AND 
My Question to GM CEO Rick Wagoner
While at the Detroit Auto Show I had the chance to meet GM’s CEO Rick Wagoner in a group discussion with about ten journalists. It sort of reminded me of the film Roger and Me, here I am some bumbling Michael Moore-type winding my way through months of effort to finally stand next to GM’s CEO, although in my case I was actually invited to do so.
We each had the chance to ask one question. Here’s how mine went:
First I wanted to express to you some of my reader’s and my best wishes to you in these trying times.
Thank you.
It seems the Volt is a very important part of GM’s viability plan and yet cost is high, volumes are low, and profit margins are thin or nonexistent. So I’m wondering how you reconcile the Volt and GMs viability at the same time in GMs immediate future?
Lets face it for a while you have to look at it as investment in the future and we spend R&D money every year and we spend on advanced engineering and advanced design. I think in the very early stages you have to recognize that you have to invest and sometimes the investment cost is higher than the market will bear.
Obviously were hoping for and we will get some good government incentives to consumers for products like the Volt which will help to cover some of that cost shortfall. The other thing is we have to work like crazy to get the cost down. This is where if the EV market in the US grows very gradually it makes the risk of it being unsuccessful much greater than if it can grow rapidly. If it grows rapidly you will see the suppliers investing and people putting R&D into the next generation technology, improving the manufacturing processes and being able to get the costs of the battery down much faster. This is where proactive government policy in this area will make all the difference.
There’s a reason today why most of all of those lithium batteries that we use in our cellphones and computers come from Japan. Its that when it wasn’t financially viable for private enterprise (to manufacture them), their governments were supporting it 15 or 20 years ago. We need to recognize in certain areas that proactive government engagement, clear directional policy, and in some cases support for R&D is going to be critical to move towards energy independence and leadership in battery technology.
Wouldn’t it be a shame to go to this massive effort to shift reliance from oil to diversifying the use of batteries, and we wind up having to buy our batteries from somewhere else.
97 Responses to “My Question to GM CEO Rick Wagoner”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- New York Times Report on the Chevy Volt Generator Mode Driving Experience
- CNBC Test Drive of the Chevy Volt in Charge Sustaining Mode
- Chevy Volt Will be Able to Hit 104 MPH
- Chevy Volt and Battery Program Update
- GM to Announce Initial Volt Markets at LA Auto Show
- Coalition of Industry Leaders Releases Roadmap to get 120 Million Electric Cars on US Roads by 2030
- Op-Ed: GM Reports a $1.2 Billion Loss, but Has the Cash To See Volt Well into Production and Beyond
- Three Chevy Volt Paint Color Finalists Announced
- What BMW Has Learned from the MINI E Program So Far: That They May Need to Build EREVs
- GM: EVs are Cool, but EREV’s are Really Cool
Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts
- Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud? November 20, 2009This is how open minded liberals operate. "And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best... […]BigCityCat
- Is the Volt Engine Direct Injected? November 20, 2009I recently read that the Cruze's engine will be DI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Cruze#Chevrolet_Cruze Obviously the Cruze's engine will... […]omnimoeish
- First Reports of the Chevy Volt's Charge-Sustaining (Generator) Mode Operation November 20, 2009The first two journalists' reports of what it's like to drive the Chevy Volt while in generator mode operation have been published. 1) New York... […]admin
- Florida giving $5000 rebate to convert Prius to plug-in November 20, 2009- Probably Hymotion - $10,400 standard price - $5000 state rebate - $1000 additional federal incentives - $4,400 final cost. Hurry because their... […]Texas
- New York Times CSM story November 20, 2009Link to the New York Times story of November 19, 2009 about a test ride of the Volt in charge sustaining... […]srschrier
- New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]srschrier
- New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]srschrier
GM-Volt.com is not affiliated with General Motors Company
All contents copyright 2007-2009 GM-Volt.com, LLC - All Rights Reserved
Home | Contact | Privacy Policy | About | Back to Top
January 19th, 2009 at 8:15 am
It is nice to see you have worked your way all the way to the top Lyle!
I think Wagoner had a answer all set to go for that one, hehe. It is a good question, and by that I mean one that is difficult form him to answer, or rather impossible for him to answer in a straight forward manner (and good on you for asking it when you got the opportunity).
I summarize his answer/read between the lines, that he really said, “It makes no sense Lyle, but now with the gov’t backing us, and provided they continue to do so (and not shut us down), in 10 years or so we could be owning this market”
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 8:15 am
Interesting question, but Wagoner was not very specific in exactly how to lower costs other than to say government intervention is necessary as is bringing it in-house…
How about speed to the market?
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Was Wagoner standing on a chair or is he really that tall?
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 8:27 am
I think Wagoner did elude to the costs coming down with high demand growth which stimulates the supply chain to ramp up. Higher volumes at every level along the chain afford volume-related cost savings as fixed costs can be spread out. High demand also attracts competition and innovation to build a better mousetrap. I think his position on government involvement is to provide enough early stimulus to keep demand sufficient to attract competition and innovation until this EV baby can walk on its own.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 8:34 am
#4, BobS, I hope you understand that your use of “elude” is excellent humor.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 8:36 am
Congrats Lyle for getting an interview with Wagoner.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Wow. Didn’t see that one coming. Wagoner wants more gov’t money for his company. Of course, in return, the gov’t can claim it’s saving the planet so maybe it’s a fair trade.
I wonder how innovation ever happens in the rest of the economy. Everyone faces this economy of scale problem initially, yet most don’t get “daddies money.”
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 8:45 am
CF@#7 The government supports innovation in many parts of the economy, where we deem it socially acceptable to allow them to do so. In other words, mostly in the medical field, chemistry, and basic sciences. Our universities have developed public/private partnerships in these areas. For example, in Wisconsin the UW-Madison has an entire corporation (WARF) that is devoted to taking basic research (funded with government money) and turning it into intellectual property that is protected, and then marketed (e.g. cell lines for research into genetic medicine). Meanwhile, as Wagoner noted above, Japan has no qualms about supporting research into things like battery tech., etc. Again, we need to level the playing field so that we can be more competitive.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Well, if nothing else besides getting to ask a good question, Lyle got next year’s Christmas mailer out of the way:
http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/9001/lylexmasgm9.jpg
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 8:58 am
______________________________________________________
That was a good question Lyle.
______________________________________________________
Electric Cars + Nuclear Power = American Energy Independence!
______________________________________________________
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 9:10 am
That’s a very good question indeed. I understand statik #1 in his translation of the answer and I would like to add this: He (Wagoner) finds our gov’t few years late on promoting R&D and it may be too late to have a chance to grab the whole market.
NPNS!
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Another question I would like to ask is how much money are they still putting into hydrogen research and development? I got to go for a spin in a Hydrogen Equinox yesterday. Talk about an long term investment and hydrogen isn’t cheap.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 9:15 am
The Cadillac Converj is a good start on recovering E-REV development costs.
Price the Volt around $34,000 and the Converj around $62,000. Both should sell well with the additional $7500 tax credit incentive.
GM can also do well to produce a limited edition Chevy Volt. This model will offer a custom paint color on the exterior. 20’s on the rear with 19’s on the front. Offer just 999 per year with VEH ID #’s 11-001, 11-002, 11-003 ect. The following year… 12-001, 12-002, 12-003 ect.
Price the “limited” at $44,000. Buyers know the “limited” will resale near cost for many years to come. Dealers may be able to make a little extra on these as well.
=D~
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 9:27 am
I think Rick answered the question. GM cannot prevail without a lot of government help.
GM does not have a level playing field; the government holds them by one leg (diehard support of Big Labor) while Toyota skins the other(lower labor costs in American factories, government health care and government research subsidies).
Why should GM go it alone? Let’s help them with the proceeds from a tariff on foreign oil.
Voltiacs arise!
EVs + nukes = the dawn of a new age of prosperity in the USA.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Statik @ 9,
Christmas mailer? Many would use the pic for a dartboard. Lyle would be an innocent bystander, just like all the employees at the local GM plant that shut down and fired 3,000 days before Christmas.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 10:12 am
The economist had a short little article on electric cars. Good to see they’re getting coverage outside of their typical purview.
Also, I didn’t know Buffett invested $230 million in BYD. That’s a good sign for the industry.
http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12944000&source=hptextfeature
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 10:19 am
#9 Statik:
Regarding the “Christmas Card” : Super-hilarious! Still rolling on the floor!
I was thinking on the lines also of a silk screening t-shirt edition like you can find at one of those shops on the boardwalk too. Food for thought.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 10:21 am
#8 MarkinWI
You’re correct. The gov’t does almost all of the R&D for agriculture (along with billions in additional subsidies.) They also pay for R&D that goes to National Security. But somehow, some of the most innovative companies; i.e. Google, Amazon, Cisco, Dell, Tesla, the entire consumer electronics industry, chemicals, biotech….MOST of the economy, does it almost (not quite all) entirely on their own. It’s amazing really. The most advanced areas of our economy….do it without daddies money, like big boys.
To me the reason is pretty clear. If you get an inheritance, you blow it, you don’t appreciate where it came from. If you earn the money, you’re careful with it. In the same sense, if the gov’t is paying for the research, it gets spent on hydrogen cars, fuel cells, 300 mpg methane supercars, etc. Things that are of no practical value right now. But when industry spends their own money, they discover far more practical concepts (our Volt). Discovering the EREV concept didn’t happen by chance, or gov’t funding. It took proper incentives. INCENTIVES MATTER.
I’m not sure I’d call it “catching up” for the U.S. gov’t to do more R&D, when the U.S. is renowned for being one of, if not the most, innovative economy in the world (Sweden & Hong Kong are up there). Maybe they need to catch up with us.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 10:33 am
#7 ” wonder how innovation ever happens in the rest of the economy?”
Do you own an HDTV? Without the government mandate for the transition to DTV, which most of the industry was dragged into kicking and screaming (read “Defining Vision: How Broadcasters Lured the Government into Inciting a Revolution in Television, Updated and Expanded” by Joel Brinkley – great read) those pretty pictures would still be stuff of the future. How about a cell phone or a computer? NASA R&D helped spawn those industries.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 10:38 am
I couldn’t agree more with “Cautious Fan”. We must be smarter and work harder. We don’t want to be another Chrystler getting a government bail out every dozen years or so. I am GM to the core and want to see them fight and make it on their own. Again, I couldn’t agree more “INCENTIVES MATTER”.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 10:47 am
How many mules have they produced thus far? It was supposed to be in the dozens, but I haven’t heard any update.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Well Said,
Do I get a Christmas Card
Red HHR (waiting for Christmas)
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Although I sure want the Volt (and EVs generally) to be a raging success, I find it somewhat annoying that executives in US companies trot out the argument about how companies in other countries receive greater “government support”. They do (sort of) but those countries have a “different” system. You can’t have it both ways – Japanese CEOs, for example, earn far less than their US counterparts. So, in effect, their taxpayers’ dollars (even if only indirectly) don’t go disproportionately into lining the pockets of already wealthy individuals.
Another big difference often ignored in these arguments is the mind-boggling military spending that goes on here. Companies involved in the military-industrial complex in the US (including GM) reap billions of taxpayer dollars for R&D – and the findings from this R&D then spin out into other industries right here. By comparison the Japanese spend much less on military R&D and thus are at a distinct disadvantage compared with their US counterparts.
NPNS
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Great question, Lyle!
And I think Wagoner’s comment about the Japanese government’s heavy, long-term support of lithium battery development is a good example of what GM (plus Ford & Chrysler) should bring back to Congress at their next visit (in March?). The paper Larry Burns gave on 1-14-09 at the Transportation Research Board (mentioned here & at GM’s Fast Lane blog*) also echos Wagoner’s remark above, “This is where proactive government policy in this area will make all the difference.”
I’m certainly not an authority on US Govt R&D activities. However, its clear that the DOD has historically funded hundreds of $Billions to develop and manufacture war-time transportation systems. If GM, Ford & Chrysler would jointly seek development contracts from the Pentagon to develop new E-REV vehicles for multiple applications such as transporting food, ammunition, and the vast quantities of other supplies needed to supply war efforts, this could underwrite a substantial fraction of the cost to ramp up the production of large quantities of vehicular Li-Ion batteries.
And as Lyle & I jointly proposed a couple of months ago, the US Govt (through its GSA branch) could also begin purchasing large numbers of E-REV vehicles to replace its huge fleet of vehicles used for domestic transportation. The R&D efforts funded by the Pentagon and the vehicle manufacturing contracts from the DOD and the GSA should be sufficient to underwrite the development of large-scale vehicular battery manufacturing facilities, thereby giving the Detroit 3 a real running start in producing affordable electric vehicles for ordinary domestic consumption. (And it can’t hurt that electric propulsion is expected to be near the top of the Obama Administration’s agenda.)
* http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives/2009/01/re-invent_the_automobile_help_transform_the_way_we_live.html
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 11:45 am
I have to say that Dr. Dennis has gotten one of the most cogent and intelligent answers out of Mr. Wagoner that I have seen anywhere. Well done.
Nice reference to “Roger and Me”, BTW. Say what you like about Michael Moore, he was the voice of presience in that one.
#23 Alex Williams:
I would say exactly the opposite. if we spent half of the money we waste on military spending supporting our domestic economy, we would not be in the mess we are today. Japan has let us spend trillions of dollars on “defense” over 60+ years, lived under our “nuclear umbrella”, and almost killed our manufacturing economy. Two words. Chalmers Johnson.
I keep hearing that the new administration will not have an “industrial policy”. I submit that we desperately need one. The rust belt expands every day.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Appparently Wagoner doesn’t realize that R&D has almost ALWAYS been supported by the feds via tax breaks. I also note that Japan batteries may have benefitted from govt money, but many other countries wil be making the majority of them in the future due to Japan’s high labor costs. It’s doubtful that Japan will ever recover the money they spent on battery development, at least not insofar as
EVs are concerned. It all comes down to labor costs. China, Korea and India will be the players, not Japan, anymore than Japan is a force in electronics these days. The Japanese economy has stagnated for a decade now, despite large govt infrastructure spending programs almost exactly like those the new morons coming into the White House have proposed (as opposed to the old morons who are leaving). The illusion that people think the politicians can make our industry dominent just by throwing money at it. China can throw a whole lot more money than we can and they have 10 times more engineers, etc. than we have. The big giant obstacle for the Volt is coming from China (as are its batteries), not from Japan. Wagoner is really more confused than I first thought.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
The government has been funding battery research for at least 20 years and it took a university professor at MIT to come up with the A123 chemistry. There are some areas where the government has to spend a 100 times more to accomplish what the private sector can. Once the basic principle has been developed, the government can help with funding a manufacturing plant. Other areas like managing social security or health care the government has shown to be at least five times less expensive than private industry (No need for profits). Maybe the problem was that it was the Department of Energy doing the research. Could be the oil got in their eyes. Also their main interest is neuclear weapons, at least that is how they spend their (our) money.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
#1, statik translates Wagoner’s response to something like, “in 10 years, we could be owning this market.”
Except, that won’t happen. GM doesn’t own the battery technology… anyone can buy cells from A123 or another big vendor and build an electric car variant; so there’s no enduring technological advantage in that regard.
Other automakers (*cough* Ford *cough* Toyota *cough* Honda *cough*) already have considerable experience with electromotive drivetrains (Ford has even developed a Camry competitor that spanks Toyota on fuel economy!). Toyota will put a PHEV on the road yet this year (sure, it’s limited availability at that point but so are GM’s two-mode hybrids, GM’s BAS hybrids, etc, and we consider them to be “in the market”). From the consumer perspective, the Toyota PHEV vehicle will be identical to the Volt (both have a plug AND a liquid fuel filler port). Argue all you like about drivetrains and AER ranges… the consumer sees a plug and a filler port and the vehicles are the same. After that comes price.
GM isn’t putting any street marketing muscle behind this, either, with the tiny quantities of expensive Volts that they will build (10K built in the first full year – more or less through the end of 2011 and 200K by 2015 – do the math, that’s just 50K/year). Flooding the market with an affordable vehicle puts GM out in front in terms of marketshare and acceptance but 10K vehicles does not do this.
Expansion of Voltec platform offerings (why don’t we call it e-Flex, anymore?) would help GM own the market in 10 years but a Cadillac Converj doesn’t do a lot to increase market acceptance and GM, as it is, is slow to bring advanced tech vehicles to market and successfully drive costs down. GM’s got three major examples of this failure to expand offerings on the road today…
First, the two-mode GMT900s… they’re dribbling out, slowly, although it’s the merest of badg-engineering necessary to put each additional one on the road. The pickup variant of the GMT-900 is still not in showrooms (after developing two SUVs that didn’t sell, why didn’t they give pickups a shot, right away?). Same basic drivetrain and frame, what’s the holdup?
Second, the BAS system vehicles. This is not a bad idea but GM MUST cut its cost to make it attractive (and they probably need to do a few other techno-tricks to it, as well). BAS belongs in the Cobalt, where it could really do some good, at a very modest markup over a base Cobalt. GM’s badge-engineered it twice but has not made the commitment to get it into the marketplace, effective and selling well. It doesn’t help that they had the big Cobasys recall to deal with, either.
Third, failure to migrate the two-mode into more platforms… The Saturn Vue will, eventually, debut. But it’s years behind the Highlander and Escape hybrids and competes directly. This is not a good plan, especially with the V6. Ultimate fuel economy won’t be all that great. GM would have been better off to go with an I-4 and compete head-to-head with Ford. Perhaps the two-mode transmission doesn’t work well with small-displacement engines.
Sure, it’s a lot of models, ultimately, but they’re all the same drivetrain and GM is slow to get into the pickup market. And GM has two competing systems that aren’t competing, especially on price.
Even the conventional Cruze, which already exists in foreign markets, isn’t due here for another year or more. GM’s development methods and schedules are very, very slow.
These things are all strategically bad and it’s the strategic aspect of GM’s plans that dictate whether or not GM is on top in 10 years.
GM must change something significant in their approach or the Volt isn’t going to take them anywhere. Especially out of bankruptcy.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Re: #9 & #17 – Are the t-shirts available in b&w or color? What will the cost be for purchasing? I need a replacement for my VOLT t-shirt since some guy from Chrysler ripped mine.
Everyone, please start buying batteries to help further the technology!
Good question Lyle! Boy, Rick sure is tall!
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
#24 nasaman – Yes. What you’re really saying here is that, whatever form it takes, when you have huge challenges you can’t expect private enterprise to deliver — it’s simply not designed to do this. Stated differently, Rome didn’t defeat Carthage by waiting for private enterprise to come up with a solution to the technological challenges presented by the Carthaginian navy.
#25 noel park – Couldn’t we just as easily say that electrification of transportation is military spending?
#27 Len says “it took a university professor at MIT to come up with the A123 chemistry”
Using a public money grant. Which brings us to Cautious Fan’s comment at #18 that companies like Cisco don’t use public money and are very innovative. Since I’m familiar with this area, what actually happens is that publicly funded research at universities turns into start ups which are then bought by Cisco. If you took public money out of tech it wouldn’t exist, at least not in anything resembling its current form.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
#28 charlie h says “GM must change something significant in their approach or the Volt isn’t going to take them anywhere. Especially out of bankruptcy.”
GM agrees with you completely. It has been very clear that the Volt is one piece of the puzzle. The far more important pieces, short and medium term, are a revamped product line that has better design and quality. Looked at objectively, GM and Ford have either achieved this or are on the brink of achieving this. For example, the Ford Fusion is more reliable than the Toyota Camry and the Chevy Malibu is the top rated car in its class by Consumer Reports. Ford is further along but GM isn’t that far behind.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
#31 “For example, the Ford Fusion is more reliable than the Toyota Camry”.
I think this will take a long time to get into the mass awareness as an accepted fact. I think most folks want to hear from someone “I own Ford/GM model for 8 years and it runs great – no problems and it still feels like a smooth solid ride.” I personally don’t know anyone who owns a Fusion. I’m from Detroit and I remember when Ford started the “Quality is Job 1″ campaign in the early 80’s with the redesigned Thunderbird. The perception was that while quality had improved somewhat overall It seemed like a lot of hype. I drove a rental Merkur from Ford Germany and was impressed but I didn’t own it for years and years. Resale value is also a top consideration and Ford/GM cars have not done very well so I think most folks assume there must be a reason.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
#25 agreed
#18 Consumer electronics is often given as an example of private industry not needing government help. Question, Do you remember the race to space? At that time the electric [ notice I didn't say electronic ] industry was told to make components smaller, faster. more reliable, lighter, and a list of other needs, And we the government do not care what it cost. We will cover the R & D cost and set up your manufacturing needs.. The first systems to get us into space actually used slide rules for many calulations. We needed better software and the government funded it. So IMHO our comsumer electronics is a prime example of government help actually working. Ofcourse that industry now is mostly assembly.
#23 Can you imagine what the military budget in many other countrys would have been and would still be if the whole world knew that the U. S. didn’t care who attacked who. Now think about how much less ours would have been.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Noel @ 25 writes, “I keep hearing that the new administration will not have an “industrial policy”. I submit that we desperately need one. The rust belt expands every day.”
Noel, what does that mean? And I do agree that the US spends far too much money playing world cop while our competitors kick our ass in many fields, including the auto industry. Although Bush specifically stated in his farewell address not to return to isolationism, I say let Taiwan, the former Soviet republics, all African, Mid-East, and pacific countries pay for their own defense.
We could buy every American family a Volt for the price of the bailout (20 million vehicles). Sound ridiculous? I’m sick of playing good cop in a world that hates Americans anyhow.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
January 19th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
You didn’t ask the most obvious question? Why haven’t you been asked to step down after bringing GM to brink of bankruptcy?
Not to be disrepectful, but most CEOs are replaced long before a company gets to those levels. Blame has to start at the top.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
I think a better question would be, with all the billions of dollars and all the EV compitition coming don’t you think getting the Volt out as soon as possible is better than waiting two more years.
#9 Statik, great pic. (you are good)
NO PLUG NO SALE, LJGTVWOTR, DBNGCMEME, (my house)=D~~~(my volt) .#33,772
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Off topic…well not really seeing how people are discussing R & D/Innovation
NASA’s Moon Rover will be trailing in tomorrows Inaugural Parade…
It’s electric with Li-On Batteries…
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/LER.html
“Some of the new technologies to be developed include new batteries, new fuel cells, advanced regenerative brakes, and new tire technologies. These are the same technologies that are required for electric vehicles such as cars, tractors, and heavy equipment that the U.S. needs to reduce its dependency on fossil fuels. The prototype rover is a plug-in electric vehicle with a cutting edge, Lithium-ion battery with a 125 W-hr/Kg specific energy (including cells, packaging and battery management electronics). To meet NASA’s requirements, the flight rover will need a 200 W-hr/Kg battery, so a big technology development push is underway. It will need the same reliability, energy storage and recharge capability that will be required for an Earth-based electric sedan that can travel 500 miles before needing to be recharged.”
Wow, 500 miles on a charge will relieve my Range Anxiety!
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
#34 – 300 million people in the US. Divide by 5 to get a guestimate number of families = 60 million. Let’s assume the volt cost 35K. 60 million times 35K = 2,100,000,000,000. That’s 2.1 trillion dollars. Is the bailout that big?
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
#3 = Is he really that tall?
_______________________
Based on the door behind them, he must be 6′3″ to 6′4″.
Doe he even fit into a VOLT?
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Cautious Fan #18 “Tesla, the entire consumer electronics industry, chemicals, biotech….MOST of the economy, does it almost (not quite all) entirely on their own. It’s amazing really. The most advanced areas of our economy….do it without daddies money, like big boys.:”
While there is some truth there, to accept it entirely would be to ignore the fact that any university basic research unit, or public or private think tank with the words biology or chemistry in them would likely not continue to exist without government grants; unless of course they also have words similar to Carnegie, Rockefeller, Sloan or Ford in their titles, and even with the a major foundation behind them, their research could disappear with out govt money because the foundations may only work to procure govt. grants.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Lyle,
I hope you asked him for a test drive!
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Laws of Suppy and Demand.
Short Term:
High demand + Low Supply = High Price
High demand + High Supply = Lower Price
Low demand + High Supply = Lowest Price
NPNS!
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
#30 Donc & #24 Nasaman
“when you have huge challenges you can’t expect private enterprise to deliver — it’s simply not designed to do this. Rome didn’t defeat Carthage by waiting for private enterprise to come up with a solution to the technological challenges presented by the Carthaginian navy. ”
_______________________________________________________________________
I think you’re making a little bit of a straw-man argument here. The gov’t has to pay for national defense. It’s a classic commons problem and if the gov’t doesn’t do it, it wont’ happen, noone has sufficient incentive.
I think you’re also failing to see the huge accomplishments of the private sector. GE improves the efficiency of their jet engine 3% / year, battery storage has improved 7% / year, CPU speeds double every 18-24 months, hard drive storage density doubles every 24 months, drug companies have cured numerous ailments…..all primarily funded with private money. And the reason they do it, because they’ll make money. They have a predictable, natural, incentive.
To your previous example of national security, even DARPA has discovered a great way to get new technology. They do open competititions and let the best man win. This is far better then the old way of giving Boeing and Lockheed Martin $10 million apiece. And the reason it works better, the competition has a real INCENTIVE to perform.
If the U.S. gov’t starts giving GM money to develop electric cars, 2 incentives come out of that.
1) If you’re currently doing battery research, stop. You won’t be able to compete with bottomless pockets.
2) If you want to be in the field of electric cars, hire a lobbyist first. Researchers come second.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
#44 Cautious Fan
All of the examples you give are ones that involve developing a product. A huge part of the future success of electric cars and a modern energy system deal not with discrete products, but with massive, inter-juristictional infrastructure. To give a better, more modern example than Rome/Carthage; just look at everything from canals to railroads to the modern US Interstate system to the Internet. Those projects all required strong US Government development of early systems, including setting up standards and guidelines, etc. Government certainly CAN play a constructive role where private industry can’t or won’t.
We need a well conceived effort on the part of industry and government if we are to modernize and revolutionize our power generation and transmission infrastructure, develop state-of-the-art batteries using a common standard, etc. to make automobile electrification a success. It is no coincidence that all domestic power in the US is 60Hz, 120V. We need standards for an industry to thrive. If industry can do it without Gov’t, then fine. But if industry isn’t showing the leadership, then somebody has to.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
I agree with those who point out that much of the research in this country comes from Govt. spending already. MIT gets a ton of money from the Govt. So do most big research universities. These proffessors meet with Govt lab types and then solicit (beg) for money to extend and enhance the research.
Whether GM should have a govt bailout is debateable, but the idea of govt subsidies for electric cars is another. Lets be honest. The Volt is a money loser for the purchaser unless gas goes way higher in price. I have run the numbers several times. The volt basically saves you one gallon of gas per driving day and this costs you about one dollars worth of electricity for that day on top of the initial outlay of an additional $15,000 (assuming a 5 seater Cruze is $20K and a 4 seater volt is $35K). Even with gas at $4 per gallon the average user will not recoup the $15K extra that they sunk into the car. Financially, the volt does not make sense at this time.
The Volt does make sense for other reasons, however. And for these greater reasons of national security and/or pollution control, one should not expect GM or individuals to bear the full cost. This is where leadership at the national level is needed to support the development (research $$) and acceptance (consumer rebates) of electric cars.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
#41 Jeffhre
I think you make a fair point, but just because some R&D is gov’t funded doesn’t mean that it must be. For example, if you’re researching something with no apparent economic value, only the gov’t will fund it (he he.) And I’m not saying that gov’t research never comes up with anything good, just that private research is more efficient because they have better incentives. Our Volt is an awesome example, and one of the reasons I love it. Clinton and Bush screwed around pushing for all sorts of different technologies (hydrogen, fuel cells, etc) that aren’t economically feasible. The money gets allocated by lobbyists hired by certain companies regardless of capability.
But it was itty bitty Tesla who put together existing LION technology, developed for laptops, that changed the world. Why? Elon Musk wanted to make money and was willing to take a big risk (ego is in there too). That’s innovation and man it gives me goosebumps just thinking about it. That’s what I love about America. We’ve created an environment where people with big dreams thrive.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
#30 DonC:
Yes. I have said it here many times, as have many others.
#32 Bob S:
Our 95 Impala SS with 120K miles and out 2000 S10 with 218K miles both run great, and have smooth solid rides. We have owned both since new, and done no major repairs on either.
#34 Dave B:
Well it means to me that the government needs to get involved with business to help to plan and support strategies to prevent or mitigate the rust belt disaster in the Midwest, for example. And to prevent unsustainable reliance on imported oil for another. And to control air pollution for another.
Providing tax credits to Volt buyers is a good example, but it’s just the beginning. I have been commenting about “The Shock Doctrine” recently. Naomi Klein maintains that the rust belt is at least as big a disaster as Katrina, it just took longer. The government’s non-response to the one is as bad as the other, and motivated by the same Friedman belief system.
As to the rest of your comment, thank you very much. I really appreciate it.
#39 Bob S:
If you count the huge number of loans and other financial products which we have guaranteed, I believe that the number is well over $2 trillion. If they start to default at any significant level, the $700 billion of the TARP will look like chump change.
And all of the liquidity which the Fed has created and pumped into the banks, et al, outside of the TARP.
Forget the bailout, you could buy every family in the US a Volt for the cost of the Iraq war alone. Check out the book “The $3 Trillion War”.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
#18 Cautious Fan
Much of what you list here wasn’t accomplished by companies doing it “on their own.”
For example, much of the success of today’s biotech industry comes from university laboratories that had made significant discoveries in the past using government grants. Also, the US government’s Human Genome Project is nearly solely responsible for the modern field of human gene therapy. The main competitor to the HGP was simply a private industry spin-off originally populated by prior employees and their “government”: knowledge. In fact, some of these private companies engaged in rather dubious behavior, such as trying to “patent” genes that they discovered. Can you imagine? A private company patenting something that they didn’t even create? Something that exists in YOUR body?
The list of examples of government / private synergy goes on and on. There is a saying that applies to companies as much as it applies to people: “There is no such thing as a self-made man.” Somewhere along the way every person and company owes a debt to those who came before and laid the groundwork.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
#46 Nuclear Boy
You say the Volt is a “money loser”. Yes. ALL cars are money losers. And in terms of gas savings paying for itself; that is almost NEVER the case with any car. Someone who buys a $27,000 Prius will never never never see a return on investment over someone who buys a used Tercel for $5,000. We need to stop framing this in terms of how much money you can recoup after buying a Volt, because here’s the answer; not much. A Volt doesn’t pay for itself. Neither does a Prius, or a Saab, or a BMW, or a Lexus, or any car over $25,000 when you can buy a cheaper car for $10,000 less. Someone who buys a $27,000 48-mpg Prius will never financially catch up to me if I buy a $15,000 37-mpg Cobalt. I will spend less money.
Buying a Volt DOES have the following advantages:
1. Environmentalists can rest easy knowing they have drastically cut their CO2 emmissions.
2. Hawks can rest easy knowing they are sticking it to OPEC.
3. Tech geeks can drive the latest technology.
Those are the only advantages. But quite frankly, they are very good ones. People pay extra money all the time for things they really want. The Volt is no different.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
# 5, I har-har-tily agree. Oh that was terrible.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
#45 Jim in PA
I agree with all your points, especially “gov’t can play a constructive role where private industry can’t or won’t.” You nailed it. In this case, private industry is already heading down the path to develop the technology.
For a counterexample on gov’t standards, consider IEEE. They’re a professional group that controls numerous standards across multiple fields. Or the IETF, or AIAA. As a structural design engineer, we used to use old miliatry specs. Now, all that has been taken over by professional standards bodies. Industries coordinate all the time on standrds without the gov’t whip to force them, it’s in their interest. I don’t see why it’s needed here. Having the gov’t control the coordination here seems like a fairly dated concept.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Some may have noticed I’m kinda frustrated with GM, lol, I’m 72, retired and have a home in Coos Bay Oregon, and 33,772 on the waiting list. I want a volt really bad.
My question to Rick Wagoner is, will I,in my situation, ever get a Volt?
NO PLUG NO SALE, LJGTVWOTR, DBNGCMEME, (my house)=D~~~(my volt) .#33,772
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
I said before and I will say it again, that Volt is a nice science project which will no doubt advance the technology but will do very little for US oil imports or GM viability without goverment support.
In my oppinion GM will loose a lot of time and money they don’t have on this one instead of focusing on perfecting existing technology and winning back the customers. Gimme a truck with 2.5 turbo diesel with 300 Lb of torque and 35 mpg. Bring a 70 mpg Fiesta TDI stateside that I can drive to work. Tax the displacement and MPG. Tax the gasoline finally.
Big Li battery now in equivalent to one gallon on liquid fuel at about $5/g (provided electricity in free and the battery lasts for 10 years and can be recycled for free). Drive it for 200 days per year and you will save 200g of fuel less than 100 of which comes from OPEC. Switch from 20 mpg vehicle to 35 mpg vehicle and you will save 320 gallons per year 150 of which comes from OPEC.
Bringing the engine from 20 mpg to 35 mpg can be done for less then $5K per car (more diesel, turbo, direct injection, less mass, less displacement, and yes hybrids – not a plug-ins though). That is there the RnD money has to go. Let NASA play and perfect the components.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
#29 Charlie H,
Yes the PHEV dual mode is coming in two sizes and two flavors.
We have only seen the one large size dual-mode HEV version to date. GM/BMW/Daimler decided that it was better to obtain improved fuel economy for their big vehicles first. The smaller dual mode for cars isn’t due to show up until 2010- 2011 time frame. When it does, you will see large sedans probably DTS, or big Buick’s with them in FWD or RWD configurations as well as BMW 7 series and /Daimler /S Class/Chrysler 300C type sedans using them, as well as large CUVs.
Don’t forget that the Volt EREV is designed for “C” segment vehicles and smaller, and may not scale up with present battery technology to larger CD and and “D” segment sedans. It will suffice to eventually kill all the tiny pregnant roller skates ( “A”s and “B”s), out there, with cramped accommodations, marginal safety, and tiny conventional ICEs, that governments have forced their (foreign) citizens to accept “for their own good”. These are the same vehicles that are starting come here in the next few years for a short and I predict unsuccessful life, just like last time.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
#50, Jim,
Of course all cars can be thought of as money losers. Thats not my point. I agree that people pay more all of the time for certain nameplates, etc. etc. I was just assuming for arguments sake that we are comparing the Cruze (A supposedly upscale small chevy on the same platform as the Volt) to the Volt. Both Chevys, Both american made, both similar in size.
When push comes to shove, people will be on the car lot and will see both of these cars together. There will always be people willing to spend extra for the good of all but polls have shown, even in Europe, that when it comes to parting with their own money, people are not as interested in environmental or national causes.
The point I was making is that all of this development on the Volt and the extra 600 Lbs of batteries you must haul around, and the loss of the 3rd seat in the rear basically save you about 1 gallon of fuel. I still want a Volt, I am just arguing that its mass appeal is not too great. For these basic reasons, I was arguing that the Gov’t, if it really wants to curb air pollution and lessen our dependence on oil, should step in and help. GM, and/or you and I, should not bear the extra cost of driving electrically.
IF the govt bears some of the initial cost, maybe the developments will accellerate and in a few years the electric cars will be cost competetive with Gas burners.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
History tells us that the new technology gets adopted by a large number of people (outside California
) when it beats the old one head to head, and not then people are MADE to adopt it.
.
In terms of cars the electrics should be faster, break less, look better, be more comfortable and fun to drive AND cost less or the same as the gass ones, untill that happens efficient ICE will rule the automobile world. That is not to say that I would not buy one just for fun, because I love new tech. I would go with Karma though
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
#50 Jim in PA
Perfect..I just paid 1500 bucks for my used cavalier..winter beater..the mileage is way less than a Prius, but I copuld never recoup the extra 25,500.00 for a new prius. I am getting about 28-30 mpg, and drive about 10 miles one way..so at the current price it will take me oh..say … til the world explodes to break even if I had bought the Prius…
Most excellent view…
Thank you
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
#55, stas peterson says, “Don’t forget that the Volt EREV is designed for “C” segment vehicles and smaller, and may not scale up with present battery technology to larger CD and and “D” segment sedans. It will suffice to eventually kill all the tiny pregnant roller skates ( “A”s and “B”s), out there, with cramped accommodations, marginal safety, and tiny conventional ICEs, that governments have forced their (foreign) citizens to accept “for their own good”. These are the same vehicles that are starting come here in the next few years for a short and I predict unsuccessful life, just like last time.”
I don’t believe this is going to go the way you suggest. Even if Li-Ion batteries come down signficantly in price, there’s still significant bulk and heft to them. The Volt battery is some 400lbs and is much larger than a conventional 20 gallon fuel tank. This consumes critical space within the overall vehicle packaging.
The smallest cars with the most interior room in the subcommpact class all have FWD transverse engines because it all fits together very well. Adding a 400lb battery without removing the enqine squeezes space for the passengers and cargo. There’s no way around this, unless you can move some of the interior of the car into the 4th dimension.
Look at the Volt itself, as planned. 4 Passengers. Period. A Corolla will seat 5 (I’ve been in the back of one that was seating 5 at the time and I’m well over 6′ and I’m not a skinny person, either and it was OK, although I wouldn’t want to travel across the country that way). There’s probably 5 seat belts in a Fit or Yaris (I can’t say if that would be very comfortable, though).
Even with some price mitigation on the Li-Ion batteries, the Voltec platform carries a significant price disadvantage compared to a well-designed and engineered conventional subcompact.
What can probably be done with subcompacts to improve overall fuel economy is what Toyota’s currently doing with their Kei-class cars in Japan… it’s basically a variation of the BAS system, with a Li-Ion battery stashed under the seat and it basically just stops the engine when there’s no point to running it and starts it very promptly when it’s needed again. At a stoplight, for example. There’s little weight and space penalty in comparison to the fuel economy improvement. Kei cars are very small (I think they’re limited to 1200lbs or so). With their good base fuel economy, packaging and weight and add in an effective and cheap stop-start system, a Yaris or Fit would offer very much improved city fuel economy with very little penalty on their excellent highway economy. A $40K Volt would not be able to compete with that… it’s something Honda and Toyota could probably bring in for $1K over the nominal vehicle price (and Yarises start in the mid-$10Ks).
Also, from what I’ve read, BMW has pulled out of the two-mode transmission project. Daimler, too, I think. Chrysler was putting them into the Aspen/Durangos but they killed that project, too. Reports are that Chrysler built 300 or so before pulling the plug and rumors are that they withdrew them from the market (I don’t know if they crushed them… probably removed the transmission and battery and any other peculiar equipment and left the remainder of the vehicle for spares). The two-mode might be workable in an RWD Chrysler sedan but Chrysler appears to be doing NO development at present (it’s an open question whether or not they’ll ever build any cars ever again).
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
#56 Nuclearboy.
If we are comparing the Cruze and the Volt..the Cruze costs less, but some people may see the 150MPG rating as worth it..just a thought…
#54 Alex MD.
“In my oppinion GM will loose a lot of time and money they don’t have on this one instead of focusing on perfecting existing technology and winning back the customers. Gimme a truck with 2.5 turbo diesel with 300 Lb of torque and 35 mpg. Bring a 70 mpg Fiesta TDI stateside …”
You speak of GM specifically, but list the Fiesta..that is a Ford..just being nit picky…
However..the techniology behind diesels is not the trouble..its the enviromental rules…
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
A picture speaks better than 1000 words. Think what happens if the GM CEO decides to have a test drive of a small car made buy GM ? He will be really struggling to get in.
On the other side a Japanese company CEO drive the North American small car may be getting comfort feeling like “Rick driving an Hummer”
Yes Rick, we need Big cars, I can imagine how you felt when you were in the malibu sedan to reach Washington.
So is GM working with NASA to get 500 miles battery ?
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
# 60 Mitch
Thanks. I did mention Fiesta without a reference to Ford. It is made by european Ford devision and I think it rated for 76 mpg combined. The gas vertions are in 50s-60s. The new diesel ones routinely get close to 90 in suburban driving. It beats Volt as a commute car hands down.
) is such that cars powered by currently available batery technology are costly and highly impractical and unnecessary complex to be adopted on a large scale as we will soon see with the Volt project.
This is not about a particular company or a model, this is about getting off the imported oil, right? Our interest in the new technology (like volt etc) should not cloud our judgement.
The cold reality today (it was -35F at night two days ago
Instead GM should have spent $1B improving their ICE vehicles, getting Cruze to the dealerships in 09, buying Hybrid tech from Ford and putting it into Malibu and pricing it below Camry etc, you know.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Um, while we hold our breath for the arrival of the Volt in late 2010, … 2011, or early 2012, how about offering a traditional compact vehicle now like the Aveo, that can deliver 40 miles per gallon instead of the insulting 25 mpg City, and 34 Highway.
Way to go Chevy for discontinuing the compact Cavalier and keeping the Impala, the Taho Hybrid also a brilliant idea, NOT !
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
#60. Mitch
Clearly some will pay more for the Volt tech. I am just looking at the popuilation as a whole and the concept of mass adoption of electric vehicles. The public, as a whole, will not adopt electrics like the volt at the current Volt cost vs. Cruze cost projections. My argument is that the average Joe does not want to save the world if it costs them and extra $5,000.
GM will probably sell out the 60 thousand cars they make in the first two years but this is a drop in the bucket.
I am arguing for the role of Govt to step in and make electric cars viable so that the average Joe will buy one. If we got off of foreign oil perhaps we would not need a carrier battle group in the middle east quite as often. The cost savings of not being tied to the whims of OPEC are worth the government intervention at this time. Now all that we need is a govt. that is serious about getting off of oil.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
I couldn’t agree more with # 60 Mitch. However in doing so GM would not look good in the eyes of the Tree Huggers, and let’s not forget it is all about the image. In addition they would also piss off the oil companies by producing much more fuel efficient vehicles. That equals a loose / loose situation.
So what it comes down to is this. If we assume today’s vehicles get 25 mpg at $2.00 a gallon. Tomorrows vehicles will get 50 mpg at $4.00 bucks a gallon. That way we (the general public) get what we want, ie more fuel efficient cars… and the oil tycoons get to put food on their table without having to clip coupons, lol.
Think about it.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
man I’ve owned a bunch of Chevy’s in my lifetime and guess what they all faired poorly compared to the Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla, and my Toyota pickup. Things broke on the Chevy’s that I didn’t know existed on cars. Doors would come off the hinges, steering columns would wobble. The car would pull to one side, no matter how aligned. I needed breaks on them once a year.
Will I buy a VOLT, nope, I can see the recall bulletins now.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
statik:
I like the card, but you should replace the snowman with a picture of Big Bob Lutz!
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
hi Greg #65,
“… the oil tycoons get to put food on their table without having to clip coupons, lol.”
_____________________________
It would be easier to laugh along with you if it weren’t for the TARP-like profits Big Oil takes in each quarter. They nearly bankrupt the world economy this last 5 years with $145 barrel prices. Putting millions of people out of work (including me). And leaving millions literally out-in-the-cold unable to afford $500 a month for heating oil.
The fat cat execs qualified their excessive gains by saying, “It’s what the market will bare”.
Let them eat sand.
_____________________________
February 1, 2008
ExxonMobil, the world’s largest publicly traded company, has checked in with the highest quarterly profits ever recorded by any company in any industry at any time.
Chevron actually outdid Exxon. Its quarterly profits rose to $4.88 billion, up 29% from the $3.77 billion a year earlier.
February 7, 2008
ExxonMobil, after record high profits in 2005 and 2006, smashed the record for highest profits ever made by a public U.S. company—previously held by Exxon—by posting a net profit of $40.6 billion in 2007.
To put these figures in perspective, Exxon’s $40.6 billion profit in 2007 is roughly equal to receiving “$30 for every person in China and $132 for every U.S. resident.” Another way of looking at it is that Exxon made $77,245 per minute in 2007—that’s more money generated per minute than 70 percent of Americans earned all year, according to the Census Bureau.
Shell also had a record breaking year. Its $31.3 billion 2007 profit set a new company record, and was 23 percent higher than its $25.4 billion profit in 2006.
=D~
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Dear Comrades, you still don’t get it the government now owns everything period, what do you think all of your tax dollars for the next 40 years have gone to, fearless leader Bush has blown 11.5 trillion in his 8 year dynasty, it is no wonder America is in last place, foreign countries have been subsidizing there industries for years WAKE UP COMRADES AND SMELL THE BORST, and all the while fellow Americanskis have bought foreign cars and everything else from across the pond while the country is sinking deeper into the abyss, maybe someday you idiots will realize what you have done maybe the little light in your head will go off while you are staring at the walls of your cardboard condo.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Why is this guy still CEO ?
Didn’t he help crush all those EV-1s ?
No Accountability in that Organization.
FAIL
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Another great question – how do you justify your $20+ million dollar salary and bonuses while bankrupting GM and taking American taxpayers money at the same time? Every consider giving it back to help the company?
I’m shocked that everyone on this site gives this guy a complete pass. Where’s the outrage?
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Several have mentioned the cost comparison between the Chevy Cruze, the Chevy Volt, and the Cadillac Converj. Balancing the 10 year operating cost against the initial sticker price. One post mentioned buying a $1500 used car as the answer to long term savings.
Why do people buy Jeep Commanders for $38,000? Or pay $60,000 for a used SL500? $35,000 for a 2006 Dodge Charger? Harley Davidson motorcycles for $20,000?
It is not the comparison between models. It is brand loyalty, pride in ownership, personal reward for working hard, environmental concerns, and many other reasons. And as Mr. Lutz sums it up, “the car is an extension of the self”.
I live in Southern California and speak with old friends and new friends about the future trends in car development. Here are a few common comments concerning E-REV’s.
1> I want one of those.
2> We will all be driving electric cars.
3> Can I buy one now, how much are they?
4> 40 miles for a dollar, really?
We have seen the trends come and go. The latest in Southern California are Mini Coopers. All colors with all sorts of roof racks. The newer Jeeps are also a huge seller here. Two years ago it was black Cadillac Escalades with HUGE chrome wheels. Mazda sport models were hot a few years prior. Before this, Cobra kit cars.
Bring on the E-REV’s. The public waits.
=D~
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
369 chevonly:
Alas, too true.
#72 Dave K.:
Right!
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
statik #1
Lyle needs to grow another foot to make it to the top. Are you implying that Lyle pitched a softball question to Mr. Wagoner.
#3 spin
Mr. Wagoner sure looks tall! Yikes, his head is even with the door closer. I wonder if he can get into a Volt ?
I still haven’t found out what GM is working on in the future battery world. Someone please answer me, I haven’t that much time left.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
(offtopic warning)
#53 Casey,
>> I’m 72, retired and have a home in Coos Bay Oregon
I just watched “Prefontaine” the other day. I’m too young to remember him ever running, but he must have been a heck of a character around there.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
supercapacitor leadacid combo, does anyone know anything about this ? (gets 150 mpc in an SUV.
“CSIRO’s ongoing research will further improve the technology’s capabilities, making it lighter, more efficient and capable of setting new performance standards for HEVs.
The UltraBattery test program for HEV (yet another acronym) applications is the result of an international collaboration
. The battery system was developed by CSIRO in Australia, built by the Furukawa Battery Company of Japan and tested in the United Kingdom through the American-based Advanced Lead-Acid Battery Consortium.
UltraBattery technology also has applications for renewable energy storage from wind and solar. CSIRO is part of a technology start-up that will develop and commercialise battery-based storage solutions for these”
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Some still quote the price of the Volt as $40,000. I think just to be negative. And/or try to put some damper on the enthusiasm.
Have you actually seen the window sticker on a Volt ?
No one knows the final cost of the Volt or even the MSRP. I recon all this guessing is great fun but no one knows yet.
I don’t think GM has set the final price have they ?
So why don’t we wait and see what happens ?
And the talk of “they won’t buy because it’s not cost effective” etc.
What’s cost effective about the millions of fishing boats and sporting goods sold every year. How long does it take for payback on that stuff? If it’s good they’ll like it. If they like it they’ll by ‘em.
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
hi Ed M #76,
I was recently reading about the supercapacitor leadacid combo battery. Using readily available materials (carbon) to boost battery efficiency.
# Blending carbon additives into the lead sulfate paste that is used for negative electrodes;
# Developing split-electrodes where half of the negative electrode is lead and the other half is carbon; and
# Completely replacing the lead-based negative electrode with a carbon electrode assembly.
Tests are showing more than 17,000 cycle capability with increased power. This is equivalent to 15 years of daily use at three charge cycles per day. 17,000 / 3 = 5666 cycles / 365 days = 15.5 years
Good news for EV and E-REV development.
=D~
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
I hope this is the right time, but I just wanted to make the point that GM shouldn’t have to feel as nervous about the price of the Volt as they appear to be. As we’ve read before, electric cars drive like more expensive, luxury (v. quiet) cars with small V8 engines. They don’t drive like regular cars. I think people need to be educated to think of electric cars as luxury cars with more zip than a regular vehicle. If GM can get this message across, perhaps more people will pay more for a Volt. What do you gents think?
(Quote)
January 19th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
On January 11 2009, Tesla Motors started taking orders for the new Tesla Roadster Sport, an enhanced-performance version of the Roadster that will sell for $128,500 when deliveries start in June.
Wow talk about going in the wrong direction, how about announcing a sedan selling for $70,000?
Or, a practical car at half the speed and range of the roadster, and half the price?
Sorry for the vent rant, but I’ve been following them for a while and just saw the latest update to their Wiki page and thought I would share.
(Quote)
January 20th, 2009 at 12:00 am
The EV1 delivered 80 mph with a range of 160 miles.
How about an EV2 with a top speed of 65 mph (highway speed limit in most states) and a range of 80 miles per hour.
I know this is going backwards, but if the expense of the EV1 made it non practical, then make it slower, if the huge battery back generated too much heat, use less batteries, that should cut the costs down, and guess what I would still buy / lease one, even in these economic times. My commute to work is 9 miles one way. Heck that’s why the Volt will work for me if it deliveres the promised 40 miles of 100% electric propulsion.
It’s been 10 years since the EV1 technology came to market, don’t tell me we made no progress in battery technology in the last decade!
(Quote)
January 20th, 2009 at 12:05 am
Greg.Tesla. Have you looked at their model S announcements and the wait for DOE (starts right away)or private funding (probably in a couple of years, according to chairman E. Musk) to continue.
Justin DT – Premium luxury and cutting edge tech, can’t beat it!
(Quote)
January 20th, 2009 at 12:25 am
GM considering using Volt technology in the Chevrolet Orlando
http://www.egmcartech.com/2009/01/19/gm-considering-using-volt-technology-in-the-chevrolet-orlando/
Cruze version ( from koria 40+mpg one ) , Volt version …
(Quote)
January 20th, 2009 at 12:42 am
#81 Ben says “The EV1 delivered 80 mph with a range of 160 miles”
Not sure where your `60 number came from. I think GM claimed 80 and the guy I knew who had one got 55.
Here are a few more reasons the EV-1 didn’t work out:
“The range of 130 miles is bogus. None of them ever achieved that under normal driving conditions. Running the air conditioning or heater could halve that range. Even running the headlights reduced it by 10%.
Minimum recharge time was two hours using special charging stations that except for fleet use didn’t exist. The effective recharge time, using the equipment that could be installed in a lessee’s garage, was eight hours. Home electrical systems simply couldn’t handle the necessary current draw for “fast” charging.
NiMH batteries that had lasted up to three years in testing were failing after six months in service. There was no way to keep them from overheating without doubling the size of the battery pack. Lead-acid batteries were superior to NiMH in actual daily use.
Battery replacement was a task performed by skilled technicians taking the sorts of precautions that electricians do when working on live circuits, because that’s what they were doing — working on live circuits. You cannot turn batteries “off.” This is the reason the vehicles were leased, rather than sold. As long as the terms of the lease prohibited maintenance by other than a Hughes technician, GM’s liability in the event of a screw-up was much reduced. Technicians can encounter high voltages in hybrid vehicles. In the EV1, there were _really_ high voltages present.
Lessees were complaining that their electric bills had increased to the point that they’d rather be using gasoline.”
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/07/ev1_criticism.php
(Quote)
January 20th, 2009 at 12:44 am
I’m not sure if a car that only travels 40 mi. by battery and then needs a generator will be viable for the whole country. Sure moms aand grandmas can go to the local store…but what about drivers in SoCal..or anybody who commutes more that 21 mi. each way??
Make fuel efficient cars 40-50 mpg..(You Know You Can !) Suck up every drop of oil in the W.S., in the mean time, work on better batteriew or better yet, HYDROGEN !!!!!
(Quote)
January 20th, 2009 at 5:37 am
hi Bob2 #85,
“… only travels 40 mi. by battery and then needs a generator will be viable for the whole country.”
________________________________
Folks who commute 50 miles each way may want to plan ahead (now) and ask if the destination can provide a $1 charge. My workplace has made it known that charging is fine during working hours. So 50 miles each way = 80 on electric and 20 on gasoline. Or about $2.00 out of pocket for 100 miles.
Conversely, one can buy a Yaris for their 5 day commute. The only problem with this is that you will have to drive a Yaris. Each 100 mile trip will cost $5. With time lost on refueling stops. And the dismal reality of driving a small, underpowered, and noisy car.
Double the cost of gasoline from $2 to $4 per gallon.
Volt = $3 Yaris = $10.
=D~
(Quote)
January 20th, 2009 at 7:02 am
Conversely, one can buy a Yaris for their 5 day commute.
________________________________
I find it intriguing how comparisons to Prius abruptly ended the moment the 2010 model was revealed. It’s as if the topic is now taboo. Why such a drastic change?
(Quote)
January 20th, 2009 at 9:48 am
59 charlie h writes:
“There’s probably 5 seat belts in a Fit or Yaris (I can’t say if that would be very comfortable, though).”
Last week I transported 4 JV basketball players to the game in the ‘09 Fit. All survived. It was a little tight in width; tall and skinny works, but rotund would not.
(Quote)
January 20th, 2009 at 11:02 am
“”"”Make fuel efficient cars 40-50 mpg..(You Know You Can !) Suck up every drop of oil in the W.S., in the mean time, work on better batteriew or better yet, HYDROGEN !!!!!”"”
———————————————–
Hydrogen has no future as an automotive fuel, because there is no cost effective source of hydrogen, It has to be extracted from water with a huge energy input from either electricity (mostly fossil generated) or natural gas (also a fossil fuel).
Electric cars powered by nuclear electricity are the way to go in the future.
(Quote)
January 20th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Can’t we use nuclear power to generate all the electricity we want to power EVs and make hydrogen as well? It may be inefficient but H is portable and strategically superior to foreign oil and all the money we spend on defense trying to secure future supplies.
People in the US are fearful of buying GM, Ford and Chrysler because they assume they will get hosed to the max if they ever need to go to a dealership for service. Otherwise they would tolerate slightly less reliable vehicles.
As for government influence in the market, didn’t the multiple devices on a chip originate at TI on a defense project? The government needs to inject our money strategically and wisely without dictating and encumbering. Many have mentioned ‘incentivizing’ and that is a great approach but it takes a delicate hand not to be oppressive.
The most immediate and most effective move(imho) the government can make right now is to broker all purchases of foreign oil and then resell into the domestic market at a premium that will put a floor under gas prices. This will encourage domestic production and provide funds for battery and EV development. We would be paying ourselves if we did this but it would be necessary to keep the government from misdirecting the funds.
Market forces cannot operate fairly in the face of uneconomic cartels.
(Quote)
January 20th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Bob2 says:
“I’m not sure if a car that only travels 40 mi. by battery and then needs a generator will be viable for the whole country. Sure moms aand grandmas can go to the local store…but what about drivers in SoCal..or anybody who commutes more that 21 mi. each way??
Make fuel efficient cars 40-50 mpg..(You Know You Can !) Suck up every drop of oil in the W.S., in the mean time, work on better batteriew or better yet, HYDROGEN !!!!!”
____
Studies have shown that 80% of car consumers drive less than 20 miles to work. If you go over, guess what, the Volt gets 50 MPG while the engine keeps the battery charged. Plus, because of the platform, guess what? The Volt can, and probably will, be offered in hydrogen format.
(Quote)
January 21st, 2009 at 9:51 am
Kerry Says:
January 19th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Another great question – how do you justify your $20+ million dollar salary and bonuses while bankrupting GM and taking American taxpayers money at the same time? Every consider giving it back to help the company?
I’m shocked that everyone on this site gives this guy a complete pass. Where’s the outrage?
=====================================================
This is the GM-Volt Site OK
(Quote)
January 21st, 2009 at 10:57 am
To # 84 DonC
The EV1 numbers came from Wikipedia. I would call that a trusty source. But even halving those numbers as you point out is still adequate and better yet, more than what the Volt will deliver 15 years later… if we see one.
Just because you include a link to an article on the web does not make it fact. That article is being disputed on the very site it is posted on.
(Quote)
January 21st, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Lyle, I finally got around to reading your post. I have been busy. Probably not as busy as you, though. Good post. Did you ask him about a ride in the Volt mule?
(Quote)
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:42 am
#86, Dave K, “Conversely, one can buy a Yaris for their 5 day commute. The only problem with this is that you will have to drive a Yaris. Each 100 mile trip will cost $5. With time lost on refueling stops. And the dismal reality of driving a small, underpowered, and noisy car.”
Except you’re driving that Yaris with $25K left over. Investing that $25K would practically fuel your Yaris forever. Arranging a car-pool would leave you with all kinds of money in your pocket.
(Quote)
January 24th, 2009 at 9:02 am
hi charlie #95,
“Investing that $25K would practically fuel your Yaris forever.”
_____________________________
Okay Charlie, have it your way. You drive your Yaris forever.
=D~
(Quote)
January 27th, 2009 at 5:21 am
After reading most of the comments it occured to me, enough of this bs. The bottom line on this is what’s the cost? Over 30K forget it. I’d be surprised if the Volt sold many cars. Under 30 K you probably will be on another waiting list. I talk about electric / hybrids with co-workers and many are very interested. Price however is the key factor for everyone.
(Quote)