Grab our RSS Feed

AND

Volt/Cruze Engine Plant Delay Continues

January 28th, 2009 | Posted in: Generator, Production

Last year GM announced they would be building a special engine plant to construct the family 0, 1.4 L turbo and normally aspirated engines that would be used in the Chevy Cruze, and as the Chevy Volt’s generator.

In December, construction at the plant was suspended due to cash flow concerns, but in no way was the Volt production timeline altered.

Today a report out of Michigan indicated that construction contracts at the plant were being canceled. This led some to surmise the plant was no longer going to be built, or that it would somehow affect the Volt program.

I was able to get some clarification on this from GM spokesperson Greg Martin:

This move, as with many over the last few months, is about conserving cash. But, I appreciate the chance to tell you “what this is” and “what it isn’t”:

GM remains committed to manufacturing the Family 0 engine in the city of Flint. We announced in December that we would delay the construction of a new engine plant. At that time, we made the decisions that needed to be made to conserve capital. As we continue to hold our timing, it was necessary to make decisions today on related construction contracts so we wouldn’t incur any additional costs for new floor space. This is a delay in construction of a new engine plant only and our plans remain to bring the Volt to market in late 2010.

Other sources in GM have advised me that the engines used to build the Volt could be obtained from other plants in GMs family, specifically including one in Australia.

Posted by: Lyle

89 Responses to “Volt/Cruze Engine Plant Delay Continues”

Tony Gray Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 1:53 pm

First? Yeah! My first first. I suppose I will never forget it.

I need a cigarette.

(Quote)
nuclearboy Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 1:54 pm

I have noted this before on other threads. During the congressional hearings / begging session that the automakers had with Congress, this issue came up in one of the forums. Several big wigs from GM were on a panel answering questions.

Basically, they said at that time that GM had capacity in other areas to deliver engines while waiting for the local plant to be completed. They saw the delay of the engine plant as a non-issue that would not delay the Volt launch. Given the small numbers of the initial volt launch, this is probably reasonable.

Anyway, just my 2 cents. They said all this with a straight face.

(Quote)
Tony Gray Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 1:56 pm

Boy, this is two completely different versions being bandied about. I sure hope you are right!

(Quote)
jdenn Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 1:56 pm

Smells fishy

(Quote)
Murray Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 2:02 pm

You know what they say…
“It takes money to make family 0, 1.4 normally aspirated engines”

That is a really, really long flight from Australia to the states…

I love this stock pic you keep using Lyle, everytime we get a posting about the engines…we see this huge, crazy-busy looking picture…is it me or does that engine look like it belongs in a Peterbilt not in our little Volt ?

Hope they can make it to 2011……cant say fingers-crossed until then because I’ll get arthritic!

(Quote)
Jim Mbongo Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 2:04 pm

By the time being, this is wise decision! Why built a new facility when you already have one which can do the same job. I

(Quote)
Guy Incognito Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 2:07 pm

CNBC article on delay of plant construction December 17, 2008
http://www.cnbc.com/id/28279245/for/cnbc/

ABC 12 News piece from yesterday, “planned Flint engine plant contracts cancelled”.
http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/story?section=news/local&id=6627352

Jalopnik article from today:
“GM Not Canceling Flint Volt Engine Plant, Just Construction Contracts”
http://jalopnik.com/5140936/gm-not-canceling-flint-volt-engine-plant-just-construction-contracts

Volt Forum Thread, December 17, 2008
http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2121

Volt Forum Thread Today
http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2403

If they really want to keep it in Flint like the Jalopnik article states, then they’ll have to retrofit an existing facility/facilities.
Otherwise I assume the ICE will be built by OPEL.

(Quote)
Steve Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 2:26 pm

Okay, so the batteries are LG – a Korean company, and now the generator is going to be built in Australia. At what point can we drop the facade that this is an American car?

(Quote)
Right Lane Cruiser Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 2:27 pm

#5 Murray, I’m pretty sure the engines won’t be flown in. Ships are much more efficient for that sort of thing.

“little Volt?” Hm… guess I have a different viewpoint since my daily driver is an ‘02 Insight.

I also think this delay is very reasonable. While it would be preferable to have employment here making those engines as soon as possible (for economic reasons), in terms of supply it is completely unnecessary for the short term. Not that I’m any expert in this matter, but I would make the same decision.

The bigger issue is what GM is going to choose for the asking price. For this platform to get the sort of traction they need in the market they will have to sell it at a loss. Unfortunately, they are in no position to do so because they have no reserves and no other solid sales to fall back on for coverage of the ongoing expense. That’s why we are seeing the Emerj and the (presumably upscale) Ampera. Unlike Toyota, they have no very successful, high volume vehicles to counter-balance the losses so they are going to have to try to generate some high margin sellers to take up the slack.

I really want to see them succeed but I just don’t see how it can happen without massive and continuing governmental support. Unless they do something drastic like shutting down production of everything else once their Voltec platform is in salesrooms (to trim the company down to nothing more than an E-REV manufacturer in a very short timeframe)?

This is similar to my thoughts on Chrysler… they should just close everything and then come back as a pure EV manufacturer — assuming of course that their EV group really is as established as they claim.

(Quote)
statik Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 2:28 pm

Nice get on the interview Lyle.

However, I would say that the GM ‘delay’ story is just that. They have cancelled on contracts, and the work is on hiatus, no money is being spent…so that sounds a lot like cancelled.

I guess they can call it ‘delayed,’ but with absolutely no money being put up…and no plans to in the future, same difference.

(Quote)
statik Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 2:31 pm

It is also interesting to note that GM just didn’t cancel/delay any old project…this is one of the ‘bailout projects,’ meaning that they were going to get a 100+ million back for the gov’t on the ‘domestic competition’ legislation.

I thinking this shows just how tight the cash squeeze is at GM if a rebate plant can’t get built, that also has massive guaranteed demand for its product built in…ie) engines for the Cruze and the Volt. instead they have to pay to ship them across the pond…forcing the Volt and more importantly the Cruze’s MSRP up even higher.

On top of all this, it is now likely the Volt can’t hit its 50MPG now on ICE, as this engine is not as efficient as the planned one. Now that would be a good question to ask, if you have any quarters left to talk to the GM guys again today Lyle. (=

(Quote)
Unni Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 2:35 pm

In Canada we are proud to say multicultural . Looks my volt will also follow the same

30% from Asia
30% from Europe
30% from Australia
10% from North America ( Assembling)

( what about South America and Africa ? ,we can make true world car)

(Quote)
Ben Fowler Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 2:39 pm

You said that your sources told you that the motors could be sourced from other GM factories from around the world — including Australia.

Does this imply that they will be using an off-the-self design for the ICE driving the generator?

IINAME (I Am Not A Mechanical Engineer), but if this is true, then it suggests to me that there is massive room for improvement in efficiency in future model years, should they decide to develop an engine optimised for efficiency within a narrow rev range, rather than for power across a wider power band, as for conventional cars. The Prius already does this.

(Quote)
ziv Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 2:42 pm

We are less than 23 months from the Volt’s supposed delivery date, and GM is still stating that they aim to produce it by late 2010. If this is vaporware, they are spending a lot of money and credibility on it.
I figure that the delays with the battery announcement and the late breaking mules push the actual delivery of significant numbers of Volts into 2011, but I would love to be wrong. I can totally imagine a mid-December 2010 launch of the Volt, but with just a few hundred available in two or three markets, followed by 10,000 produced in 2011 as they slowly increase the areas in which the Volt is available. The location of the production of the family 0 engine is much less important than the production of the Volt, and the Voltec type of vehicles.
The politicians are arguing about where the Bailout II’s $816,000,000,000 should be spent and how much good it will do our floundering economy. My question is, how much does the $700,000,000,000 we spend on foreign oil every year damage our economy?
I liked the sporty, aggressive look of the original Volt, and I still like the slick aero look of the production Volt. But I really LOVE the idea of moving towards energy independence!

(Quote)
Zardoz Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 3:07 pm

Engine made in Australia?
Must be a typo, engine made in Austria.

(Quote)
BillR1 Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 3:08 pm

I don’t know if this is only a cash issue, but it also may be a construction pricing issue.

Over the past several years, structural steel prices have skyrocketed, and so have the prices for large construction projects. Now that energy prices have come way down, and the economy is faltering, these prices should be much lower. Therefore, this may not only be a way to conserve capital, but GM may realize that if they walk away from the construction contract (probably negotiated some time ago), they can get a construction price that is more indicative of the times.

(Quote)
RB Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 3:50 pm

While my heart is always with the most cutting edge technology, the Volt has so much new going on already that it may turn out to be a benefit for the engine to be a well established tried-and-true system.
While the decision was taken for financial reasons, it may be an ok or even better outcome for gen 1. The Volt may lose a little bit of ICE gas mpg, but it will not be a lot. We are still talking about a backup engine here, in a car to be used on mostly electric power.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 3:53 pm

Engine shmingine…..

I’ll take my Volt No Generator and No ICE, shaken not stirred….

@Zardoz 15
“Must be a typo, engine made in Austria.”

For some reason your post brings to mind the song by Julie Andrews…
The hills are alive….
With the sound of music…..

(Quote)
RB Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 3:53 pm

#16 BillR — on diminished construction costs.
——————–
You make a very good point.

(Quote)
statik Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 3:54 pm

#17 RB said:

“While my heart is always with the most cutting edge technology, the Volt has so much new going on already that it may turn out to be a benefit for the engine to be a well established tried-and-true system.
While the decision likely was taken for financial reasons, it may be ok or even better, at least for gen 1. The Volt may lose a little bit of ICE gas mpg, but it will not be a lot.”
============================
Hey, at least pepper in a few adjectives to keep it interesting for those of us who read old posts.

/hehe…just kidding you RB, no one was going to see it in the old thread

(Quote)
Jim I Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 4:17 pm

As much as I would like to see American workers in a plant building the engines for the Volt, they could ship it in from Tazmania, as long as there are Volts available for sale in November, 2010…..

I also know that I have almost no chance of being able to buy a first year Volt in Youngstown, Ohio, but hope springs eternal!!!

I still hope that our buddy Lyle will be able to have a little influence with GM and get some of the people on his list some of the first cars off the assembly line!

(Quote)
Zardoz Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 4:24 pm

#18 CaptJackSparrow
Not engine shmingine, that typo also. Rather, engine shmengine.

Julie Andrews song? Don’t quite recognise lyrics…
Only know 1 Julie Andrews song: “Do your hooters hang high or low?”
Do your hooters hang hi, do your hooters hang low…
Can you tie them in a not, can you tie them in a bow…
Can you throw ‘em over yer shoulder like a continental soldier…
Do your hooters hang low?

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 4:24 pm

Anyone had a look at the cost of a 150HP electric motor? It’s more than you think. Add cables and harnesses as well. GM will need some big sales volume to hold the after credit price of the Volt to $30,000.

yes we can?

=D~

(Quote)
noel park Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 4:29 pm

#14 ziv:

I think that the schedule you suggest it what has been planned all along. A few in late 2010, and about 10,000 in 2011.

#15 Zardoz:

Yeah, that’s what I thought too.

#21 Jim I:

I hope so too, but I’m not holding my breath.

(Quote)
GM Volt Fan Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 4:31 pm

Well this is a bummer for the auto workers in Michigan. But ya gotta admit that with gas prices still higher in Europe ($5-9 per gallon), GM will probably be selling a lot of Volts and Opel Amperas over in Europe. There needed to be an IC engine plant over there anyway. It’s just a matter of time before they build an IC engine factory in Michigan for the Volt and the Cruze.

I try to look at the bright side. Hopefully, the engineers at the plant in Europe will work out all the problems and bugs with building the IC engine for the Volt. Then, GM will simply “copy exactly” all the things they’ve learned over there when the time is right to build a Volt IC engine plant in Michigan. Intel has used this “copy exactly” strategy VERY successfully over the past 10 years or so. Intel is one American company that is CLEARLY a leader in their industry … worldwide.

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/backgrnd/copy_exactly.htm

The auto industry is going electrical. Less mechanical. Fewer moving parts. Nanotech is getting into the cars more and more. GM needs to quickly evolve into a super high tech company like Intel is. It’s time that GM gets on the cutting edge in manufacturing and STAYS THERE. The competition is fierce in the auto industry and it’s going to get even more intense in the next 20 years.

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 4:48 pm

I’m not surprised that GM is reconsidering where to build the Volt ICE. With so much manufacturing capacity (empty plants) do they really need a new one ? Just refit an older plant with modern equipment and get on with it.

I hope the massive recall of lToyotas chips away at the Japanese car myth to more normal proportions.

(Quote)
maharguitar Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 4:51 pm

I wouldn’t read too much into the fact that the factory was canceled. I do not think that that implies that the engine is going to be any different from the one GM has designed for the volt. In fact, I doubt that it would be at this late stage. I don’t think there is any reason that an existing engine plant can’t make this new engine.

(Quote)
Rog Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 4:52 pm

Don’t believe anything they say. They just sued the Gov’t to stop them from allowing the states to set milage standards. They should all have to file bankrupcy and let Toyota,Nissan and Honda have the companies. At least they know what they are doing. Don’t hold your breath about the Volt. Just a sweetner to get bail out money. They have no intentions of coming through with this vehicle. If they were wouldn’t they have allready showed a working model?

(Quote)
RB Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 4:55 pm

#20 statik –> ok you caught me. I did change a couple of words.

(Quote)
vincent Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 4:58 pm

Why can’t a current 4 cylinder be tuned for this specific application and a mating unit be machined to fit it to the generator. Bell Housings are made to drop a Chevy in a Ford and so on…or to mate a new generation Transmission to old school Chevy small blocks. How is this a huge difference and why don’t they just tune a current engine with a specific head and cam shaft. Pistons and cylinders are basically the same unless you go to super heavy duty performance use. Direct injection doesn’t know if its sitting on hi performance block or a super exotic…or a basic cast piston and cast crank…
If an oil pan clearance issue is a drama go with dry sump oil feed like the Z06 and get the dam thing done. Make money then change it later.
Man the managers in GM are like Girl Scouts.

Guys, if you really need a project manager get in touch with me. If the added weight eats 1 mile of range from the 40 dig deeper into the battery. the warranty already dropped from 150K miles to 100K There is room.

(Quote)
JEC Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 5:59 pm

My suggestion to GM is as follows:

1) Eliminate that big old ICE, use off-the-shelf electronics, and downsize your generator.
2) Replace that ICE with a 15HP Briggs&Stratton (Built in Wauwatosa, WI). Just let that little guy burn gas to keep those batteries topped off (no flaming allowed! I know, it does not get us off oil…)
3) Install a Generac generator (Built in East Troy, WI)
4) Install Rockwell-Automation (formerly Allen-Bradley) electronic drive controls.
5) Get those motor from Marathon Electric Motor Corp. (Wausau, WI)
6) Approach Johnson-Controls (Milwaukee, WI) on long term battery contract and engineering for the battery pack.

There, that about does it.
Lots of US content (not that I am pro WI, but Milwaukee area is known as the major engineering design center for electronic motor controls. We have Rockwell-Automation, ABB, Eaton Electronics, Magnetek, and few smaller drives manuf)

Please send payment to JEC in unmarked $20 bills. I am willing to assist further, should you require further suggestions.

(Quote)
JEC Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 6:09 pm

31 JEC…

4) Install Rockwell-Automation (formerly Allen-Bradley) electronic drive controls.
———————————————
Yep, RA (Rockwell-Automation is located in Milwaukee, WI). Forgot to annotate on previous post.

(Quote)
statik Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 6:11 pm

Ok, this is slightly off topic, but a interesting happening nonetheless:

Ford is the first of the ‘Big 2.451′ to report earnings on the ‘quarter from hell’ tomorrow…giving us a glimpse GM’s upcoming release.

The street expects them to drop around 3 billion-ish, but the part that is of interest is the cash burn for the quarter…and also Ford’s outlook/burnrate for 2009. (FYI: Ford had 18.9 billion in cash, and 10.7 billion in untapped credit at the last report).

(Quote)
Jeff Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 6:18 pm

This website is so entertaining…inside GM info that GM-Volt diehards compare to internet sources.

(Quote)
Koz Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 6:31 pm

Statik #33

“Ford is the first of the ‘Big 2.451′ ”

You’ve depreciated them from 2.5 already but only to 2.451?

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 6:32 pm

#17 RB Says:
While my heart is always with the most cutting edge technology, the Volt has so much new going on already that it may turn out to be a benefit for the engine to be a well established tried-and-true system.,

————-
Ya, I was thinking the exact same thing. I like the fact that the Volt is new technology, but I also am quite cognizant of the fact that GM has to nail this one right out of the box. Having something tried and true is not necessarily a bad thing when doing shooting for this goal.

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 7:00 pm

#8 Steve

I guess you will have to define an American car for me first

(Quote)
statik Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 7:12 pm

#35 Koz said:

Statik #33
“Ford is the first of the ‘Big 2.451′ ”
You’ve depreciated them from 2.5 already but only to 2.451?
=====================
I used to call them the ‘Big 2.8,’ but now I’m accounting for Fiat’s tentative 35% stake…and the 19.9% that Daimler already owns of Chrysler….hence the ‘Big 2.451′

/sounds pretty catchy to me

(Quote)
solo2500nt Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 7:13 pm

13.

It is possible (very likely) the Volt engine will have specific specifications compared to other engines in the 1.4 family. Auto companies, esp. back in the 60’s would sell the same basic engine in many different configurations, 2bbl vs 4bbl carburators, different camshaft timing, different intake and exhaust systems, etc. As an example, a Chevrolet V8 (327 ci or 350 ci) could produce 220 hp in a station wagon or 375 hp in a Corvette, and they were all made at the same plants. With the overcapacity at GM plants world wide, another 10000 motors won’t even make a difference in the engine plant’s electric bill………

Of bigger concern however is making the 1.4 engine for the Cruze and other vehicles in large enough numbers to fill the need for those vehicles.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 7:23 pm

#30 vincent:

The 1.4 is a current engine. It is manufactured in a GM plant in Austria, and is in widespread use in Europe.

#37 kdawg:

Yeah, right. I have never gotten over the shock of getting my brand new All American Silverado pickup home and finally realizing that it was assembled in Mexico. Read the little content sticker very carefully. Isn’t the Ford Fusion built in Mexico? But that’s North America, right? Which shell has the pea under it?

(Quote)
noel park Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 7:25 pm

#38 statik:

And counting (down).

(Quote)
carcus Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 7:39 pm

Dying on the vine?

It’s interesting to wonder if continued lengthy delays of the volt’s E-REV system could result in that system being out of date and overtaken by the competition when it finally comes to market.

BYD’s iron phosphate batteries with 10 minute quick charge capability (virtually eliminating “range anxiety”) might make E-REV technology seem antiquated by the time the volt finally comes to market.

Chinese Electric Car Jolts The Competition
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99286134

(Quote)
noel park Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 7:45 pm

#42 carcus:

Yeah, as the great Satchel Paige so famously said:

“Don’t look back, somethin’ might be gainin’ on ya.”

(Quote)
Mark Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 7:49 pm

wow, what a shock!

(Quote)
stas peterson Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 7:53 pm

@ statik,

I see no reason to believe you cannot tune a 1.4 liter constant rpm engine, to create highly optimized BSFC mileage, when running at that rated rpm.

There are similar engines producing mileage estimates of low to mid 40 mpg with wide bands of operation, like the engines in the HEVs Prius and Insight, or the much larger 2.4 liter Ford Fusion. Atkinson cycle mode is not difficult to achieve, anymore. For that matter neither is HCCI mode in such circumstances. Modernized Family Zero with OHC, VVT and GDI and a fast engine ncomputer is all that is needed. All are already present. Fifty mpg is not impossible at all.

With car production down all over the world there is probably lots of spare capacity available in Family 0 engine plants. Only government fools would waste money frivolously building presently uneeded capacity.

Speaking of which you were saying others would not follow the USA in aiding its auto makers. Look at this from the UK. Japan and the EU is accustomed to aiding their industries with government subsidies.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/01/uk-to-provide-2.html#more

(Quote)
Guy Incognito Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 8:13 pm

#34 Jeff
Sometimes “inside GM info” comes by way of those gm-volt.com diehards you mention.

(Quote)
BillR1 Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 8:21 pm

#39 solo and #45 stas

I agree. There is no reason to believe the 1.4L in the Volt to be an exact match to the 1.4L for other cars. I also expect GM to tune this engine to be specific for the Volt, including camshafts, pistons, valves, compression ratio, and overall timing and fuel management.

Since we know the Volt’s ICE will operate at several distinct engine speeds, and most of the time at probably only 2 engine speeds (only rarely at will it be at full power), the optimization will probably be based on those frequent operating speeds.

I also believe HCCI is a distinct possibility for this application.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 8:27 pm

#9 Right Lane Cruiser Says: “For this platform to get the sort of traction they need in the market they will have to sell it at a loss.”
————————————————————————————–
Let’s look at that in detail. The Volt uses the same platform as the Chevy Cruze, which is their new version of the Cobalt. The Chevy Cobalt has a sticker price of around $16K
http://www.chevrolet.com/cobalt/
Remember that this includes dealer markup and profit for GM. In other words, GM makes money selling this at $16K.

Lutz said the battery pack costs GM $10K. That has always seemed high to me, but let’s run with it.

Now add stuff like the electric motor, generator, etc. Then take away stuff like the transmission, fan pulleys & belts, etc. Then add a little more for LCD displays, electric heater, and other interior refinements. Now remember that were talking costs to GM here and not any markup or profit. I would guesstimate $3-5K wholesale cost to GM for all this. Let’s be liberal and call it $5K.

Add it all up, and you get $31K. Now subtract the $7500 U.S. tax credit, and you have $24,000.

My take: GM talked up >$40K costs in order to get bigger tax credits from congress. When the Volt actually gets released to dealers, I’m betting people will be pleasantly surprised at the price.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 8:51 pm

#45 stas peterson Says: “I see no reason to believe you cannot tune a 1.4 liter constant rpm engine, to create highly optimized BSFC mileage, when running at that rated rpm.”
————————————————————————————–
The Volt does not use a constant RPM engine. It uses Several Fixed RPMs:
http://gm-volt.com/2008/08/26/the-chevy-volt-generator-will-run-at-one-of-several-fixed-rpms/

(Quote)
BillR1 Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 8:56 pm

#48 Dave G

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. I tried something like this for a cost accounting, expected sales price, not GM cost.

—————Price in thousands
—————Low High
Base Cobalt _____ 16________ 16
Electric Drive ___ 2________ 4
Elect. Systems ___ 2_________ 3
Transm Delete___-1_________-2
Generator________ 1_________ 2
Battery Pack ______5_________10
Packaging ________2__________4
— —
Total ______________27_________39

Electric systems include power steering, AC, heat pump, coolant pumps, etc.

Packaging includes special interior, aero improvements, software, etc.

With the tax credit, the price would seem to be competitive.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 9:02 pm

#42 carcus Says: “BYD’s iron phosphate batteries with 10 minute quick charge capability (virtually eliminating “range anxiety”) might make E-REV technology seem antiquated by the time the volt finally comes to market.”
————————————————————————————–
Just having a quick charge battery won’t eliminate range anxiety. You need to have quick-charge filling stations everywhere. That will cost trillions of dollars and take 25-50 years to completely make it’s way into rural areas. In the mean time, people will be driving EREVs and filling up on E85.

As for BYD, remember that they have no network of dealerships in the U.S., and no reliability record. If their chemistry is good, and they want to sell the cells separately, GM could buy it just as well as anyone else.

(Quote)
Unni Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 9:08 pm

#45 stas peterson

To be true, i believe the extended range mpg will be above 70mpg. I know with a nice ICE and efficient generator the range may go only up to 50 mpg.

The key should be the software logic because you don’t need all the horses to run on different conditions and you need then only when its really needed conditions. All time the software can optimize the power distribution and the battery will act as a buffer translates to more mpg than expected

(Quote)
nataraj Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 9:57 pm

I think GM is doing all this completely wrong.

They should have used an existing body & engine – and put the car out last year. Hopefully Volt won’t be too little, too late.

(Quote)
Youda Farmer Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 9:58 pm

That is a hellish monstrosity of a motor in that there picture.

(Quote)
carcus Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 10:11 pm

#51 Dave G says:
“You need to have quick-charge filling stations everywhere. That will cost trillions of dollars and take 25-50 years to completely make its way into rural areas.”

___________________________________________________________

From the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association website:

As late as the mid-1930s, nine out of ten rural homes were without electric service. ………On May 11, 1935, Roosevelt signed Executive Order No. 7037 establishing the REA. It was not until a year later that the Rural Electrification Act was passed, and the lending program that became the REA got underway.
Within four years following the close of the war, the number of rural electric systems in operation doubled, the number of consumers connected more than tripled, and the miles of energized line grew more than five fold. By 1953, more than 90 percent of U.S. farms had electricity.
http://www.nreca.org/AboutUs/Co-op101/CoopHistory.htm

So the original electrification of rural U.S. took about 18 years (with a little speed bump called WWII in between), and you think it’ll take 50 years to put in charging stations?!

The only way it’ll take 50 years and trillions of dollars to equip the U.S. with charge stations is if we put Rick Wagoner in charge of the NRECA.

Oh, and a $24,000 volt ,too? Sounds like you’re mixing up the kool-aid as fast as you can drink it.

(Quote)
Bob McGovern Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 10:22 pm

The US is helping the Global Economy. The taxpayers bail out GM and they give the jobs and money to Australia. Go GM

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 10:36 pm

#11 Statik

I thought GM said the engineers had gotten the efficiency of the normally aspirated engine up to specs? If so, I would assume that means MPG will be around what they expected with the turbo engine. Right or wrong?

(Quote)
NZDavid Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 11:18 pm

N Riley, the turbo is for the Cruze, the normally aspirated engine is for the Volt. IIRC it was slightly lighter than the turbo version.

I also think it will be built in Austria not Australia.

Bob, The German taxpayers are bailing out Opel which is owned by GM, the British are bailing out Vauxhall which is also owned by GM, Canada has also offered GM money, so its all relative.

LJGTVWOTR
NO plug, NO sale.

(Quote)
NZDavid Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 11:35 pm

Great news on the tax credit.

A proposal in the stimulus package markup emerging from the US Senate Finance Committee modifies the plug-in electric drive motor vehicle credit by increasing the original 250,000 vehicle limitation to 500,000 four-wheeled units. It also modifies the definition of qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle to exclude low-speed vehicles.

The credit for light-duty PHEVs (up to 10,000 lbs.), with a minimum battery pack capacity of 4 kWh, ranges from $2,500 to $7,500.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/01/senate-finance.html#more

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 12:06 am

#55 carcus Says: “and you think it’ll take 50 years to put in charging stations?!”
————————————————————————————–
What I said was: It will take 25-50 years for fast charging stations to fully penetrate rural areas.

Think about how fast charging would work. The power transfer is huge. To charge 8 kWh in 10 minutes would require 48 kw. That’s a lot of power. Now think about multiple charging ports per station and multiple stations per neighborhood, and most people charging on the way to or from work, during rush-hour. This type of peak demand would kill our electric grid.

A more likely scenario is that the electricity at the fast charging station would be stored in batteries. This would spread out the load on the grid, eliminating huge peaks during rush-hour. In other words, fast charging stations would simply transfer electric energy from their batteries to yours. The batteries at the charging stations would be charged by the grid, but at a much slower rate to even out the load.

But where do you store the batteries at the charging station? Since the power transfers are so large, you need the cables from the charging station batteries to the cars plug as short as possible, otherwise you’ll get significant power losses in the cable. You also need to keep the batteries temperature controlled and out of the elements.

So you’re going to have to build some sort of structure to house the batteries right where the cars pull up, and the structure will have to be fairly good size to house the amount of batteries you would need to buffer enough electric energy to cover busy hours.

One solution would be to store the batteries underground, like they store liquid fuels in underground tanks today. This would have the advantage that it’s somewhat naturally temperature controlled, so it would require less heating and cooling. You may also be able to build a structure over where the cars pull up, which would also shelter the cars if it’s raining or snowing. There may be other solutions.

The point is that this is not a trivial thing to do. It’s expensive and takes time. Most filling station owners are not going to want to do this. They will resist.

By contrast, switching a liquid fuel pumps from gasoline to bio-fuels is trivial. This is why I believe the combination of EREVs and bio-fuels will be a long-term solution.

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 12:19 am

IMHO, this will affect the Volt schedule. You don’t just switch engines half-way through development and it not have an impact, especially with cost constraints. This has all sorts of impact including larger gas tank to achieve the given range, different “optimal” rpm’s for the generator, modified mounting points….and I’m not even a car guy.

This is a big deal!!

Of course, this should make the Volt cost less since an already proven engine will be used.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 12:20 am

#57 N Riley Says: “I thought GM said the engineers had gotten the efficiency of the normally aspirated engine up to specs? If so, I would assume that means MPG will be around what they expected with the turbo engine. Right or wrong?”
————————————————————————————–
For the Volt, GM originally specified a 1.0L turbo engine, probably Miller cycle.

When they changed to the 1.4L Atkinson cycle engine, their stated reasoning was that the 1.4L would “do the job” and was already up and running. After that, GM seemed to mention 50 MPG a lot less often.

My hunch is the Volt’s mileage will be in the mid-to-high 40s, but we’ll see.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 12:37 am

#61 Cautious Fan Says: “IMHO, this will affect the Volt schedule. You don’t just switch engines half-way through development and it not have an impact, especially with cost constraints.”
————————————————————————————–
Huh? The last time GM switched engines on the Volt was 7 months ago.
http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/20/gm-ceo-confirms-4-cylinder-14-l-engine-being-considered-for-the-volts-range-extender/

The 1.4L engine used in the Volt is already being sold in European cars today. I believe GM always planned to use the European built engines for the first few months of production, and then switch over the the American built engines when the new plant comes online in 2011.

(Quote)
Justin DT Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 1:17 am

Let’s hope the four cylinder engine/generator from Australia is as smooth and quiet as the one in the Volt mule was. Remember when Bob Lutz commented on the generator kicking in, and said how unobtrusive and quiet it was? It wouldn’t be so hot for the Volt to have a noisy generator running while you drive…
P.S. I still think Dave G has some of the most informative posts here, thanks Dave

(Quote)
Jeffhre Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 2:04 am

nataraj 53 “I think GM is doing all this completely wrong.

They should have used an existing body & engine – and put the car out last year. Hopefully Volt won’t be too little, too late.”
_______________

Tesla announced last week that for their boutique build Roadster that this is the hard way to do it and it will be easier for them to build from the ground up for their 15 to 20 thousand per year model S. Imagine what difficulties it would create for GM to make the same mistake and try to over time scale it up to the millions.

(Quote)
Jeffhre Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 2:13 am

Dave G 60

Related note, Project Better Place plans to do their charging (essentially off grid?) with renewables.

The thing about Voltec is that a fuel station could supplement it’s income with nat gas, methane, propane, deisel, a couple of bio fuels, battery swaps and at first not so quick 220 v say at 100 amps or there abouts charging, or whatever back up/range extending propulsion customers choose.

(Quote)
NZDavid Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 4:02 am

I think charging will more likely be taken over by supermarkets which currently can not charge (puns intended) for the spaces provided for customers.

EG: I see supermarkets providing a 30 minute charge for $.30/kWh or a 45 minute charge for $.20/kWh. From the supermarkets point of view the extra 15 minutes will be spent shopping and the lessor current draw is cheaper to provide so they win. Picture theaters will provide two hour charges etc.

(Quote)
statik Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 8:44 am

#45 stas peterson said:

Statik…Speaking of which you were saying others would not follow the USA in aiding its auto makers. Look at this from the UK. Japan and the EU is accustomed to aiding their industries with government subsidies.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/01/uk-to-provide-2.html#more

=======================================
I never did.

I’m sure many countries will support (and are supporting) their automakers…what I said was a response to n riley’s question if any other countries where giving GM bailout money outside of NA. I said, as of now, no other countries had come to such a agreement (in not so many words, lol), but GM had knocked on a few doors.

Also, I’m not sure why you linked that article to me even if I did. That article is primarilty about initiatives so automakers can produce lower carbon for rebates:

UK to provide 2.3 billion Support Package

1.3B for investment in lower carbon initiatives
1B for lower carbon initiatives for non-EIB backed projects
———–
In related news: Sweden tells Saab where to go.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jUJwaalz60hIfRTno4–nT2OdgUg

What is happening, is all the Euro-zone countries have ’stimulus plans’ that say they are offering cash to the automakers…but when you get right down to the wording, a lot of the ‘deals’ are ones GM can either not make/unwilling to make (most have a lot of strings that would handcuff GM to that particular region), or they have to have a ‘approved’ viabilty plan…unlike in the US, where they merely have to exist and just ’submit’ a plan.

At some point GM will get desperate enough and cave, and just tell them everything they want to hear…take the money…and still do what they need to do with it, consequences ignored, because thats what desperate corporations do.

(Quote)
carcus Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 9:34 am

#60 Dave G.

“By contrast, switching a liquid fuel pumps from gasoline to bio-fuels is trivial.”

_____________________________________________________

These two sources show evidence in contrast to your opinion. $37,000 quick charge station vs. $200,000 E85 tank and pump.
(I don’t think most underground tanks can be “switched” over to E85 due to corrosion concerns)

……….. the cost to install pumps and tanks for E85—a hefty $200,000 per station.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85

Each station is said to cost upwards of 4 million yen (that’s about $36,570).

Tokyo to get 200 quick-charge EV stations with plans for more
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/08/13/tokyo-to-get-200-quick-charge-ev-stations-with-plans-for-more/

(Quote)
Right Lane Cruiser Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 10:48 am

#48 Dave G, I like your breakdown of costs and I think that it might actually be a tad high… but the fact is GM has costs to recoup and selling “at cost” is a loss for them.

I sincerely hope that you are correct about the price but I doubt GM (considering past choices) will price it that intelligently. As much as I love my Insight I would ditch it for the chance to do most of my driving on electric power only — here’s hoping GM delivers a good price!

(Quote)
James E. Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 11:45 pm

#18 I agree just another reason to drop the ICE and put the cost/weight into a a bigger Battery pack for a straight EV.

NPNS…..

(Quote)
Jimmy Hodges Says:
January 31st, 2009 at 9:39 am

Australia? Hell No!!!

I want a fuel efficient AMERICAN car!!!

We need to get back in the game! We need to put AMERICANS back to work. We need to build this car right here!

(Quote)
J Man Says:
January 31st, 2009 at 3:15 pm

They have other plants in the USA that can build this engine. Flint has a engine plant as well as one in the Buffalo NY area.

(Quote)
tracy Says:
February 4th, 2009 at 10:58 am

just goes to show you GM isn’t helping the economy at all. They are making promises they can’t keep. I think they went too big on the big buyouts to fast and it is costing them. I will see what happens. I feel they should have never stopped the caviler production. I can’t stand the colbalts.

(Quote)
jeffhre Says:
October 13th, 2009 at 2:24 pm

Cars are sourced from around the world. All cars. Call it what you will.

(Quote)
jeffhre Says:
October 13th, 2009 at 2:34 pm

How much is “more than I think”?

(Quote)
jeffhre Says:
October 13th, 2009 at 2:37 pm

Didn’t Toyota join that lawsuit? I don’t remember reading about Nissan and Honda roles in this one, not ruling it out, I just don’t recall.

(Quote)
jeffhre Says:
October 13th, 2009 at 2:41 pm

That’s great Vincent, make billion dollar decisions on the back of a napkin. You get points for enthusiasm though!!!

“Make money then change it later” – unfortunately in real life it is usually the other way around.

(Quote)
jeffhre Says:
October 13th, 2009 at 2:53 pm

Hey,

That’s what I was thinking too! Thanks!!!

(Quote)
jeffhre Says:
October 13th, 2009 at 2:54 pm

Was it a mistake or was it the only thing a company with their resources can do? GM is clearly not in this position. Cool name by the way…Lyle – Help!!!

(Quote)
jeffhre Says:
October 13th, 2009 at 2:58 pm

You mean the delays on the Converj?

(Quote)
jeffhre Says:
October 13th, 2009 at 3:35 pm

Related note;

Just my swag but I would anticipate a lot of 120 volt charging, in the US anyway, to be free in the near future as cars hit the road and retailers and employers look to distinguish themselves. I would think the higher voltages and so called quick charges would be on a pay to use basis. just conjecture w/o vehicles on the road though, who knows how it will shake out.

(Quote)
jeffhre Says:
October 13th, 2009 at 3:41 pm

Or the economy will improve and they will walk away from the governments conditions and instead convince a new group of investors and bankers to play the same old game. The first ones in will make modest gains and the world will keep turning.

(Quote)
jeffhre Says:
October 13th, 2009 at 3:42 pm

A lot of things seem trivial when we talk about some one else’ money and time.

(Quote)
jeffhre Says:
October 14th, 2009 at 1:21 am

Austria?

(Quote)
jeffhre Says:
October 14th, 2009 at 1:25 am

Sounds like TVA could be relevant again. Music to their ears?

(Quote)
jeffhre Says:
October 14th, 2009 at 1:50 am

Rural electrification took about 19 – 20 years from when the final push for creation of the REA began; if you ignore the years from 1882 when Edison powered up his Pearl Street NYC generator station through 1933, in which the slow progress in rural electrification dictated the need for the REA in the first place. And as you say, 90% of farms had electricity in 1953 requiring still more time to complete the remaining farms.

So from a start in 1882 and with special assistance through 1953 10% of rural homes and farms still did not have electricity.

(Quote)
jeffhre Says:
October 14th, 2009 at 2:00 am

“Remember that this includes dealer markup and profit for GM. In other words, GM makes money selling this at $16K”

Judging by the past three years the statement above doesn’t seem to ring true. It’s been said many times and many ways GM makes money on trucks and SUV’s, treads water on big cars and writes off red ink on small ones.

(Quote)
jeffhre Says:
October 14th, 2009 at 2:16 am

Who is this Statik guy, don’t see him around these parts – This was even before your gravatar, oh the good old days.

(Quote)

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

Embrace technology to turn nuclear energy into environmental solution November 6, 2009
From the Seattle Times: "STEWART Brand, author of "The Whole Earth Catalog," visited Seattle last week, promoting his latest environmental manifesto... […]
misslexi
Lutz to Head Opel November 6, 2009
Der Spiegel reports that Lutz is going to head up Opel: Spiegel Online(link)... […]
dagwood55
Do home chargers include meters? November 6, 2009
I conduct a real-world fuel economy survey (http://www.truedelta.com/fuel_economy.php), and will want to adapt it for electric and range-extended... […]
mkaresh
HHSE (Hybrid-Hybrid-Serial-Electric) vehicle invented November 5, 2009
A HHSE is a cross between using a lower efficiency but more functional serial hybrid drivetrain for city driving and using a mechanical drivetrain to... […]
Texas
Renault, Nissan to build $892 million battery factory outside Paris November 5, 2009
“This will be the center of our lithium battery production for all of our assembly plants and for other carmakers,” Ghosn said. “It’s a major... […]
Texas
GM to cut 10,000 Jobs Across Europe After Sudden U-Turn on Opel Deal November 5, 2009
Max Keiser on Russia Today. " ... General Motors cut ten thousand jobs across Europe at its Opel unit in favor of Christmas bonuses." -Max... […]
Guy Incognito
Nissan Releases Concept Sketch Of Light Commercial Electric Vehicle November 5, 2009
NISSAN RELEASES CONCEPT SKETCH OF LIGHT COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC VEHICLE _Link_... […]
Jason M. Hendler

Volt/Cruze Engine Plant Delay Continues

89 Responses to “Volt/Cruze Engine Plant Delay Continues”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts