trillions of dollars.

By contrast, the combination of EREVs and biofuels can fully replace all of our gasoline usage with our existing infrastructure of liquid fuel filling stations.

In addition, since cars can run on gas or E85, this a perfect way to facilitate the transition away from gasoline. With most people, if you try to sell them something that forces them to change, they will resist. But if you offer them something that works the way they’re used to, PLUS additional ways to do things, they’ll embrace it. So a FlexFuel EREV like the Volt is the perfect vehicle to transition away from gasoline.

[Reply]
N Riley Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 2:01 pm

#55 Mike D

No doubt GM needs to improve hybrid efficiencies. They are only going to see even stronger competition as each year rolls around. GM either needs to get off the stick and be competitive or they need to just shut the doors and go home. I don’t want to see that happen.

#53 Rashiid Amul

Yes, the UAW seems intent to suck dry every company where they are located. Of course, they are pretty well defended in congress and will never be considered as a primary cause of the American automobile’s death. But, in my opinion, they dug the grave and erected the headstone many years ago. At this point they have GM and Chrysler on the edge of the pit and are now proceeding to push them over.

[Reply]
Dave G Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 2:06 pm

#28 Rashiid Amul Says: “Range anxiety will go away when the battery technology and/or battery recharging technology are much improved.”
————————————————————————————–
Even when you have a much improved battery, range anxiety will still exist until people can charge it anytime, anywhere, in around 5 minutes. A fast-charge electric filling station infrastructure that covers the whole U.S. would cost trillions of dollars.

Why spend trillions on dollars on a new infrastructure when FlexFuel EREVs can completely replace gasoline?

[Reply]
N Riley Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 2:06 pm

#56 Dave G

“So a FlexFuel EREV like the Volt is the perfect vehicle to transition away from gasoline.”
———————-

I think most of us agree on that. That is what most of us are here supporting. Some of us are here only to detract from the effort and some are always pessimistic about any and all things. We have been feed the story about how bad the economy is for nearly eight years and now all of a sudden it is. If you tell a lie long and often enough it becomes the truth and people will believe it. We now believe it, but I wonder how much this long standing lie contributed to our current condition.

EDIT: I am not saying the economy was perfect in all ways. Sure, there were pockets of bad economy as there always are. But the drum beat of a bad economy got really strong the last 2 years during the election cycle and I believe it has driven much of what we see. People unsure of their futures and not wanting to spend money that could be helping our economy stay afloat. We need to do a better job of electing people on their merits and not try to destroy the ’system” in the process.

[Reply]
Jason Acerman Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 2:07 pm

#49 It may not just be hard to resist, but impossible to avoid buying a Chinese vehicle eventually. BYD has projections to be bigger than GM and Toyota in the US by 2025.

If the Volt does somehow make it to market in 2010 and has to compete with a similar car with better range at half the price its doomed.

Its a global marketplace now, I don’t think we can avoid it. I’d be very suprised if GM was around in 2025, let alone 2010.

[Reply]
Electriciti Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 2:12 pm

If the Volt had a magnetic pick up coil under its chassis. It could be recharged while being driven.
For example, every 20 miles, our highway system could have a magnetic type of coil burried under it. These coils could be energized by the power utilities. When the Volt would pass over the strip of coils, it would pick up power via electromagnetic induction from the transformer-like coil, and recharge itself. Under these conditions, these are some of the advantages:
1. ICE generator would never have to turn on while on the highway
2. Volt would have unlimited range
3. Volt would never have to stop to refuel.
4. Volt would be virtually fosil fuel free
5. Volt would save time, since stopping for fuel wont be necessary
6. You could insert other advantages here…

One disadvantage is that this requires some infrastructure investment. These transformer-like coils need to be physically installed under our highways, but since President Elect Obama wants to spend some money to upgrade our infrastructure, that could be a great project for the country to undertake. This disadvantage is not a real one though, since it would create a tremendous amount of american jobs that can not be outsourced. Furthermore, it would be a great leap towards foreign oil independance.

PS: Existing ICE vehicles could also be retrofited with this technology. Imagine what that would do

[Reply]
Dave B Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 2:16 pm

For everyone looking at China’s BYD Volt-killer, it is backed by Warren Buffet’s investment in it. I am very interested to see the reviews of this vehicle because you can have TWO for the price of one Volt. Don’t get me wrong, I love the Volt, but it sure does make one wonder what in the hell GM is doing with all of its testing and hoopla.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/28236421

[Reply]
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 2:17 pm

The BYD Sedan charges in 7-8 hours on 220v. Seems rather slow on 220v don’t you think? My guess is it will charge also on 110v at 14hrs? Not really impressive but I think it would still work for most as a commuter car. It’s a good candidate for my second choice if the Volts doesn’t materialize..

[Reply]
TexKenny Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 2:19 pm

GM, please, please, please stop producing soft hybrids. You are just making yourself look bad. Look, look, we can produce hybrids too. Nobody is buying them because they provide marginal fuel increases and cost more than the base model. It’s just bad business. Your hurting your reputation and turning off future GM customers from even looking GM’s way for a hybrid. At least, that was my experience. Stop selling all your soft hybrids and reintroduce hybrids when you have 2-mode available in small cars and the Vue. Use the money you save to improve technology and produce the volt. I’m behind you GM, just stop shooting yourself in the foot. If you can pull the EV1 and destroy it then killing the soft hybrids should be a breeze. You don’t have to destroy them, just stop producing them. You could even play it off as a smart move. I can see the press release, “Look, we know sometimes we make bad decisions but we can recognize them and correct them too. We will reintroduce hybrids in 2010 with the volt leading the way. Save your money and buy GM”. Soft hybrids are the worst. Prius = 50 mpg, Malibu = 30 mpg, Hmmm I wonder which I’ll buy. I’m trying to think of a valid analogy. How about credit cards? Credit card APRs, Capitol one = 3.9% or Discover = 10%, hmmm I wonder which credit card I’ll get.

Dr. L

[Reply]
KentT Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 2:24 pm

I think all small cars should be EREV (Extended Range Electric Vehicle). Increasing volume will lower the price of the batteries along with incremental increases in power density will result in an advancing curve of lower price and increasing performance. This will inevitably trickle up to larger vehicles where the EREV concept becomes more and more viable until all we see are pure electrics and EREV vehicles. IF WE HOPE TO BE ENERGY INDEPENDENT THIS IS THE ONLY PATH. Fuel cells are on a losing curve. Battery cost and performance will outstrip fuel cell cost and performance for the foreseeable future and this doesn’t even take into account the whole hydrogen infrastructure issue….

It IS conceivable when we truly run out of oil the range extender engine will be a fuel cell but that shows how far out in time a practical, cost effective fuel cell really is.

[Reply]
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 2:29 pm

@Electriciti

I answered your tecnical questions on this in a previous thred. Don’t remember which one it was though.

For the charge to occur on the vehicle through induction, the underground coils would have to be massive and require a boatload of EMF and current. Not the method of induction by nature is best acquired when the coils are wraped on one another. In your suggested case, there will be an iar gap. A big air gap to meet DOT standards on clearance. This air gap will make it so inefficient the process will take many hours to acheive even half a charge. Also, the coils on the vehicle itself will have to huge and of course will weigh too much.
It’s a good concept but to get this to work efficiently, HTS (High Temperature Supercondictors) wire/coils would have to be used and affordable. At this point even the amount of HTS needed to make a 2 foot coils would cost at least $8,000.

[Reply]
DonC Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 2:32 pm

#58 Dave G says “Even when you have a much improved battery, range anxiety will still exist until people can charge it anytime, anywhere, in around 5 minutes.”

You have this right. Until batteries give a couple of hundred mile range and you have convenient charging stations that will recharge in a few minutes BEVs will be a niche product. (Which is why Better Place says it has the right idea.) So yes, E-REVs are a great idea and will be around for a while. 80% of the benefit for 20% of the cost.

Note however that if you double the battery capacity you don’t double EV range, you quadruple it. This is because at the moment the EV range is so short that, unless you protect the battery pack, as GM is doing with the Volt’s, you would kill the pack life by constantly charging and discharging it. As the EV range increases the pack would either be charged/discharged less often or it would be charged/discharged to a lesser Depth of Discharge.

For example, you can go 10,000 miles by charging a pack only 50 times if the pack has a range of 200 miles. But to go 10,000 miles you’d have to charge the pack 250 times if the range is 40 miles.

So we don’t need to have batteries get 5 times more powerful to get to a 200 mile range.

[Reply]
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 2:41 pm

I hate bringing up Tesla but they had a range extender attached to their prototype Tzero that allowed them to drive it coast to coast. It was essentially the same as wht the Volts has but was an external extender on a very small trailer attacehd to the TZero.

hey, If you can sell a bunch of small commuter cars, you can open up a market to engineer/manufacture and sell only “Range Extender” mini trailers!. I just created more market and job opportunities.

[Reply]
DonC Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 2:43 pm

#59 N. Riley says “We have been feed the story about how bad the economy is for nearly eight years and now all of a sudden it is … We now believe it, but I wonder how much this long standing lie contributed to our current condition.”

I don’t understand this at all. I’ve always thought that it didn’t matter what the statistics said because people evaluate the economy from their own perspective. IOW you can tell people it’s raining outside, but if they look out the window and see sun, they don’t conclude their eyes are lying, they conclude you have it wrong.

That said, the flow of information that says things will get worse before they get better doesn’t help at all since one problem you have is that people cut spending just when you need them not to. Reversing that sentiment, as it were, is important.

BTW, somewhat different topic, I just heard a report than Toyota is requesting assistance from the US government for its NA operations. Seems odd. Maybe they are just saying the obvious: if Detroit goes under their NA operations also go under, at least in the short run.

[Reply]
DonC Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 2:46 pm

#68 CaptJackSparrow says ” hate bringing up Tesla but they had a range extender attached to their prototype Tzero that allowed them to drive it coast to coast. It was essentially the same as wht the Volts has but was an external extender on a very small trailer attacehd to the TZero.”

They probably borrowed this idea from GM. It used exactly this setup to test the EV-1 in the 90s.

[Reply]
Rashiid Amul Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 2:50 pm

#58 Dave G says,
Why spend trillions on dollars on a new infrastructure when FlexFuel EREVs can completely replace gasoline?
—————
What new infrastructure? Electricity is everywhere in the USA.
Where can I buy FlexFuel? In very few places, albeit it is growing.

Even looking at this map, it is far from ubiquitous. Less than 1000 nationwide.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/12/e85/e85.html

And Flex fuel still uses gasoline.

Where as electricity is far more flung.
As you noticed, when I said, “Range anxiety will go away when the battery technology and/or battery recharging technology are much improved.”, I really meant much improved.

The range must be much higher.
The charging must be much much faster (5-10 minute range)
Charging must be as ubiquitous as gas station pumps are now.

Flex Fuel out of what, ethanol? I don’t see that working out the way they are currently doing it. Please don’t get me wrong. I like Ethanol, just not from food stock. Here in CT everyone uses E10. We don’t have access to anything higher.

[Reply]
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Here’s an image of that thing I was talking about…
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Acp_tzero_DSC00467.jpg

[Reply]
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 2:57 pm

Crap, It wasn’t Tesla, It was AC Propulsion.

OK, i’ll put down the pitcher of beer now.

[Reply]
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 2:59 pm

@Rashiid Amul

Personally I think the Range extender in the Volt should’ve been Diesel. But the current one works.

I just want my Volt!

[Reply]
Electriciti Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 3:00 pm

#68 CaptJackSparrow
If the cars were sold with electric drive only…and the user could rent the range extender when taking a long trip, he would save money

[Reply]
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 3:10 pm

@Electriciti
@Electriciti

True.
Which opens a market for a company like U-Haul, but call it E-Haul or V-Haul or something.
I totally think that is a viable business. If I had the money to invest, I think it’s something I could engineer and design. Building however is another issue.

And since it will be pulled along, It too can also emply regenerative braking by directing the kenetic energy to spin the flywheel for the generator.

[Reply]
Electriciti Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 3:11 pm

CaptJackSparrow #66
I did not see your reply with your solution to electromagnetic induction and the problem with the air gap…
But what if instead of connecting via electromagnetic induction, the car could connect via direct connection. It could be like a metal strip on the highway where a car could lower a set of of probes to connect to it…or maybe above ground like the old trolleys used to do

[Reply]
joe obrien Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 3:22 pm

We see the millions intended for electrics, but how many BILLIONS are they going to blow on Hummers, Escalades, Corvettes, Camaros, High performance limited edition cars, etc.

See where I am going?

[Reply]
joe obrien Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 3:26 pm

#68 & #70 Tesla didn’t use a range extender on their T zero, because T zero used a range extender on their car……. the T zero. And the evi didn’t use a pull behind range extender, is used a motorcycles engine to generate the power in the trunk.

[Reply]
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 3:33 pm

@joe 79

My fault it wasn’t Tesla, it was AC Propulsion….
http://www.pureelectric.us/tag/tzero/

[Reply]
Van Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 3:39 pm

Who killed the Volt? Those that voted for the Dems. The Bailout bill would have passed if the Dems would have imposed a date certain for the UAW workers to receive compensation consistent with the workers who build cars in our southern states. But since the UAW would not agree to it, the requirement was not imposed, and the bill failed. If GM goes into bankruptcy, I expect that the court will impose that requirement as part of the reorganization. Time will tell.

[Reply]
noel park Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 3:39 pm

My priorities?

LJGTVWOTR!! NPNS! DBNGCMEMEV

#10 Van, et al:

If BYD shows up with an AER of 60 miles and a price of $22K, we can add a new abbreviation. With apologies to Willie Nelson and “Dandy” Don Meredith:

Turn Out The Lights The Party’s Over:

TOTLTPO

[Reply]
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 3:46 pm

@noel park

Maaann….
I haven’t caught up with the current acronyms…

[Reply]
GLV Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Kinda OT…but important none the less… Chrysler is making a huge play for the electric car market. They announced today that they will be bringing not only one new electric EREV to market in 2010, but several, with many more planned after that.

Here’s the link to the story…could get interesting.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/15/autos/chrysler_envi/index.htm?postversion=2008121515

[Reply]
RB Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 3:57 pm

#38 N. Riley says “I don’t know if GM should be trying to produce after market conversion kits to convert their current ICE vehicles to BEV or EREV.”
====================================

GM should not spend any time on aftermarket conversion, for that is a conversion that amounts to starting over and rebuilding the car. It is not to say that such a conversion would be impossible for any car or truck, but it is mostly dreaming about the impossible.

What could be done would be a disappointment, and what would not be a disappointment could not be done.

[Reply]
noel park Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 4:11 pm

#83 CaptJackSparrow:

Well maybe that’s because I just keep making them up as I go along, based upon pithy comments from GM-Volt.com bloggers. Maybe I’m trying to cover up my age by acting like a text messager, LOL.

Casey, for example, famously said:

“Don’t Buy New Gas Cars, Make ‘Em Make EVs.”

I liked it so much I just swIped it and called it DBNGCMEMEV.

#84 GLV:

If I had to bet, I think I’d put my money on BYD. The laws of physics haven’t been repealed yet. If Chrysler maintains the same old weight and boxy aero signatures, most of the economies of the PHEV go out the window, IMHO. Plus, 2012 or 2015 might as well be 2112 or 2115 in today’s climate.

Some have accused GM of dreaming up the Volt to help its bailout case. This Chrysler ploy is way worse, IMHO. With aplolgies to CaptJack, how about a new abbreviation?:

Get The Money And Run:

GTMAR

[Reply]
ccombs Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 4:23 pm

Looks like a very good plan in the works. I strongly agree with spending most of the money for strong hybrids on large vehicles, even though at first glance it seems odd. I believe this is because GM wants E-REV to become the technology of choice in small vehicles. Later it will work its way up into larger vehicles, but right now the costs are prohibitive. If they don’t blow it, they should have a good lineup of strong hybrid large vehicles and E-REV small cars. Eventually they will get E-REV crossovers and hopefully E-REV their whole lineup. *fingers crossed*

Someone earlier mentioned having segments of freeways (or special toll lane segments?) where vehicles could extend probes to a metal strip on the ground to recharge. To me, this sounds very promising. Much less pie-in-the-sky than most ideas for recharging outside of the house. I could definitely see it working very well, especially becuase it can use a lot of currently-existing infrastructure and doesn’t require stopping. I could eventually see this replacing onboard power generation and pure EVs becoming a possibly (no matter what some people say, they *aren’t* yet, which is why we need E-REVs like the Volt). I can envision a future network of recharging lanes in freeways that, for a small price, will allow battery replenishment on the go. Current electrical infrastructure is sufficient in many places, and in more remote locations dedicated small wind turbines or solar panels could provide power for small recharge lanes. Granted, this would be a huge public works project, but we could start with big cities and major freeways until there are enough EVs to justify further expansion. This could allow us to use smaller, less expensive batteries since they don’t have to have as much range, further aiding the adoption of EVs. And this will be even easier when semi- and then fully-autonomous vehicles come into play (Hopefully based on one of the coolest projects ever to come out of my school, Stanley/ Stanley Jr.!). Oh man, I really think this could work, especially since the issue is not developing any radical new technology, but rather finding the will and $$ to go out there and do it. Oh dear, there is the snag.
_____
And then we need to make functional space elevators, so I can die happy :).*

*Based on my current age that could be 70 years or more from now, so who knows?

[Reply]
Red HHR Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 4:24 pm

I used to have(be?) a Pontiac Fiero. It was a nice little car, terribly under geared though. With proper gearing it(I) would have gotten 50mpg. It was also no good in the snow. Would have to park it for the winter.

So my first vote would be to revive the Fiero, or something like it. Make it a strong hybrid, 50+mpg? Keep the cost under 20k and give it 4wd for the snow.

I have found a new parking lot to commute to. There are no weeds in the old parking lot, and I do hope that for my friends that are remaining, that the weeds do not have a chance to grow. My new parking lot is just a hair over 40 miles from home. However the roads will be easier on my suspension.

Red HHR (Looking forward to more time on the road!)

[Reply]
Dave G Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 4:32 pm

#71 Rashiid Amul Says: “Charging must be as ubiquitous as gas station pumps are now.”
————————————————————————————–
Trillions of dollars

Why spend that on an all new fast-charging infrastructure?

Obama’s pick for secretary of energy says there’s enough unused farmland right now to make cellulosic ethanol completely replace gasoline, without any effect on food supplies.

We should use our existing infrastructure of liquid fuel filling stations and home electric outlets. With Flex Fuel EREVs, there’s no need to spend trillions of dollars on a new fuel infrastructure.

[Reply]
Tim Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 4:49 pm

U.S. Economy : The Philosopher’s Stone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PIEGK0IbA4

[Reply]
Rashiid Amul Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 5:04 pm

Dave G #89,

Trillions of Dollars? This is where you lost me.

I like the use of cellulosic ethanol, but many plants will need to be built to process enough to fuel all the cars. Perhaps boilers and furnaces can use it too?

But gas stations have electricity already. And I would think plenty of it with the many gas pumps, car washes, etc. Why trillions of dollars for the electric infrastructure? Because the grid can not currently handle all those cars charging day and night?

If so, how about upgrading the grid and using the cellulosic ethanol to generate electricity at the power plants? Maybe we could eliminate the coal plants this way.

[Reply]
Koz Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 5:05 pm

1.) EREV as many models that they fit into
2.) Efficient subsystems/elements for all vehicles: AC, Transmissions, weight reduction, etc
3.) Full hybrid/Full hybrid plug-ins for large vehicles that EREV won’t fit
4.) Reduce investment in BAS to $100M

[Reply]
DaveP Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 5:08 pm

EREV.

I suspect that EREV is no stop gap to electric, but rather EREV is the final form of electric.

The catch is that the generators will get smaller as the batteries get bigger. Will the generator ever go away? Maybe, maybe not. Once you get past 500mpc, it starts to look pretty vestigal, all right.

The irony of electric vehicles is that as they become more prevalent the cost of liquid fuels will drop as well such that I expect cost effective liquid fuels will be easily obtainable for the forseeable future; it won’t make sense to build a huge network of RAPID charging stations and all the difficulty deliving that kind of power vs. just including a small generator to produce power if necessary. The bigger the batteries, the smaller the generator needs to be since it can start up earlier and run longer. The question is then is it better to build rapid charging stations or just carry around 5 or six gallons of liquid fuel and a tiny generator? Probably the latter.
(Especially since as the batteries get big enough, people will just charge at home or at their destinations, there won’t be enough money to support some kind of big recharging infrastrucutre!)

Not to mention there’s terrific progress being made in fuel from waste material. As the batteries get bigger and cheaper, this type of liquid fuel will get cheaper too.

And you still have the advantage of a truly flexible fuel vehicle to hedge against various energy monopolies.

That and I really expect to see something like a 2 cylinder, 2 stroke HCCI engine powering the E-REVs of the future. Or maybe even a free piston setup. That kind of thing is likely to become the final form for vehicles.

[Reply]
Koz Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 5:15 pm

I should have included as part of “1.) EREV as many models that they fit into”: choose a technology and design an ICE specifically for the EREV platform.

[Reply]
kdawg Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 5:30 pm

You dont need quick-charge batteries. You need batteries there that are already charged. Pull up to a station & swap the battery pack.

The battery packs would need to be standardized for all cars. And i’m sure you will pay a premium for the electricity.

[Reply]
RB Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 5:34 pm

#84 GLV — link to cnn.money and Chrysler electric cars
======================

Thank you for the excellent link. It’s notable that the Chrysler spokesman talks of converting the whole line.

One wonders where the batteries are going to go, on the electric versions.

[Reply]
N Riley Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 5:45 pm

Our current infrastructure easily supports E-REV and BEV vehicles with little or no change. Service stations can offer gasoline, diesel, ethanol and bio-fuels with little impact on cost. Electrical charging stations could be installed at service stations, shopping centers and places of business without an extreme expense and can be done over several years without much of an impact on our infrastructure. But, to install CNG or hydrogen fueling in service stations or other locations would be a much more costly project. It would take many years to accomplish and at a great cost and for what? No much improvement over what we have now.

We need to develop Volt-like vehicles, full hybrid vehicles and fully electric vehicles. All of these are easily managed with our current infrastructure. IMO.

[Reply]
old man Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 6:01 pm

Regarding BYD I think it will be a long time before china is looked at as a quality builder or an innovator. I know that when I think of buying anything I don’t go to the store hopeing to find something from china so I can have one of the best. But only to buy something cheap and hope it will last till the job is done.
Now the plan by GM. The only thing I would change is to make small cars that are BEV or E-REV [ buyers option ] And when Battery supply and storage density are no longer a concern I would probably go nearly all EV and E-REV on all models.

[Reply]
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 6:05 pm

Hey, when these articles mention a “plain outlet…” is it safe to say its a NEMA 110v/120v 15A wall plug? I am seeing quite a bit saying that but indicates a 220v plug.

[Reply]
DonC Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 6:10 pm

Bad news continues. Th!nk may be going under due to current credit freeze and may ask for government aid:

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/12…prod/#comments

[Reply]
stas peterson Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 6:11 pm

There is a smaller dual mode hybrid designed for front wheel drive and cars as opposed to trucks. It’s due in model year 2011 or 2012. It will be a generation more advanced than the Toyota HSD ,and Ford’s Fusion version, when it finally arrives. Lots of ways to skin the cat.

I’m afraid the CAFE rules once again rose up and turned out to be counter productive. The feeling was there was a lot more to be gained adding 20 mpg to trucks getting 14 then there was taking cars from 25 to 40 mpg.

The CAFE rules forced that choice, but the marketing people should have demanded it be done the other way around.

[Reply]
GLV Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 6:30 pm

RB@96 Thank you! I think it’s also interesting to note they seem to prefer taking the “brute force” approach to their Gen I EREVs. Instead of squeezing a 16Amp/Hr batterry into a perfectly sculpted low wind resistance sedan, they’re going to shove a 27Amp/Hr battery into a Jeep.

Gen II looks interesting…cars designed to be either gas or battery, depending upon what the customer orders. Factories designed to build either or at ratios driven by demand. All I can say is, if the three-headed beast can pony up the cash, they may survive and thrive in the new electrified transportation industry.

I’m a GM fan by nature, but to me, the more manufacturers that pile on the electric bandwagon the better. Better for consumers, better for national security and better for the environment.

[Reply]
DB Cooper Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 6:35 pm

I kind of wonder when I keep seeing the phrase “the current credit freeze”. Do people expect easy zero-down credit to come back anytime soon ? And with unemployment and inflation undoubtedly rising in the mid-term, do the auto companies expect people to be lining up to finance large purchases like new cars ?

To me it looks like we’re in for a longish cooling off period - then hopefully some sustainable growth afterward. If so, at least the EV’s and EREV’s should have time to be really ironed out before energy prices spike again.

[Reply]
noel park Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 7:00 pm

#93 Dave P:

I believe that there is a lot in what you are saying. Even now small motorcycle engines get a tremendous horsepower to weight peformance. If they could be optimized to run at the most efficient speed, great things would seem possible. It might be a challenge to isolate the noise and/or vibration frim a buzzy little engine, but all things are possible with enough development.

I was sad to see the 1000cc turbo 3 go away, even though I guess I can understand the reasons at this point. If the Volt can just get off the ground, such things will certainly follow in the future.

[Reply]
Dave K. =D~ Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 7:06 pm

hi N Riley #97,

“We need to develop Volt-like vehicles…”

____________________

Time is not slowing down. If anything, it’s speeding up.

A year ago we said that GM has the best new technology in the automotive world with the Chevy Volt. Two years from now we will say that GM was the trail blazer of the current best automotive technology.

Bob Lutz said that the first year Volt will be “the design that GM will manufacture for several years”. I can easily see a strong demand for the Volt from 2010-2015. By 2016 the buyer market will have a half dozen Volt-like vehicles to choose from. And an equal number of pure EV.

Nobody can take the Mustang away from Ford. Is somebody taking the Volt away from GM?

The clock is ticking.

=D~

[Reply]
Gordon Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 7:10 pm

They need to go all the way and commit to being the first (of the big 3) to have their entire line of vehicles HYBRID powered. A HYBRID Camaro would be pretty cool.

[Reply]
noel park Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 7:11 pm

BTW, did anyone else see the current story on the Yahoo news page about Bank of America’s analysis of what it will take to save GM? Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding of what they are saying is that:

1) The Feds need to loan them $30 billion.

2) It can only be done in a Chapter 11, “debtor in possession” setting, supposedly because this is the only legal way the Feds can have the “senior” status they require for the debt.

It’s not clear to me whether B of A thinks the $30B is the whole thing, or only the “bridge loan”. If the former, it actually seems pretty optimistic.

[Reply]
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 7:24 pm

@Gordon 106

“A HYBRID Camaro would be pretty cool.”

Yes indeed it would. The version that appeared in the “Transformemers” movie knocked everyone’s socks off. That car was, as the teens would say “tight!”. The Camaro is one of GM icon of American Muscle though. It will most likely not happen. However, if it does, they should engineer it so it is easily “tweakable”…if you know what I mean. ;^)

[Reply]
Rashiid Amul Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 7:47 pm

#97 N. Riley says,
Our current infrastructure easily supports E-REV and BEV vehicles with little or no change. Service stations can offer gasoline, diesel, ethanol and bio-fuels with little impact on cost. Electrical charging stations could be installed at service stations, shopping centers and places of business without an extreme expense and can be done over several years without much of an impact on our infrastructure.

—————
Thank you. That is what I have been trying to say. EREV or BEVs will take a while to get up to the numbers of ICE vehicles on the road. During that time, places can upgrade their electric capacity, if necessary.

I know my current gasoline station has electricity. I also know it doesn’t have CNG, flex fuel, bio diesel and whatever else beside gasoline and diesel.

I’m still not sure why Dave G says trillions of dollars, but if he ends up being correct, then my solution isn’t a good one.

[Reply]
JEC Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 7:51 pm

#77 electriciti
“But what if instead of connecting via electromagnetic induction, the car could connect via direct connection. It could be like a metal strip on the highway where a car could lower a set of of probes to connect to it”
=====================================================
Makes me think of my old race car track with the metal strip to power the car.

So, how much would this cost? (hint: More then our GDP for the last 10 years). Also, what about safety? Do you want your kids (assuming you have some) to be playing in the street with live exposed votage?

Then you have maintanence. Boy would that be fun.

Then you have the issue that you would need to wait for the govt to install those darn metal strips in any every road you wanted to travel.

Oh, and how does this work in the winter? I imagine the electrical connection may be a problem.. Might be cool to watch a snow plow drive down with the blade throwing up an incredible show of sparks.

Also, this would mean that you need to supply power to maximum load. The gauge of these strips would be HUGE! (invest in metals now!).

Those “probes” protruding from the bottom of the car would likely pick up more than electricity. Probably likely to pick up some good road kill, though. It could even cook it with the electricity flowing through the probes.

Sorry, this sounds like a sci-fi thing, and it really is not possible.

[Reply]
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 7:55 pm

IYCSANJDSAAA
:o)

[Reply]
Arch Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 7:56 pm

Well guess what?

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/15/autos/chrysler_envi/?postversion=2008121514

Take Care
Arch

[Reply]
JEC Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 8:07 pm

109 Rashiid Amul

“I know my current gasoline station has electricity.”

================================================
Ok. But the service is likely not going to be sufficient to satisfy a charge station. If you are doing quick charge, and you have several “bays” or charge stations, the amount of power would exceed what a normal service stations service is (that sounds funny…at least to me).

But, to upgrade service would be possible, but not sure exactly how costly this would be. I think if your were a serious “charge station” you would want to bring high voltage directly to your station. The high voltage would allow you to reduce both losses (IR) in the service and give you the power you need.

Napkin guestimate:

6 charge bays
5 minute charge on 16KW batteries (50% charge)
Peak power per charge bay: 16KW-hr * .5 * 60/5 = 48KW-hr
Total for 6 bays: 6 * 48 = 288Kw-hr equivalent.

Using 220V: Power Max (all 6 bays in use) of 288 KW-hr, would translate into 1309 Amps (BIG current!).

So you bring in a high voltage service (not so cheap) to allow you to maintain reasonable copper wire for your service.

Someone please re-run my numbers. they seem excessive, but I am running out of time.. Kids need baths.

[Reply]
Len Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 8:12 pm

I think the 30 billion is with bankruptsy so they are dumping the pensions, health care for retirees, debts they owe are not being paid, then they get 30 billion to start over “fresh”.

I think he is right, without bankruptsy, they have no legal basis to dump their debts. I am not too sure what the American people will think of that, but the airlines came out ok from an image standpoint. It does smell a bit to me.

I can’t afford a 40k Volt, but the Chineese car for 22k would be interesting. I might wait a year or so to see how they hold up. For about 12k today I could convert an old kit car in the garage. In a year or so that could be down to 8k, depending on how batteries go.

The A123 batteries can take an 80% charge about as fast as you can give it. If you have a 70 amp circuit for an on demand hot water heater you could charge maybe three times faster. I mention this so you can see that the real limitation is how much current you can realistically supply from a house. Overnight charging is convenient.

If I need to make a long distance trip and owned an all electric vehicle, I would rent a vehicle for the trip. Same as I would if I needed a truck or a van now. I have no range anxiety.

The Volt batteries are not of a form factor that would make them a good “standard”. They will be loaded from the bottom of the vehicle and require a chassis designed for it. Certainly they would not work well for conversions.

Some guy in Tennessee has come up with fuel from kudsu. That stuff can grow two feet a day.

[Reply]
Len Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 8:22 pm

The battery modules inside the Volt battery might be a viable standard though.

[Reply]
Arch Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 8:45 pm

Well we have had two companies today say they will beat GM to the punch on the volt. I wonder when GM will quit dragging it’s feet. They have been working with hybrids since 1969. I wonder what else they need to learn to produce one. It looks to me like the game warmed up a little today. After all these years of producing locomotives which use a diesel engine to drive a generator they would know than more than anybody about the electronics to control these systems. Now two other companies are going to beat them to the punch. Sad Day.

Take Care
Arch

[Reply]
RB Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 9:07 pm

#28 Rashiid Amul Says: “Range anxiety will go away when the battery technology and/or battery recharging technology are much improved.”
======================================

I was wondering if range anxiety comes from limited range or from uncertainty about how much further the car can go before the battery dies. Both are issues with electric cars. For me it would be more the latter than the former. I might be annoyed by not having more range, but I would have anxiety if I thought I did but was not sure.

Range anxiety in the sense of uncertainty about “how much more” is widespread with electric cars because of the technical difficulty in determining just how much charge is left. GM claims to have the problem solved in the Volt by some method that is yet a mystery. I hope it really works and is not just another vanishing Volt promise.

[Reply]
RB Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 9:16 pm

#99 CaptJackSparrow says “Hey, when these articles mention a “plain outlet…” is it safe to say its a NEMA 110v/120v 15A wall plug? I am seeing quite a bit saying that but indicates a 220v plug.”
=============================================

I’m not sure either. It seems to me that a part of the confusion comes from cars be made and sold internationally, with the “plain outlets” in a lot of countries being 220 rather than 110.

[Reply]
RB Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 9:19 pm

#116 Arch says “After all these years of producing locomotives which use a diesel engine to drive a generator they would know than more than anybody about the electronics to control these systems. Now two other companies are going to beat them to the punch. Sad Day.”
===================================

I completely agree. One of the strange things about big companies is that it seems that internal communication and cooperation can be harder than getting something from the competition.

Trying to be optimistic, I’m thinking that the race is not yet over, so it’s a little early to be calling out the order of finish.

[Reply]
Arch Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 9:19 pm

Update

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2008-12/16/content_7308809.htm

Take Care
Arch

[Reply]
Tagamet Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 9:31 pm

With all the ethanol talk I thought I’d share. Just yesterday I read research yesterday that scientists have inserted another gene in E-coli to produce cellulosic ethanol (old news), but their ethanol had 4 to 6 carbon links as opposed to prior “best” of 2 links. The result is ethanol from non food stock that is NOT soluble in water and has the same amount of energy per gallon as gasoline. Therefore, existing pipelines (and likely gas stations as well) could be used for it, it would work in existing vehicles without adaptations to the vehicle, and it’d get the same mpg as gas. They also think that it’d require less energy for distillation.
If anyone wants a link to the article, just post a request and I’ll look it up.
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR!! NPNS

[Reply]
George K Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 9:47 pm

#3 Rashiid Amul
“My priorities would be this:
1) EREV
2) Turn every vehicle into an EREV until such time they can be BEVs only.
3) Improve Battery technology and forget the other three items on the chart since they will all be E-REVs.”
——————–
Just what I was thinking, kind of.

Certainly, any money spent on BAS is money down the drain. By the time they come out, it will be a joke. (It already is in some circles).

I would keep development on Strong Hybrids, as they will compete very well.

I would bring out the Cruz and Volt ASAP, and then follow Rassiad’s plan. In the meantime,

BAS 467 m = 0
S H Large 515 m = 515
S H Small 315 m = 0
E-REV 758 m = 758

Total 2055m = 1273

Put the 782m saved into future E-REV development.

That’s the ticket.

=D~~~~

[Reply]
NeoCon Says:
December 16th, 2008 at 12:50 am

I think perfecting the EREV should be the main priority - then adopt it for a wide range of vehicles.

Personally, I live in a snowy mountain village and yes, I NEED an affordable four-wheel-drive.

[Reply]
harrier1970 Says:
December 16th, 2008 at 2:09 am

Don’t know if anyone has seen this but it was in the Army times the other day:

http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=19758

Talks about how the Army, Air Force and Navy are planning to buy a fleet of electric trucks to use on bases. The speed limit on military bases is usually about 35 MPH (on average, depending on the base) so they don’t need to have the speed of the Volt just yet.

Glad to see the Army going Green

-Jason (in Iraq)

[Reply]
Brad G Says:
December 16th, 2008 at 9:20 am

#62 Dave says:
For everyone looking at China’s BYD Volt-killer, it is backed by Warren Buffet’s investment in it. I am very interested to see the reviews of this vehicle because you can have TWO for the price of one Volt. Don’t get me wrong, I love the Volt, but it sure does make one wonder what in the hell GM is doing with all of its testing and hoopla.
=======================
It takes GM forever to bring a car to market. The new Camaro was in the Transformer movie, what, 2 years ago and I saw the “new, new” concept Camaro at the state fair.
Down the row was the new Dodge Challanger already at the dealers ready to buy.

[Reply]
joe g Says:
December 16th, 2008 at 10:19 am

#125. Brad G Says:
It takes GM forever to bring a car to market. The new Camaro was in the Transformer movie, what, 2 years ago and I saw the “new, new” concept Camaro at the state fair.
Down the row was the new Dodge Challanger already at the dealers ready to buy.
_____________________________________

Fyi, the “camaro” in Transformers was a mockup body on a GTO chassis.
Cars take a while to develop, test, and build, and I agree the challender was on a quicker schedule than the camaro (I remember seeing the concepts of both at the ‘06 chicago auto show).

GM’s work on the Volt, however, is not piddling around or wasting time — in fact, there’s no reason to waste time, because development time costs money (there can be no money made on a car until people can buy it). GM is doing extensive testing on the battery to ensure a 10-year life with essentially no loss of observed capacity, something no other electric car manufacturer can promise.

[Reply]
Tom K Says:
December 16th, 2008 at 12:14 pm

For those who may not have seen it, take some time to check out the January National Geographic magazine. GM has the back cover. What’s pictured head on? The Volt! The entire ad is about GM’s commitment to more fuel efficient cars, led by the Volt. Let’s hope the plan and the commitment they are showing wins the day with the government and then wins the hearts of car lovers nationwide in 2010.
–Tom

[Reply]
George K Says:
December 16th, 2008 at 2:40 pm

#124 harrier1970
-Jason (in Iraq)
———

Thanks for your service, Jason. My son just got back.

[Reply]

GM Plans to Build Strong-Hybrid Small Vehicles But Will Spend Twice as Much Developing E-Flex Cars

128 Responses to “GM Plans to Build Strong-Hybrid Small Vehicles But Will Spend Twice as Much Developing E-Flex Cars”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts