Grab our RSS Feed

AND

GM VP Troy Clarke on Why GM Doesn’t Have a Strong Hybrid Sedan

February 2nd, 2009 | Posted in: GM Q and A, Hybrid

I had the opportunity to ask a question of GM’s VP North America, Troy Clarke. It was as follows:

Other automakers are making cars like the Honda Insight and Toyota Prius, why hasn’t GM placed a strong hybrid architecture into a small sedan and targeted a lower price point, and rather put those systems into big trucks first?

Its not that we have a bias against small sedans. Consideration of those are in our product plans. I don’t have anything specific I can announce at this time.

Its a matter of you choose to do one thing first and the next thing next. The Volt is important to us, because so many components in it we are developing can be used not just in the Volt but to other electric vehicles as well. I think that if the world goes the way of Insights and Priuses, we certainly have the ability to react very rapidly and compete in that segment.

But you know we’re kind of excited about the prospect of electric vehicles as well and at some point we have to decide how to apply each incremental dollar of investment that we make. At least for the past year, year and a half or so, we really wanted to double down on that Volt and get that out in the market and really get down on the path of the electrification of the automobile.

And we’ve done some other things as well. You know about the fleet of Equninox fuel cells we have out, they’re fabulous products as well.

Yes the Prius is a successful product, Honda’s back in the market with an Insight, that product I’m sure will do well also. Its been interesting to me though that hybrids sell directly proportional to fuel prices. Fuel prices are down and Prius sales are down 45%.

Again we don’t have a bias against it, its the kind of business we can get into.

Posted by: Lyle

134 Responses to “GM VP Troy Clarke on Why GM Doesn’t Have a Strong Hybrid Sedan”

Rashiid Amul Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:45 am

From article:
Fuel prices are down and Prius sales are down 45%.

Really? Hmmmm. I wonder if the economy has something to do with the 45% drop.

(Quote)
statik Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:53 am

Three words:

Incompetence-Bob-Lutz

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:55 am

On the subject of bigger vs. smaller hybrids, let me say this.
Although the bigger vehicles are not typically bought by poor people,
those that buy the bigger ones pay for the R&D.

Now, having said that, there are way more poor people than rich people. It seems to me that an Aveo with Voltec could make money when sold in volume. I don’t particularly like the Aveo looks, but looks are subjective and not completely the number one reason why a person buys a hybrid.

So I think shying away from the small vehicles is a mistake.

(Quote)
Dave B Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:07 am

I don’t buy this spin. How many years have Prius sales been kicking the crud out of GM? The Volt concept is barely 3 years old…Prius technology is over a decade. Try again?

(Quote)
ziv Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:07 am

I think Clarke is being more than a little disingenuous, the idea that if the market moves toward Prii and/or Insights that GM could react very rapidly is nonsense. A corporation the size of Thi!nk can react rapidly, GM cannot. GM simply thought that a limited number of Yukon, Silverado, Malibu etc. hybrids, all of which state limited availability on their own website, would be sufficient lipstick for this pig of a plan. GM had no plan for expensive oil/gasoline, which is pretty amazing. Relying on the Silverado to boost your profits is fine, but not having quality high mileage cars as well is foolish. Cobalts don’t do it, the Ford Fusion Hybrid will do it for Ford, if built in sufficient quantitiy, but it is a couple years late.
But then to stand there with a straight face and tout fool cells, that takes the cake.
Maybe 10 years from now they will figure out how to produce Hydrogen cheaply with a good EROEI, but I doubt it. And there is probably no chance at all of fuel cells every being as inexpensive as an ICE or an ER-EV.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:16 am

#5 ziv,

Spot on.

(Quote)
BillR1 Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:22 am

Personally, I think GM is late to the game, and has decided to focus on the Volt (and Voltec) technology rather than make a small sedan with a full hybrid that will be outdated in a few years (hard to argue with over 100 mpg).

The Cruze will be GM’s non-electric mileage champion, probably with the BAS+ system. It should be cost competitive with the full hybrid sedans.

As always, every company must have a strategy, and with high overhead, big companies can’t compete well with smaller companies on price. Instead, they must do it with technology.

Therefore, GM has made the large 2-mode hybrids (no competition in that market segment) and will introduce the Voltec technology in a few years. I don’t expect to see much in the way of a full hybrid sedan from GM, as they will likely make a Malibu or LaCrosse, etc. with Voltec drive instead.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:22 am

When will GM get out of the “we’ll get there soon” mode? Maybe next year?

=D~

(Quote)
statik Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:23 am

“Yes the Prius is a successful product, Honda’s back in the market with an Insight, that product I’m sure will do well also. Its been interesting to me though that hybrids sell directly proportional to fuel prices. Fuel prices are down and Prius sales are down 45%”
==============
Hey Troy,

The Prius was just off 45% for the month of december, during car-pocalypse, during the biggest economic recession in over 70 years….with Toyota releasing pictures and some specs on the next gen. You want to make any bold predictions for next december’s sales when they are selling the next gen?

Side note: The Prius was only off 12.6 for 2008, about 160K units. You know how many out of the 77 vehicles you listed for sale on your 2008 report that outsold this hybrid, that “sells directly proportional to fuel prices?”
—FOUR…maybe you should “choose to do THIS thing first and the next 7 seat SUV later” for a change

Then you go right into mentioning of the Equinox Fuel Cell? Clearly Troy, you have no concept of success. You tout the Equinox as something your doing right, immediately after knocking the Prius?

How many of those have you sold? What? None? Oh, you loaned out 100 as a PR stunt. Good tech right though? It is going to catch on like hotcakes I’m sure. What? No national hydrogen infrastructure? Your not building any for sales? Hmm… so I guess your going to fall even farther behind in the Hydrogen Equinox-Prius race, 1,275,000 to 100.

(Quote)
Joe Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:24 am

statik Says: @2

Three words:

Incompetence-Bob-Lutz

*******************************************************************************

Why you would call Bob Lutz as incompetent is way beyond me. This tells me you don’t know much about what has been going on with GM for the last four years. I really think that remark is uncalled for.

(Quote)
Guy Incognito Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:43 am

Bob & Rick, another great job with the dangling carrot.
Put energy, resources, & time into a luxury high end concept like the Cadillar Converj….

Meanwhile, your competition plans & implements hybrid architecture into small sedans, resulting in a targeted a lower price point, giving them market advantage.

(Quote)
NZDavid Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:52 am

statik Says: February 2nd, 2009 at 8:23 am
Then you go right into mentioning of the Equinox Fuel Cell? Clearly Troy, you have no concept of success. You tout the Equinox as something your doing right, immediately after knocking the Prius?

How many of those have you sold? What? None? Oh, you loaned out 100 as a PR stunt. Good tech right though? It is going to catch on like hotcakes I’m sure. What? No national hydrogen infrastructure? Your not building any for sales? Hmm… so I guess your going to fall even farther behind in the Hydrogen Equinox-Prius race, 1,275,000 to 100.

Good stuff Statik, welcome back brother.

LJGTVWOTR
NO plug, NO sale.

(Quote)
TALLPALL Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:56 am

Guy’s get a grip.
It’s kinda like negative pandamoniam out there.

GM knows that they dropped the ball in the past – and as far as i can see with the VOLT are at least trying to address it.

Lets not all cry about GM’s past failing at just encourage the great steps that they are making now.
NOVEMBER ‘10 really isn’t that far away now. And we will see the Volt on the road. GET IN……..

It may not be perfect @$40k But that is what the $10K rebate is for. And when the rebates run out we should be able to get it for $25-$30k

Lets encourage GM and not just take cheap shots HEY!

(Quote)
statik Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:03 am

#10 Joe says:

Why you would call Bob Lutz as incompetent is way beyond me. This tells me you don’t know much about what has been going on with GM for the last four years. I really think that remark is uncalled for.
—————–
Your just kidding with me right?

==============================================
==============================================

#12 NZDavid said:

Good stuff Statik, welcome back brother.
———–
Thanks NZ, lol.
Nothing like a GM ‘talking head’ knocking the 800lb Gorilla, while patting himself on the back talking hydrogen/Project driveway to get me back on track.

(Quote)
Koz Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:08 am

Statik & Ziv are right on. Mr Clarke’s response is one blob of incompetence. Taking into consideration that GM’s “official” position that fuel cell development is merited and meaningful, he should also be aware of the venue that his response is for. GM-Volt.com is not the government or some societal cross section of 6th grade educated drones. The fact the he stated “at some point we have to decide how to apply each incremental dollar of investment that we make” in the same response as “And we’ve done some other things as well. You know about the fleet of Equninox fuel cells we have out, they’re fabulous products as well” is reVOLTing. I know fuel cell development was part of a “deal” and is high profile “development” for GM, but just don’t talk seriously about it as an excuse not to build a marketable product. His biggest incompetence in my opinion is that he could have provided a rational explanation for GM’s stategy regarding Two-Mode Hybrids. Car for car they save more gas than a Prius or an insight and there was no established competition. Of Lyle’s next question could have been about volume targets and packaging strategy which he could not have answered completely and toed the corporate line but those questions weren’t asked.

Rashiid #3, your assessment that there are a lot of small cars on the road and many more sub-$20K buyers is accurate. But, how could a Voltec Aveo compete? The Voltec powertrain is a $15,000 or so upgrade. Perhaps an EV Aveo could sell some in limited qty but how many people that can only afford an Aveo would buy a Voltec version?

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:11 am

Tallpall # 13 says,
GM knows that they dropped the ball in the past – and as far as i can see with the VOLT are at least trying to address it.

——
Are you sure? It seems to me they are not really learning from past mistakes. They are still pushing to bigger vehicles when they should be doing both. They don’t really have an equal competitor to the Prius or Insight. They don’t have a Hybrid at the $20K level.
The past is not the problem anymore, it’s the future they are still screwing up. GM needs to study its own recent history so they don’t make the same mistakes. They don’t seem to be doing any studying.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:16 am

Koz # 15 says,
Rashiid #3, your assessment that there are a lot of small cars on the road and many more sub-$20K buyers is accurate. But, how could a Voltec Aveo compete? The Voltec powertrain is a $15,000 or so upgrade. Perhaps an EV Aveo could sell some in limited qty but how many people that can only afford an Aveo would buy a Voltec version?

————
Koz, I was thinking about volume. GM needs an EREV vehicle at the same price as Prius and Insight. That would be competition that I think would be unbeatable. Isn’t the Insight going to be a sub $20K car for the base? GM has absolutely nothing for hybrid at that level, but should. EREV would be the best choice. Yes it is expensive, but they are pushing this technology at the upper limit priced vehicles. They can help pay for the smaller priced vehicles.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:16 am

Bob Lutz is a part of the GM system. No more, no less. Dealing with layers of management. And layers of engineering. And volumes of regulations.

Last year GM starting turning plant lights off at night as a cost cutting measure. It’s not the faucet handle which needs adjustment. It’s the plumbing before it. The main problem at GM is mind set. And, most who are in the mind set will deny there is one.

Our Government providing our tax TARP money is not the answer. A reorganization is needed. And this must occur before the next few TARP payments are provided.

I don’t like the idea of our government making cars. But I see a need for someone on the outside making some tough calls. Maybe John McCain. Or one of the current Obama staff (if they can grow some balls).

We need a simple E-REV type vehicle for the masses. And we don’t want to buy it from Wal-Mart.

=D~

(Quote)
RB Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:18 am

Lyle’s question was
Other automakers are making cars like the Honda Insight and Toyota Prius, why hasn’t GM placed a strong hybrid architecture into a small sedan and targeted a lower price point, and rather put those systems into big trucks first?
——————————————————-

Mr Clarke, knowing that GM made a mistake and thus having no actual answer to Lyle’s question maneuvered around in his answer.

Mr Clarke chose to respond with a whole-hearted endorsement to electric vehicles starting with the Volt. I like this direction of response. The more GM people talk in terms of Voltec, the more committed the company becomes to making it actually work. At first such GM comments were probably just PR, but as the higher-ups talk about it more and more, the more they reinforce each other, the more the lower level people read, and soon Voltec becomes something GM has to make successful. I think that is great.

(Quote)
Schmeltz Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:21 am

GM needs a competitive, true hybrid, period. They could/should do this with their Mailbu or upcoming Cruze. Their bet that the hybrid Tahoes were going to take-off seems to have flopped for the most part. I think a hybrid Tahoe is a good idea if you offer a full palette of hybrids already–but they don’t. GM should pay attention to Ford and this new Fusion hybrid coming out…there’s the right tree to be barking up. That’s a no-compromise sedan. If they offered a true hybrid Malibu to compete against the Fusion and Camry hybrids, they would be really in the game. I think Troy’s arguments above are sadly off-base. With those criticisms said, I think it is still important to praise when it is due also. Thank you to GM for sticking behind the Volt as I’m sure there are many temptations to shelf a project like this that won’t add to the bottom line for a long time. Keep at it, and eventually you’ll get there.

Side note to Statik: I don’t think it is right to say “Bob-Lutz-Incompetent” either. I don’t agree with absolutely eveything these guys say and do, but we have to remember it was his internal influence that pushed the Volt forward. Yes, our group had a lot to do with the Volt coming to fruition also, but it was in concert with Bob Lutz’s prodding of the upper-management that this car is even a topic of discussion today. I guess I’m saying try giving some credit where it is due too.

(Quote)
Gordon Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:24 am

He’s right about the VOLT technology being important to other car lines/models. The ‘mild hybrid’ system used in the Malibu is not worth the cost vs the additional “1 MPG” increase in mileage. If it were not for rebates and deep discounts, it would not sell at all.

Hopefully the VOLT design will be made cheap enough and flexible enough to put in the Malibu. Then you would have a nice sedan at Chevrolet.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:25 am

Lyle, Statik et al,

Unless / until the union contracts change, GM cannot make money building small cars domestically. Building a series / parallel hybrid without a plug, and trying to compete with the Prius / Insight directly is suicide, until new union contracts go into effect.

Until then, GM has a waiting list of 45,000+ people for a vehicle that hasn’t even been offered yet, and of which only 10,000 will be made in the first year. GM, meanwhile, will continue to cost reduce the Voltec propulsion system, and, in the future, when those costs are down, and labor costs are down, they might produce a direct competitor to the Prius. By then, they may be offering very cheap BEV’s and PFCV’s (plug-in fuel cell vehicles) instead.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:28 am

Fuel prices are down and Prius sales are down 45%.
_________________________________

That means they are “only” selling at a rate of 100,000 per year now. Imagine if “only” that many Volt were sold.

And don’t you love when a VP pretends that gas prices will never go up again?

(Quote)
Dave B Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:28 am

Rasid @ 16 writes, “Are you sure? It seems to me they are not really learning from past mistakes”
________________

Exactly, let’s call a duck a duck. Clarke here is trying to pull the wool over our eyes and we’re just calling him on it. GM needs bailout money for a reason, one of which is failing to see market trends when people like us were screaming for it to integrate electricity with the ICE–thus the hybrid. I’m glad Voltech is here and GM is ahead of the curve, but I’m not going to praise them for past mistakes. As a shareholder I’m pissed.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:29 am

I think that if the world goes the way of Insights and Priuses, we certainly have the ability to react very rapidly and compete in that segment.
____________________________

Rapidly? I don’t believe that for a second.

What technology would they use?

Two-Mode is very expensive and they still haven’t implemented it in a Fusion/Camry sized sedan… even though Ford & Toyota are offering those FULL hybrids.

(Quote)
statik Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:37 am

#20 Schmeltz said:

Side note to Statik: I don’t think it is right to say “Bob-Lutz-Incompetent” either. I don’t agree with absolutely eveything these guys say and do, but we have to remember it was his internal influence that pushed the Volt forward. Yes, our group had a lot to do with the Volt coming to fruition also, but it was in concert with Bob Lutz’s prodding of the upper-management that this car is even a topic of discussion today. I guess I’m saying try giving some credit where it is due too.

=================================

Hehe, I knew I would take a little heat on the 3 word answer.

However, in this case, the question is, “Why GM doesn’t have a strong hybrid sedan?”

There is only one answer. Lutz’s title (since April of 2004) at GM is “Global Product Development”…that is what he does. GM has no strong hybrid…and it has no plans to make one. The responsibilty and the fault can be squarely placed at one man’s feet….Bob Lutz.

Yes, it is true, he is bringing the Volt…if the question was, “Why is GM ahead of the curve building a electric vehicle?” I’d give him some points.

(Quote)
Shawn Marshall Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:43 am

Man – you guys are vicious.
Ok, Lyle says ” Why did you guys mess up and not have a Prius?”
Mr Corp Diplomacy says “We’re going full speed ahead”.
And then Statik et al go ballistic and get a little vicious.
Hindsight is 20/20.
GM has labor and pricing issues and needs big ticket vehicles to make profit. So, the outrageous balloon in oil prices dropped the floor out from under their market. So they try to build a fence around their lucrative products by doing upscale hybrids and attack the Prius technology with the Voltec approach. All this with shackles on their ankles and one hand tied behind their back. Lighten up guys and hope for the best from GM.

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:45 am

Isn’t this like asking “why doesn’t Sony target their brand new technology at the average consumer?” It’s because they want to extract as much profit as possible at the lowest risk. So sell limited amounts at high prices while your ramp up production.

If you immediately target something to the masses (iphone 3G), you’ve got to start with enormous manufacturing capability but for large capital intensive projects, that just takes time to put in place, especially since large batteries aren’t exactly an off-the-shelf item. You couldn’t produce 100,000 in the first year at sufficient quality.

(Quote)
Tony Gray Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:52 am

I don’t know why they just didn’t switch the NUMMI California plant to build Prii and badge engineer a GM variant just like they did with the Corolla/Nova/Prizm and Matrix/Pontiac Whatever.

The answer probably lies somewhere in short term cost/benefit analysis, as it always is. My assumption is a ton of folks out there who are GM supporters would have purchased those Prius knock offs, helping out the General, and the increased volume would have spread out the costs, making it better for all concerned.

But…..nah.

(Quote)
statik Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:53 am

#22 Jason M. Hendler said:

Lyle, Statik et al,

Unless / until the union contracts change, GM cannot make money building small cars domestically. Building a series / parallel hybrid without a plug, and trying to compete with the Prius / Insight directly is suicide, until new union contracts go into effect.

Until then, GM has a waiting list of 45,000+ people for a vehicle that hasn’t even been offered yet, and of which only 10,000 will be made in the first year. GM, meanwhile, will continue to cost reduce the Voltec propulsion system, and, in the future, when those costs are down, and labor costs are down, they might produce a direct competitor to the Prius. By then, they may be offering very cheap BEV’s and PFCV’s (plug-in fuel cell vehicles) instead.
===================================

Strangely, I guess we are going to agree on this one. (=
(I would take GM’s problems out a lot further than just the union contracts, but I digress).

GM just does not have the ability to build a small car profitably. The overhead, cost structures and mountain of debt, coupled with rapidly decreasing sales is requiring them to make and more money per car sold…which is directly in opposition to the trend of the sector.

(Quote)
Guido Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:55 am

Statik wrote :
Three words:

Incompetence-Bob-Lutz
————

What a surprise. More whining from Statik.
Seems kind of in-character.

Lutz is awesome – GM’s lucky to have him.
Maybe Statik would prefer Roger Smith or
Jacques Nasser.

(Quote)
RB Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:57 am

GM made a mis-judgment, and we see that in Mr Clarke’s evasive statement, but we should not make it into more than it is. The Prius is an important and successful car but over its life time and today it still remains a small fraction of the market. In part that is because hybrid technology of the Prius type perfects somewhat the ability to get energy from an ICE, but that improvement is offset by the cost of a more complex vehicle, so the new improvement is small.

The Volt (and Voltec) really is fundamentally different. I understand that we can blame Bob Lutz for no Prius-like hybrid, but in the same sentence we should praise him for the Volt. He made that choice. If GM had to choose (and I’m not sure they did), then going with Volt and Voltec may turn out to be the right decision. Certainly Voltec and plug-in is the choice that allows for a really big shift away from petrol that will hever be achieve by ICE hybrids.

(Quote)
charlie h Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:12 am

#7, BillR1, “Personally, I think GM is late to the game, and has decided to focus on the Volt (and Voltec) technology rather than make a small sedan with a full hybrid that will be outdated in a few years (hard to argue with over 100 mpg).”

100 MPG at what price? It’s not hard to argue with 100mpg if it costs $20K more than a 50mpg car. Especially a 100mpg car with the Volt capability profile, where 40miles of daily use maximizes the payback and deviation from that, either way, hurts what’s left of the tattered business case for buying a Volt.

—

#5, Ziv, ++1, You pretty much nailed it.

—

#18, Dave K, “Bob Lutz is a part of the GM system. No more, no less. Dealing with layers of management. And layers of engineering. And volumes of regulations.”

Level playing field, there, as far as regs go. Toyota, Honda, everybody has to meet those. And they do. It’s no excuse for GM.

—

#22, Jason M. Hendler, “Unless / until the union contracts change, GM cannot make money building small cars domestically. Building a series / parallel hybrid without a plug, and trying to compete with the Prius / Insight directly is suicide, until new union contracts go into effect.”

Until the economy tanked, Toyota was planning to build a Prius plant here. They already build at least one small car, the Corolla, here (have for decades) and, in fact, isn’t the NUMMI plant unionized? It CAN be done. GM just doesn’t have the competence to do it.

—

If GM’s internal systems are not up to the task of rapidly (enough) responding to market changes and getting vehicles on the road at reasonable profitability, that’s all down to senior management’s incompetence. Split this between Wagoner, Lutz and whomever else you like, but somebody at the top is incompetent. Picking which product to build (and there’s an argument there for Lutz’ incompetence) is not as important as being able to build the right product quickly and cost-effectively.

As an example, there are a few things that Honda and Toyota have that GM absolutely does not and one of those is flex manurfacturing. GM is locked into building certain volumes and mixes of cars. Honda is apparently the industry leader; they can build almost any vehicle in the lineup in a single factory.

If we look at Lutz’ track record as simply picking vehicles to build, then he’s incompetent and should go. Let’s examine the record:

- GM rushed GMT900s to market in the face of tanking sales.
- All current GM hybrid offerings are unmarketable and, apparently, unbuildable.
- The Sky/Solstice are a disappointment and lost an estimated $10K/car.
- The SSR was a joke. Four bad vehicles in one for the price of two. There’s an advanced math problem in there, somewhere and the results are all negative for GM.
- Delivered the Cobalt to market with class-trailing fuel economy, cementing the idea of GM as a fuel-economy laggard, when it would have been easy to deliver the original Cobalt as a class leader (at least with stickshift).
- Delivered the Aveo to market with worse fuel economy than the Cobalt. This MAY have been rectified to some extent this year but was an unacceptable black eye for GM. There’s no way this tin can shouldn’t routinely achieve 40mpg for people.
- GTO debacle.
- G8 debacle.
- The Astra. GM can’t build an “economy” car in euros and sell it for depressed dollars. It cost $100million to Federalize it and that didn’t include cupholders and an American-style clock. Given the tiny volumes, this was a bad, bad, bad decision.
- The upcoming Camaro debacle. GM killed the Camaro because of poor sales; several other sporty coupes (Monte Carlo, Cougar) have been killed because of poor sales. Mustang sales are declining. Ever since people discovered that sedans can offer the performance of coupes, coupe sales have been in decline.
- The Volt. If it’s lucky enough to go according to plan, it will be a $40K “economy car.” That’s an oxymoron that should never have gotten project approval.

GM should not have wasted untold $billions on their whybrids and the Volt. GM should have refocussed the company on the basics; done the necessary internal reorganization to get operational efficiency, revamped products to achieve the kind of build flexility that Honda has, and gotten their act together well enough to build a reasonably priced small car at a profit.

People are all in a lather about oil… Oil will be with us for another hundred years (admittedly, the price will rise and there are environmental consquences). Still, we are not going to “get off oil” because GM builds 200K Volts by 2015. If GM had put resources into start-stop tech, improved aerodynamics, better transmissions, economy-tuned engines, weight reduction programs, they’d have a fleet of better, highly competitive cars on the road today that would be reducing oil imports TODAY. That’s way better for the economy, world politics and environment than 200K wonder-cars by 2015.

(Quote)
MarkinWI Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:14 am

“Its been interesting to me though that hybrids sell directly proportional to fuel prices. Fuel prices are down and Prius sales are down 45%.”

As much as some have maligned this statement, I’m not sure that it is as dumb as it seems. Doing a rational cost-benefit analysis of hybrids, you often find that the $ savings from using less gas is more than off-set by the cost of the hybrid system. Many consumers will not seriously look at hybrids unless gas is north of $3.50 a gallon because they will not believe that it is worth the price. A similar cost/benefit analysis could be applied to Voltec vehicles, but because it offers the possibility of using no gas, and because electricity is much cheaper than gas, it will fare better at a broader range of price points for gasoline than a hybrid. In other words, once the Voltec technology matures and the price comes down a bit, Voltec products will not be as vulnerable to dips in gasoline prices as hybrid vehicles.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:26 am

#2 statik says “Incompetence-Bob-Lutz”

Shaking things up on a Monday morning, eh?

I agree with you that Lutz is a reason that GM doesn’t have a Prius competitor. But I completely disagree that they should have one. I think Lutz is completely right in thinking that GM can’t compete well with Toyota and Honda in this area. Heck, even Honda can’t complete well with Toyota and Honda invented the space. Faced with this fact, rather than be the third loser into the pool it’s far better for GM to leapfrog the existing technology and come out with EVs. What would you rather be: a third player with tired “me-too” technology or the leader with a technology that beats the existing technology like a drum?

The other point on which I’d agree with Lutz is that the economics for parallel hybrids aren’t there. Even the people I know who have them, and they are very popular, say that they aren’t worth the extra money. Now the fact is that no one I know buys a car strictly on a dollar and cents basis. Even those who mention the cost of the hybrid technology have a Porshe or some other such stupid car in their garage. But the technology in the Prius and Insight, while exciting for 2000, aren’t terribly exciting today. And the design of the cars aren’t inspiring either.

The only thing I’d criticize is the answer given here. I’d rather have Troy Clarke just say: “We missed the opportunity for the parallel like hybrid technologies. We made a mistake. But that has turned out to be helpful, because, without the burden of having invested in this technology, we’ve been forced to come up with a far better technology which will take us 80% rather than 20% of the way to electrifying the automobile. We have no reason to take a step or two backwards and come up with a direct competitor to the Prius.”

So the answer as to why GM doesn’t have a Prius type hybrid is that it makes no sense for them to have one.

(Quote)
Arch Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:29 am

I have at admit I see this about the same way as flying your big fancy jet into DC to beg for money. They are so far out of touch it is sad.

Take Care
Arch

(Quote)
Schmeltz Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:39 am

#35 Don C:
I liked your comments. I still like the idea of having a full palette of hybrid and EV vehicles available, from the compact all the way to the pick-up sized scale, but the theory you mentioned of leap-frogging rather than providing another also-ran hybrid may be the smarter strategy in the long run. Good post.

(Quote)
ziv Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:41 am

MarkinWI, you mention in passing something that kind of worries me. We have come to expect electricity to be pretty inexpensive here in the US. What with hydroelectric, coal, nuclear and a small amount of renewables, our electricity is a bargain. My concern is that by the time PHEV’s and ER-EV’s start to show up in appreciable numbers, i.e. 2012 and later, electricity could cost us much more due to increased cost of operating coal fired power plants (Obama’s campaign statement about making it more expensive for Coal plants to operate and the disdain many environmentalists have for Coal) and a lack of support for building new nuclear power plants. Hydroelectric is going to shrink as a percentage of our energy production over time and renewables are not inexpensive to develop and build.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if we push and prod car makers to build electric cars, and we end up having to buy our own wind generators and photovoltaic cells to put on the roof of our home in order to fuel our cars, because the electricity off the grid is too expensive? Does the Volt, or the IMiev, work financially for most of us if we have to include a wind generator in the cost of operating it?

(Quote)
DonC Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:43 am

#33 charlie h says “100 MPG at what price? It’s not hard to argue with 100mpg if it costs $20K more than a 50mpg car.”

First of all your numbers aren’t valid. While we don’t know what the price of the Volt will be, the price differential between a Volt and a Prius will probably be around $5K not $20K (after rebates).

More importantly, you can’t use an economic argument against the Volt because economics isn’t really the issue. For example, with gas prices under four bucks no one buys a Prius or an Insight to save money. You can’t justify the price differential. Why pay $5K more for a car that gets a few more mpg? But people do, so your argument that they won’t obviously doesn’t fly.

The fact is that people buy these cars because they like to be green. If you doubt this, tell me how many McCain bumper stickers have you seen on a Prius? I haven’t seen a single one, and I’ve been looking for months. It’s hilarious. Plenty of Obama/Biden stickers but zero, notta, zip McCain stickers.

Car buying is never only about dollars and cents, and certainly not when you’re talking about a Prius or an Insight or a Volt. The Volt is completely cool, and it will be a huge success because of the green tech.

(Quote)
RB Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:43 am

#35 DonC said
The only thing I’d criticize is the answer given here. I’d rather have Troy Clarke just say: “We missed the opportunity for the parallel like hybrid technologies. We made a mistake. But that has turned out to be helpful, because, without the burden of having invested in this technology, we’ve been forced to come up with a far better technology which will take us 80% rather than 20% of the way to electrifying the automobile. We have no reason to take a step or two backwards and come up with a direct competitor to the Prius.”
————————————-

I agree. Mr Clarke, while making an error in omitting what you said above, did go on to make a strong endorsement of Voltec, along the lines of the last half of what you said. I still think it is very good for these guys to be giving these endorsements.

(Quote)
nuclearboy Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:56 am

#38 ziv.

If you live in the belt from NY, down the east coast, and then over to TX, electricity should remain reasonably priced and plentiful according to the applications for new nuclear plants that the NRC has recieved. I think the latest number is about 26 units so far. And many of these will be very large plants compared to todays fleet.

Now if you live in the rest of the country, I hope the wind blows and the sun shines.

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/new-reactor-map.html

(Quote)
GXT Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:57 am

17. Rashiid Amul,

Sure, EREV at $20K would be unbeatable. I’d like mine to spit golden eggs out the tailpipe while they are at it.

The main problem with EREV is that it is too expensive. GM can’t afford to have volume EREV. How is GM going to “help pay for the smaller priced vehicles” with their “upper limit priced vehicles” when they are losing money on the “upper limit priced vehicles”?

Totally agree with your post #16. The Volt is a big misguided case of Prius-envy.

(Quote)
BillR1 Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:58 am

#35 DonC

Excellent points.

I’m still not sure some will understand, however. It’s more fun to whine and blame everyone else, (like they could have done better, haha).

(Quote)
statik Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:08 am

#33 charlie h

Thanks for listing all of Lutz’s “hits” – I was going to but, I thought I should back slowly away from the table for awhile.

================

Your main point, and the one I have been trying to make for awhile, is that yes…we love the Volt. I want one, and yes is, it a very ambitious project. But why are we congratulating Bob on it? From a ‘non-selfish’ point of view, and thinking about it from a business perspective, it is just about the stupidest thing you could possible attempt in GM’s situation. Much like the Kappa platform before itand the RWD global platform now, it is billions of dollars wasted, for a low volume car, that will never make money.

Now if your a deep pocket company, we call projects like the Volt innovative…when your GM, it is called being suicidal. Bob has no concept of how to run a company or build product for a profit, he builts what he wants to see, and most of the time…it is a failure (anyone remember the Cunningham C7 project?). At no point could GM ever make the Volt a reality, or build a model by which it could be sold for a profit by itself…yet he went ahead anyway, economics be damed.

I’m a little harsh on Bob, and on GM as well, but it is my right. Only billions of dollars of tax payers money has saved Bob from being on the unemployment line and being forever remembered as bolding leading GM’s product development into oblivion, while saying saying crazy a** things about the environment, economics, flying around in his personal jet, not giving a crap about anything, and smiling as he gets his picture taken besides things like the HUMMER H3, and the his ridiculous Caddillac Sixteen concept.

/but he is a really personable guy…they kind you want as ‘a buddy,’ and anyone who meets him, generally loves him…it is hard to seperate his personality from his performance
===================================
===================================
#35 DonC said:

Shaking things up on a Monday morning, eh?
——–
Yeah, I was thinking we needed some monday morning action. Haven’t been shooting enough from the hip lately, somehow people were starting to like me (can’t have that)…besides, I’m doing my best to drum up some more action for Lyle in the comments section…spice it up some, lol.

(Quote)
charlie h Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:11 am

#39, DonC, “First of all your numbers aren’t valid. While we don’t know what the price of the Volt will be, the price differential between a Volt and a Prius will probably be around $5K not $20K (after rebates).”

Ummm… if we don’t know the price of a Volt, how can you claim to know the difference?

I’m basing my estimate on $40K, which we have heard, repeatedly from GM execs (and I’m discounting the estimates from GM execs that ran as high as $48K). That’s $17.5K higher than the Prius. Toyota has announced certain cost-cutting efforts to bear fruit in the 2010 Prius. I expect them to hold the line. If I’m guilty of misrepresentation, it goes no further than rounding to the nearest $5K.

But here’s the real problem for GM and the “success” of the Volt (at 10K units to be manufactured, the idea of “success” is almost irrelevant, as is the car itself)… People can readily indulge their whims and wants when buying a car with an MSRP of $22.5K.

When MSRP on the vehicle is $40K… that’s a whole different story. If you can get “green enough” for $22.5K, what’s your motivation to get “more green” for an additional $17.5K? Sure… a few people will go for it (as well as an arguable “cool” factor) but few people have a green procilivity than will approach $10K, cash.

You can do a world of good for the planet and save money with solar panels and you can get into that game for $10K. How many solar panels are there in your neighborhood? Adding solar to new construction much less expensive than retrofitting solar to existing construction. How much new construction involves even passive solar features?

(Quote)
MarkinWI Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:20 am

Ziv @38: Unfornutately, I’m one of those who has a heavy disdain for coal. I went fishing for salmon in Lake Michigan last summer. I still have some fish, because the Department of Natural Resources tells me that my family should not eat it more than once every three months, due to the levels of mercury in the fish. Mountaintop removal in W.V. (one of my favorite places, incidentially). Then there is the TVA spill. There are hundreds of similar impoundments in this country, and we seem to have a major failure every 5 years or so. If coal had to clean up after itself right now, costs would be much higher.

Fortuantely, I don’t think that your scenario will come to pass. Wind electricity is virtually cost competitive with coal. I now pay a premium of $.01 per kilowatt to my power company to buy wind energy. Some solar providers claim to now also be below current grid production costs (see First Solar, December 2008, just search this site). Also, there will almost certainly be no net loss of jobs. Even though wind provides a much smaller fraction of our electricity than coal right now, wind advocates are claiming that it already provides more jobs than coal. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/29/wind-now-employs-more-peo_n_162277.html

So the future for electricity looks bright to me, even without coal. BTW 10 years ago I was not “green” at all. I was raised in a factory town by factory workers. I was skeptical of all things green as being “job killers.” But the facts on the ground have changed, and I’ve adjusted my views accordingly.

(Quote)
Gary Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:26 am

A lot of GM bashing going on here. GM was banking on the fact that since full-size SUVs were so popular and chic, most people don’t want to drive a tiny hybrid that looks like a mechanical cockroach. Since people were already spending $40,000+ something trendy, why not turn it into a hybrid with the in-town fuel economy of 4-cylinder car?

Unfortunately, when the SUV hybrids came out, environmentalists who starting bashing them since their fuel economy figures didn’t match the fuel economy of other tiny hybrids. They were called elephants and dinosaurs.

But increasing the fuel economy of a 15 MPG “gas hog” by 50% saves far more gasoline over the life of a vehicle than increasing the fuel effiency of a 30 MPG “fuel miser” by 50%–without decreasing the driver’s standard of ~~living~~driving.

Measuring fuel efficiency in miles per gallon is somethat deceptive. Measuring in gallons per mile (or liters per 100km or maybe even gallons per 100 miles) gives consumers a better idea of the fuel costs between two vehicles.

http://www.mpgillusion.com/

(Quote)
statik Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:26 am

#38 ziv said:

If you live in the belt from NY, down the east coast, and then over to TX, electricity should remain reasonably priced and plentiful according to the applications for new nuclear plants that the NRC has recieved. I think the latest number is about 26 units so far. And many of these will be very large plants compared to todays fleet.

#41 nuclearboy Says”
Now if you live in the rest of the country, I hope the wind blows and the sun shines.

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/new-reactor-map.html

=========================================
=========================================
I find it interesting that the only place in the US that currently has the right to construct and use a new nuclear power plant…is Disney World (through it sub-Reedy Creek), lol. It made that deal back in ‘the old days’ with Orlando and the state of Florida. They never built it…but they could, lol.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:38 am

If it is the kind of business GM can get into, to paraphrase his remarks, then why don’t they just do it? I know they are spending a lot of development time and money on the Volt and we don’t really know what they are doing on the hybrid front. Hopefully more that just saying they can get into it. It is not that easy of a business to just get into. It takes years to develop a good hybrid market (Prius took years) and you just have to start sometime. I hope they are doing more than just talking it up when someone ask a question.

Good reporting, Lyle.

(Quote)
Zack henery Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:45 am

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/02/01/on-the-rebound-scientists-invent-regenerative-shocks/

Has anyone seen this.

This is perfect for the volt to produce energy to charge its batteries.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:51 am

charlie h,

You are forgetting that GM is developing the Chevy Cruze, a high mileage conventional ICE car, as well as the Volt, so GM is covered with a cheap gas/ethanol vehicle for those desiring a $15,000 economy car, as opposed to the $40,000, 40-mile fossil fuel free car.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:52 am

I know we all, or most of us, keep hitting GM for fuel cell development, but you have to look at it from their perspective. GM and the other auto companies who are messing around with fuel cells or fool cells are doing it because of the federal tax money being thrown at the project. They are spending our tax dollars while learning a few things that may be helpful in other areas. Probably some of the features and hardware being developed for the Volt came from work with those fuel cells.

I agree that fuel cells and/or hydrogen powered cars are a long way off and may never see the light of day at the dealer’s lot. But they may be useful for research and development purposes.

(Quote)
TALLPALL Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:53 am

#35 Don C – You have it spot on mate.

Static – I think that you just have an agenda here my friend. And man are you negative.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:09 pm

#2 statik:

You can’t say it any better than that.

I agree with you at #9, et al, and the back and forth is kind of fun, but you could have quit after #2. The whole sad situation speaks for itself. If GM had come up with a credible Prius fighter, we would be driving a new GM car. They didn’t – we’re not.

They have been spouting the spin that you save more gas by upgrading a 15 mpg SUV/light truck to a hybrid than you do by upgrading from something like a Corolla to a Prius for years. Well, the sales figures speak for themselves.

Plus, if you can get a hybrid Silverado at all, you can’t get an 8 foot bed, which makes it useless to me in any case.

Next case.

(Quote)
Stew Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:14 pm

# 9 statik:

Right on!

(Quote)
charlie h Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:18 pm

#51, Jason M. Hendler, “You are forgetting that GM is developing the Chevy Cruze…”

I’m glad you have the time to memorize all of GM’s unavailable auto lineup and are willing to take the time to remind me of them. That’s an invaluable service.

I’ll believe in the Cruze and its mileage claims when they deliver a Federalized production car to the EPA for testing. By the way, what’s taking them so long? The Cruze is actually a Daewoo Lacetti with a Malibu-esque grille. Doesn’t GM develop “world cars” that actually work around the world? Is there some particular reason that a “world car” would not be designed for the world’s largest auto market?

“as opposed to the $40,000, 40-mile fossil fuel free car.”

That’s “fossil fuel reduced car.” It’s only fossil-free if you stay close enough to home. Same as a BEV, which would almost certainly be cheaper and faster to build. The same 400lb battery pack would, as a bonus, get better range in a BEV without dragging an ICE and all its assorted paraphernlia around.

Anyway, the Cruze will be measured against all the other conventional small cars, since it will not have the exceptional fuel economy of a hybrid in the city and likely will not approach fuel economy of the Prius or Insight on the highway.

And if the Cruze turns out to be closer to $18K than $15K, it’s going to get cross-shopped with the Insight, for sure, and that won’t help its case any. GM can either deliver this car in very limited volume or they must price it to its actual cost. They can’t afford to subsidize a high-volume small car.

GM’s track record for making money on small cars is poor. I don’t think you’ll see actual Cruzes in showrooms with less than $17K stickers. Check in next year and see how my prediction looks.

By the way, my predictions for Cruze EPA fuel economy are 28/38. When it gets here, we shall see.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:21 pm

#45 charlie h

Here is why I come out with a $5K difference. I’ll go with your $40K figure. it may be a bit high but it’s reasonable. From that take off $7.5K as the tax rebate, giving you $32.5K.

For the Prius I use a purchase price of $28K. I realize that some use a much lower base but everyone I know who has bought one says $28K – $29K for a standard vehicle. I don’t know what the options were but the cars are still fairly spartan and the owners aren’t getting special wheels or solar roofs or that kind of thing.

Completely off topic but related: The worst offender for price tag inflation has to be the mini-Cooper. The thing has a base of $19K or something but when you add even standard stuff you end up in the 30’s. You can see this for yourself if you go to the web site. it lets you build your own car by adding the “options” you’d want. Interesting experience.

(Quote)
k-dawg Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:24 pm

#47 Gary
interesting.. makes sense to me

(Quote)
k-dawg Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:25 pm

How much money did Hyundai dump on the Superbowl?

(Quote)
Stew Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:34 pm

#38 Ziv

“Wouldn’t it be ironic if we push and prod car makers to build electric cars, and we end up having to buy our own wind generators and photovoltaic cells to put on the roof of our home in order to fuel our cars, because the electricity off the grid is too expensive?

=============================================

That is exactly the plan, actually.

Stew

(Quote)
noel park Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 1:01 pm

#33 charlie h:

Right. Thanks. Well done.

(Quote)
RB Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 1:07 pm

#44 statik said, among other things
Now if your a deep pocket company, we call projects like the Volt innovative…when your GM, it is called being suicidal. Bob has no concept of how to run a company or build product for a profit, he builts what he wants to see, and most of the time…it is a failure (anyone remember the Cunningham C7 project?). At no point could GM ever make the Volt a reality, or build a model by which it could be sold for a profit by itself…yet he went ahead anyway, economics be damed.
———————————————————

With greatest respect, I think this analysis is wrong.

It is vitally important to GM to be seen as a “green” car company. The Volt alone has made that possible.

The consequence has been that the US government, now GM’s most important “customer” has “loaned” GM several billions with more on the way. That is a handsome return on the Volt investment.

Of course much of the rationale arose from numbers of employees and the effect of a GM collapse on the economy, but a “Hummer” version of GM could not have made it over that last big step. When Wagoner showed on on the steps in the Volt, every penny of that Volt investment paid a huge dividend, larger than for any other product in GM’’s history.

Mr Lutz was able to foresee the symbolic importance of Prius, and the symbolic importance of Volt, which the feds have turned into actual cash value.

(Quote)
Gordon Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 1:09 pm

#50 Zach Henery

Very cool! It’s one of those things that is so simple, you wonder why it wasn’t thought of before.

Also brings new meaning to “electric shock”.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 1:16 pm

#50 Zack henery

Thansk for that link.
It is so simple, I don’t know why the rest of us didn’t think of it.

EDIT: Sorry Gordon #63. I should have refreshed my browser before I typed my message. Obviously we agree.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 1:25 pm

#42 GXT says,
The main problem with EREV is that it is too expensive. GM can’t afford to have volume EREV. How is GM going to “help pay for the smaller priced vehicles” with their “upper limit priced vehicles” when they are losing money on the “upper limit priced vehicles”?

———–
Ya, I know what you are saying. I was trying to draw a comparison to the Insight and Prius. But I think the Prius will be much more than the Insight in price. If GM could give us an EREV at $25K with a 20 mile range, I would think that would be competitive to both Insight and Prius.

(Quote)
Schmeltz Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 1:27 pm

Statik #44 said:
“Now if your a deep pocket company, we call projects like the Volt innovative…when your GM, it is called being suicidal. Bob has no concept of how to run a company or build product for a profit, he builts what he wants to see, and most of the time…it is a failure (anyone remember the Cunningham C7 project?). At no point could GM ever make the Volt a reality, or build a model by which it could be sold for a profit by itself…yet he went ahead anyway, economics be damed….”

With your logic above, Bob is damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. Maybe I’m not reading your post as you intended, but why are you bashing GM/Bob Lutz for the Volt? It is not a secret that hybrids are more expensive, and generally money losers for any company willing to stick their neck out to build them, (reference Ford and Toyota). I think Toyota only recently started making a profit on the Prius. Hybrids and EV’s are a very hard game to make money at for anyone that plays, so again, why the Bob bashing? Bob is pushing for a technology that surpasses the hybrids of today–and yes “economics be damned”. My guess is that If he would have only pushed for a traditional hybrid, he would blasted for not pursuing something more dramatic like a series hybrid. I’m not his apologist, as I said before, I don’t agree with him on everything, but can the guy win?

(Quote)
Brian Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 1:51 pm

Lutz/Wagoner/all of the top executives should have tendered their resignations the day they got their bailout. Just getting to that point is admitting everything they have done was a complete failure. It’s not just GM, every company that gets bailout money should be required as a condition to get rid of the corporate heads that drove the company into the ground. Its staggaring to me that people still want to defend them and their huge bonuses.

(Quote)
Mitch Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 1:55 pm

ISUZU leaving US market

http://www.latimes.com/classified/automotive/highway1/la-hy-isuzu31jan31,0,168226.story

(Quote)
ccombs Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 2:04 pm

I may be a little against the current here, but I really think it is not that big of a deal that GM doesn’t have a strong hybrid.

For one, I think parallel Hybrids are a nice way to transition to series hybrids and then BEVs, but they themselves are definitely a terrible long-term solution. At their core, they are a way of getting marginal fuel economy improvements with a lot of added complexity and cost. Their only real use is to pave the way for electric, which is FAR superior. The Prius helped Toyota some, but I think now they are tied to it and too resistant to full BEVs.

While 10 years ago perhaps GM should’ve developed a strong hybrid, I really don’t think GM at this point should waste their limited resources investing in a tech that (hopefully) Voltec will make obsolete. I think GM figures that they’ll E-REV all their small cars but it will be a while before they can get around to the big ones (so they are making them 2-modes for now).

That said, I am a bit annoyed at the continued focus on Hydrogen. Fuel cells may work as a range extender in the future, but they aren’t gonna be a game-changer for a loooong time and just aren’t worth paying more attention to than BEVs.

(Quote)
RB Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 2:24 pm

#69 ccombs says
That said, I am a bit annoyed at the continued focus on Hydrogen. Fuel cells may work as a range extender in the future, but they aren’t gonna be a game-changer for a loooong time and just aren’t worth paying more attention to than BEVs.
———————————————

I agree with the overall thrust of your comments in #69. In relation to the particular paragraph quoted:

Just as you, I see no liklihood of hydrogen becoming an automotive fuel. At the same time it is good to keep in mind that fuel cells are sometimes used with other fuels and may yet find a place in automotive. It is not a direction that I would invest in, but one can make an argument.

(Quote)
k-dawg Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 2:44 pm

More on Ford’s electric car
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090202/AUTO01/902020354

(Quote)
charlie h Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 2:51 pm

#47, Gary, “A lot of GM bashing going on here…”

What can I say? We’re all involuntary investors now and looking out for our money. When we weren’t involved in GM’s finances, it would be OK to tell us to bug off. Now that we have a legitimate financial interest, our opinions count. If we think the company’s being run badly, it’s our civic duty to speak up.

(Quote)
charlie h Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:04 pm

#57, DonC, [on the $22/28K Prius]

I see where you’re coming from. Still, I wouldn’t use the $22.5K figure if I thought it was imaginary. When gas was in the low $2s, I test-drove a Prius, just to see what it was like (my car was in for an oil change and I had time to kill). I was offered the Prius I drove, which had about $1K’s worth of options, before any haggling on my part, for the MSRP of an absolute base Prius, which was still under $22K, at the time. All my cars are in good shape and I drive 6K miles/year, so I passed.

Now, if you went back to that same Toyota dealer I visited about two months later than my visit, as gas prices were pushing through $3.50, I doubt you’d be looking at very lightly optioned Priuses going for less than MSRP, to say the least! If your friends bought when gas was high, which does bring people in to the Toyota dealer looking for Priuses, then I can readily believe they were persuaded to take a $28K vehicle.

(Quote)
KentT Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:54 pm

The regulars on this blog are an odd group. At one point hailing Bob Lutz as a gutsy hero, bucking the status oil-guzzling quo. Now some are panning him. One the one hand the Volt is a visionary, game changer and on the other hand a failed, late-to-the-table, Prius wannabe.

What’s wrong with you people?

The Volt LEAPFROGS over the Prius “strong-hybrid” concept. The Volt is an electric car that has a gas engine backup. The Prius is an electric car that pollutes!!!!!!!!

The Volt goes 40 non-polluting, non-gas burning miles per charge. The Prius cycles on and off a few dozen feet on electric power as it’s gas engine tries to take up the slack of an underpowered electric motor. What’s so great about the “strong” hybrid concept compared to what the Volt will do?

GM can’t see the future or is it GM sees the Toyota Prius and sees A GREEN PUBLICITY STUNT WITH NO FUTURE?

The future is the electric car and GM is leading the way. The Volt is the electric car 2.0. (The EV1 was v1.0). GM, not Toyota will bring ever more affordable electric cars to the masses and Toyota will argue “the battery is not ready.”

What’s wrong with you people?

(Quote)
vincent Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:55 pm

A Classic example why GM is in the Shitter.
WTF!

If these guys had to put out a new resume and job hunt no one would hire them.

Congress needs to read this…these old school washed up so called executives most likely have a VCR with the clock flashing at 12:00.

“Hey Mr GM exec…what about a new Hummer model…yeah cool. Lets rock….
also sir have a great design for a 4 door excellent and very competitive Hybrid.
Well….I’m sure Honda will do well with their new one…so…lets see….
Nah…also scrap the Converj…no one will want an emotional automobile…lets bring back the Oldsmobile name…My great grandpa loved them….”

“Hey son…check on my bonus. When is that check being cut….and be sure to burn those plans…no one will ever want them…”

(Quote)
Joe Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:08 pm

#
KentT Says: @74

I’m with you 100%. I’ve asked the same question many time. “what’s wrong with you people”

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:08 pm

#20 Schmeltz

I find myself in agreement with you. I have been pushing GM for a true hybrid program now for more than a year. They are just pissing in the wind with the two-mode for the Tahoe and the pickup trucks. It would be a little different if they made the two-mode standard in all large vehicles and at a price that did not increase the base price. There are so many added on options on these vehicles that GM could make the two-mode standard and not lose any real money.

Then they need to concentrate on getting a real hybrid power train for the Malibu, Impala and Cruze. If they don’t and can not get the mileage numbers up for the Malibu and Impala, they can just write them off as losses because Ford, Toyota and Honda is going to eat their lunch with their hybrid programs.

Sure, gas prices are lower, but they are climbing and will continue to climb. Even if the price of gas remains much lower than last summer’s $4.00 per gallon, millions of people want off as much of petroleum use as they can get. They will move to hybrids and electrics over the next 5 years. GM can’t get the job done with just the Volt and Cadillac brands. IMO….

(Quote)
charlie h Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:24 pm

#77, N. Riley, “It would be a little different if they made the two-mode standard in all large vehicles and at a price that did not increase the base price. There are so many added on options on these vehicles that GM could make the two-mode standard and not lose any real money.”

Probably not. Some estimates put the additional manufacturing cost of the two-mode transmission at $10K, which is why the SUV hybrids are so heavily optioned and expensive.

#74, KenT, “What’s wrong with you people? The Volt LEAPFROGS over the Prius “strong-hybrid” concept.”

What’s wrong with you? The Volt hasn’t leapfrogged anything because GM hasn’t produced any Volts. In another two years, maybe… although 10K units per year doesn’t seem like much to get excited about.

And Toyota’s probably not going to stand still. The Prius will be available in PHEV form with some AER or greatly augmented MPG in the near future.

(Quote)
statik Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:39 pm

#54 noel park said:

I agree with you at #9, et al, and the back and forth is kind of fun, but you could have quit after #2.
——————
I know…I always go on too long. I’ll work on it.

======================================

#62 RB said:

With greatest respect, I think this analysis is wrong.

It is vitally important to GM to be seen as a “green” car company. The Volt alone has made that possible.

The consequence has been that the US government, now GM’s most important “customer” has “loaned” GM several billions with more on the way. That is a handsome return on the Volt investment.

Of course much of the rationale arose from numbers of employees and the effect of a GM collapse on the economy, but a “Hummer” version of GM could not have made it over that last big step. When Wagoner showed on on the steps in the Volt, every penny of that Volt investment paid a huge dividend, larger than for any other product in GM’’s history.

——
A valid point RB. If it was the Volt that did indeed push the gov’t to bail them out, it is a raging success.
==========================
#66 Schmeltz:

I don’t know how I got to Lutz, re: the Volt…I think charlie h’s “hit list’ of winners got me started. But no, Lutz can’t ‘win’ now, the…he had his shot and failed, if not for the grace of the gov’t it would be all over

Much like some of the big bank execs that got the bailout and are still in office, he (and Wags) need to go, he clearly does not understand the car business as it stands now. (imo)

(Quote)
statik Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:58 pm

Other random news from GM: GM is about to offer buyout packages/early retirement to ALL US employess represented by the union.

However, I don’t think this package is going to get it done, after previously more aggressive packages (and the fact Chrysler is offering 50K more for their workers atm).

—————————————-
UAW official: General Motors making buyout, early retirement offers to thin hourly work force

DETROIT (AP) — A United Auto Workers official says General Motors Corp. will try to reduce its factory work force by offering early retirement and buyout packages all U.S. hourly workers represented by the union.

The official says the offers of $20,000 in cash and a $25,000 voucher to buy a vehicle were made in an e-mail message to local union officials Monday. The official did not want to be identified because not all workers have been notified.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Union-official-GM-offering-apf-14226893.html

(Quote)
TALLPALL Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:22 pm

I think Charlie h should start up the ‘Toyota-priusiloveit.com site. And he can blog away..LOL

(Quote)
Jim I Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:39 pm

Man you guys are angry today!

Yes, Troy Clarke gave a really bad answer about how fast GM could do a full hybrid if they needed to.

But I also agree that at this time, to do a copycat of a Prius is not the answer for GM. They have to make the jump and be better. It really is that simple.

The real question is: Will they be able to survive long enough to get the new products to market, and then to be able to deliver them in high enough volumes to get the benefits of lower costs to pass through to the consumers?

And does blasting Bob Lutz really help anything?

Or are you angry people just mad because the Steelers won???

(Quote)
Dan Petit Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:48 pm

If only everyone posting here could come along with me when I go to independent shops where a Prius shows up with very extensive problems or even more minor problems, and, to come along with me when I scan an individuals’ Prius when the hybrid transaxle drive circuitry is severely damaged and sets a set of fault codes describing $8900 in damages (where the dealer also wants two more hours diagnostic time after the $8900 would have had to be spent).
You see, the 12 volt battery runs the processors, and, when the high powered charging module (18.12 volts) cooks the water out of the 12 volt battery over the course of 4 Southern Summers, the MIL does not always light up immediately. This can set up the vehicle for extensive and immediate damages when abused (pedal to the metal accelerations), and can quickly “total” the value of the otherwise NADA 2004 $15,900.00 Prius.
If you are going to put extensive electrical propulsion systems in place, it just does not make sense to make a “go two blocks” electrical drive system when instead, you should be building a
“go 40 miles” electrical propulsion system (even though initial costing is higher, the merit is certainly there for us to have the 40 mile systems), especially since you are actually pretty much spending the same amount of money (credits included for fuel savings and also LOTS of “wear and tear” savings) once the initial developmental costs and initially low production economies are behind us. It just doesn’t make sense when technological advancements can get us further, and GM is protecting us from these extremely false economies. (Interim applications for large trucks/suv’s as hybrids pave the way for these also to go the distances ultimately with some all-electric-drive as well).
The other thing that GM is very wisely doing for us is the open sharing of developmental technological milestones. You can not teach a technician an entire set of newly designed systems in short order so that there are sufficient dedicated, certified, and very well trained technicians independently available for you when you need us. As well, so that you have extensive cost and talent comparative choices in the aftermarket. It is highly generous of GM to progressively assist us with each small revelation so as to be able to be there for you for when the very high volumes of Volts and Converj autos which will be here before you know it.
Trust that GM management does not want any of us (or them either) to have technological headaches. This has always been apparent to me down through the decades of teaching technicians.
Dan Petit Austin TX

(Quote)
Brian Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 6:01 pm

KentT

“The future is the electric car and GM is leading the way.”

GM is pretty far back in the pack. I’d say a company with electric cars actually rolling down the freeway like Tesla is leading the way. Even Fisker is farther along. GM is struggling to jump on a late bandwagon as always.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 6:02 pm

This guy is full of crap. He should go work at EEStore.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 6:17 pm

@GXT 43
“The main problem with EREV is that it is too expensive. ”

I agree. Now if they can just knock off the ICE and Generator and just sell me the 40mile AER at $20K, i’m good with that. Cutting those out should reduce the weight by at least 500lbs and increase range logrithmically, small but I’ll take it.
I had to do the thing I hate most today, donate to the OPEC fund (buy gas). Now, If I can just get the Volt with no ICE or Generator.

(Quote)
Jeff Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 6:21 pm

Lyle…excellent question!.
Troy…poor answer.

(Quote)
chevonly Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 6:25 pm

Here we go again Girls, you all know so much about the car business its just amazing, I love the way Americans have become so stupid when it comes to cars, The Prius does more damage to the ecology than any other small car in the segment, the place in Canada where the nickel is mined is a poluted wasteland, and not only that you have to drive it for ever to get your initial investment back, the car handles like a whale out of water and it is the diffinition of UGLY. Japan is in just as much trouble as the U.S. when it comes to the economy President of Honda Mr. Fukui is pleading with the government to monky with the yen to devalue it, the U.S. may be toast but so are the Japaneese.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:03 pm

Instead of the GM vs. Toyota comparison, how about something a little more apples to apples?

In 2012, who will sell more hybrid cars in North America?

A. GM
or
B. Ford

In 2012, who will sell more cars with a plug in North America?

A. GM
or
B. Ford

In 2012, which of these two performance equivalent (I think) drivetrains will sell better in the Pickup/SUV category?
A. GM’s dual mode hybrid
or
B. Ford’s ecoboost w/ 6 speed tranny

If Mr. Clarke has anything to do with it, I’m thinking B on all three.

(Quote)
WTF? Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:06 pm

Are you all shitting me? What the hell is all this? These are some of the stupidest questions ever asked in an interview, and I mean every damned article I’ve read on here. This is just a bunch of guess work and innuendo by some dipshit with a website, and then more guess work by his minions about every dumbass question he asks.

(Quote)
Anthony BC Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:08 pm

GM doesn’t need a strong hybrid sedan, since that’s what Honda & Toyota do best! GM makes nice big trucks & soon 24 months from now, the VOLT!

The rest of their car line is selling just fine!

GO GM, GO EV Everyone!

(Quote)
Youda Farmer Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:09 pm

There are some real country dogs on this forum. At the same time you be praising GM you are quietly relieving yourself on them. A pissin’ and a moanin’ just like a junkyard dog.

(Quote)
Koz Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:15 pm

RB #62

Chrysler got a loan too. They did show some hyped EV’s but didn’t actually spend much in the process. I guess if this is what earned them the loan then they did it a lot more cost effectively than GM but I’m thinking both would have gotten it regardless. That’s not to say GM has gotten a lot of PR mileage out of the Volt and won some good will back.

All upset by the criticisms lodged in this thread. The majority of them are not against the Volt. Most here see the value in the Volt and want GM to build it successfully. The response from a high ranking GM exec just struck a cord with many as to why GM is in the position they are. His comments showed a lack of understanding of his audience, his product, and the marketplace. His casually claims ofreacting rapidly to the Prius market and touting the fuel cell development as something meaningfull are absurd. This does not speak his very valid and appropriate support for the Volt. IMO, he could have given a much more accurate and meaningful response.

I don’t know why it is assumed fact that hybrids are never worth the added cost. If you do a comprehensive retroactive cost comparison, I believe you will find that they have often turned out to be very cost effective (http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2176). It comes down to how comprehensive the comparison is and to what vehicle the hybrid is being compared. I believe many people have just accepted this as fact and cherry pick information to support their opinion. One comment from earlier today shows particularly how this bias or ignorance can be perpetuated. The comment was about how unvaluable GM’s BAS hybrid is since it only adds 1 mpg to the Malibu. While this is a fraction of the truth, the whole truth is that it adds 4mpg city (26 vs 22) to their most efficient ICE offering and 1 mpg hwy (34 vs 33). The difference in price between the MSRP of the Hybrid and the LT2 that gets this mileage is $850. I’m not the biggest fan of the BAS system but at least according the the EPA city cycle, it does show some value. Now to figure the true cost add you would have to compare the trim levels. Also, there is so much pooh-pooing of the 2-mode hybrid. The problem doesn’t seem to be the tech, as much as the application of it. GM didn’t committ to any resonably production numbers for it and they don’t offer it with any base models or the most practical models. Of course it is truely a $10K cost adder, then it is a difficult to justify the cost add. It seems like GM has treated more as a limited high-end option that they were trying to squeeze a premium for rather than a practical option for high mileage truck/SUV drivers. They could have and still can draw some significant benefit from the 2-mode system if they apply it better.

As to ceeding the low and small sedan market. GM is at a competitive disadvantage to much of their competition due to their legacy cost but they also had some advantages to work with (particularly in the US market). Additionally, they have always had the opportunity to innovate as well as improve quality. By and large they did too little of both. This is what makes the Volt even more important for them. There are some many areas to improve on and innovate with this new technology, that they can still compete even if their cost structure continues to be a disadvantage.

(Quote)
JEC Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:18 pm

#33 charlie h
Nice post!

(Quote)
JEC Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:20 pm

PDNFTT

They are out in bunches today….shessshhh

(Quote)
theflew Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:24 pm

Isn’t the Insight a mild hybrid like the Malibu? The difference is it’s a small car with a 98 HP Engine. It would be like putting the BAS+ from the Malibu in the Aveo. Maybe that’s what GM should do or the Cobalt. I don’t think the Insight can move on battery alone.

(Quote)
JEC Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:25 pm

Responses like Troy has given, just continue to feed into the belief that GM is to incompetent to win in a competitive market. GM wants that easy money, with big cars and trucks, stuffed with over priced options.

Sorry GM, those days are gone. So either figure a way out of this mess, or declare bankruptcy. My money is funding this garbage, and I have had about enough.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:32 pm

One more thing and I’ll get off this dog pile. To those wondering why the posts are so harsh today, you have to realize, when GM’s VP North America says:
_____________________________________________________
“Yes the Prius is a successful product, Honda’s back in the market with an Insight, that product I’m sure will do well also. Its been interesting to me though that hybrids sell directly proportional to fuel prices. Fuel prices are down and Prius sales are down 45%.
Again we don’t have a bias against it, its the kind of business we can get into.”
_____________________________________________________

He’s basically saying:

We at GM are not serious about fuel efficient vehicles, we still think strong hybrids (like the volt) are a “break glass in case of emergency” vehicle. We don’t think there’s an emergency. We don’t need to “get into” that business.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:41 pm

Summa yawll need to just take in a Beer and chill…

(Quote)
statik Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:45 pm

#82 Jim I

Or are you angry people just mad because the Steelers won???
===============================
I had Steelers to win, and not cover, but I was rooting for Arizona. Such is the conflict I seem to always find myself, lol.

/I’d just like to say that It is great to have all your friends owe you money.
//think of the pandemonium here if I had lost those bets

(Quote)
TxKen Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:47 pm

Weak…terrible spin…what else can I say about that response from GM? My one year old could make up a better story than Troy Clarke. Do everyone a favor and stop making crappy, overpriced, useless hybrids? Don’t get me wrong, I am a fan of GM, I’m just not a fan of this story, Troy Clarke, or the GM line of non-2mode hybrids.

(Quote)
Dan Petit Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:02 pm

The bottom line in owning a non-GM vehicle like this is that when it comes time to service it, you’d likely have fewer competitive choices, and end up crying in your beer when you get their quote/bill.
Dan Petit Austin, TX

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm

A co-worker just bought a brand new Suburban. I think he said it has a 28 gallon tank. And he paid more than what the Volt will sell for after tax credit.

Do people really think the price of gasoline will remain around $2.25 per gallon? Gas prices just inched up here in Santa Barbara. The corner Mobil is now at $2.59 for premium. Arco is still at $2.39.

=D~

(Quote)
redeye Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm

#74 &#76

Right on !
I’ve been wanting to say the same.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:32 pm

I think I’m over-analyzing the Troy Clarke photo that accompanies this post. To me, his body language says, “uncomfortable.”

(Quote)
JEC Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:36 pm

105 ThombDbhomb

I was thinking more defensive. Arms crossed and a look of “I cannot wait for this to be done”.

(Quote)
Dan Petit Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:01 pm

One of the reasons this set of posts is important is that it gets people to thinking about what they want. Reading what people have experienced and what they expect to be able to afford for their future transportation (and what it could cost to keep it on the road) is really important for me to read. (In fact, it’s my job sort-of).
It’s really sad when I see someone’s car have a problem that you know they will never be able to afford to fix. All that “great” technology and previous “value” just “blows away in the wind” and you never ever hear about it. (Do they hear about it in Japan? Would they listen in the first place had it not been for this site?)
One of the reasons I describe these things is in hopes that the same problems may be averted during these initial and critical times of design for new electric propulsion systems currently being perfected today. So, yes, it’s the right time for everyone’s commentaries, and they all represent valid concerns of one sort or another (expletives & all). I hope especially for GM’s competitors to thoroughly study these commentaries so that in the event that they “never heard of these sorts of concerns” about their products, that they will not as likely repeat their same design weaknesses. That’s mainly why I write these comments. You all don’t hear it and see it everyday. I do.
An yes, there is constant discussion and skepticism here in Austin (next door to EEStor in Cedar Park), about their Ultra Capacitor Storage claims. But no-one can afford to be *completely* without hope about it , I think. But they keep on working and working on it. (Hope doesn’t cost you anything).
Impatience often costs a lot. Not listening can cost you everything.
Dan Petit Austin TX

(Quote)
wirenutjd Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:38 pm

Do you really think that the prius and the volt are in competition? NOT. The prius at 25 grand or so and the volt at 35 grand after rebates put them in completely different classes. 10000 dollars of gas goes along way over the average life span of 5 years or so, don’t you think? And for the Honda Insight…it only gets worse for GM, Honda Insight at 19995 just about kills the volt…sales wise. The volt will have to come down to around 25K before it really makes an impact…sorry to say.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:41 pm

One of the reasons this set of posts is important is that it gets people to thinking about what they want.
_________________________________

That’s unfortunate, it should have been need.

GM’s business is structured around the production of about 8 million vehicles per year. Volt alone clearly won’t cut it. For that matter, neither will just EREV technology. The market is too diverse.

FULL hybrids will also be part of the product line.

And thinking its just a matter of waiting is financial suicide. FULL hybrids provide production of major components needed for the EREV vehicles. How many cells are in the pack is really the only battery difference. Electric motors can be the same… as well as electric steering, electric heating, and electric A/C. The only real difference is how power is transmitted and control logic.

Bailout part 2 (the March 31 deadline) is coming.

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:44 pm

Tough room.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:46 pm

john1701a Says: “How many cells are in the pack is really the only battery difference. Electric motors can be the same…”
————————————————————————————–
Wrong on both counts.

Battery in full hybrid uses charge sustaining chemistry. EREV uses charge depleating. Very different chemistry.

Electric motor in full hybrid is around 50hp and uses perminent magnets. Electric motor in EREV is 150hp and uses induction. Very different motor. Completely different control code.
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/?p=45

(Quote)
Speedy Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:54 pm

Last I checked gm wasn’t whating and has a BAS Plus 2 hybrid system, Two mode hybrid plug in system, Chevrolet cruze, spark and orland.

(Quote)
charlie h Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:24 pm

#88, Chevonly, “The Prius does more damage to the ecology than any other small car in the segment, the place in Canada where the nickel is mined is a poluted wasteland,…”

“The place in Canada” would be Sudbury and it was a polluted wasteland in the ’60’s from Nickel mining, 30 years before the introduction of the Prius. Nickel is a component of MANY steel alloys, especially stainless steels, and there’s probably nearly as much nickel in a Chevy as a Prius – the Prius just happens to have some in the battery.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:21 am

Wrong on both counts.
________________________

Whether or not the current configurations offer it doesn’t mean they can’t. Geez!

(Quote)
DonC Says:
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:34 am

One interesting point which shouldn’t be lost when questioning GM’s ability to manufacture a PHEV sedan is the fact that GM first showed a PHEV at the 1998 (yeah 1998 not 2008) Detroit Auto Show:

“The parallel hybrid variant featured a de-stroked 1.3 L turbocharged DTI diesel engine (Isuzu Circle L), delivering 75 hp, installed in the trunk along with an additional 6.5 hp DC motor/generator; the two motors drove the rear wheels through an electronically controlled transaxle. When combined with the AC induction motor which powered the front wheels, all three power units delivered a total output of 219 hp, accelerating the car to 0-60 mph (96.6 km/h) in 7 seconds. A single tank of diesel fuel could keep the car running for 550 miles with a fuel economy of 80 mpg.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1#EV1_series_hybrid

Along with a serial hybrid prototype which has similar specs to the Volt …

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:52 am

#115 DonC,

One interesting point which shouldn’t be lost when questioning GM’s ability to manufacture a PHEV sedan is the fact that GM first showed a PHEV at the 1998 (yeah 1998 not 2008) Detroit Auto Show:
____________________________________________________

You’re about 30 years off.

GM could have made a plug-in hybrid car 40 years ago
http://www.autobloggreen.com/tag/xp-883/

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:11 am

Carcus1 #116.

Thanks for that link.
I can’t help but wonder how far we would be now if GM had continued down that road.

(Quote)
RB Says:
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:29 am

#83 Dan Petit –> very interesting post on Prius electrical problems. Thanks!

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:11 am

Chavez doubts U.S. can shake oil needs
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/02/03/venezuela.chavez/index.html

(Quote)
RB Says:
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:12 am

#93 koz said
Chrysler got a loan too. They did show some hyped EV’s but didn’t actually spend much in the process. I guess if this is what earned them the loan then they did it a lot more cost effectively than GM but I’m thinking both would have gotten it regardless. That’s not to say GM has gotten a lot of PR mileage out of the Volt and won some good will back.
—————————————————-

Yes, I agree. I guess it is impossible to tease out how much of an effect was played by EVs or the Volt. Because the issue seemed to be a close call, I’m inclined to think that EVs (and the Volt in particular) made the difference (and Chrysler emphasized what they had done). Still, economic factors, especially UAW jobs, no doubt played the major role.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:26 am

Dave G #119,

Sadly, I believe he is right, at least for the short term.
We’ll have to see for the long term.
I doubt we’ll kick the habit before I retire in 2031.

(Quote)
Dale Says:
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:11 am

Prius sales are down because toyota could not make enough last year. They ran out

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:47 am

Prius sales are climbing up again.

11,379 for January 2009.

(Quote)
M1EK Says:
February 3rd, 2009 at 5:39 pm

It’s not surprising that GM is still throwing around FUD about hybrids.

It IS surprising that so many people here still fall for it.

The Prius has dropped pretty much in line with other cars — and GM would be thrilled if they had a new car model selling as well as it does (without resorting to fleet sales).

As for GM’s ability to make a profit on small cars – GMAFB. Their ’strategy’ right now is to decontent by a thousand or so to make a crappy Cobalt like the rental I’m driving right now, in an attempt to save a thousand bucks – but then they actually have to discount it by more like THREE thousand compared to their competition because the car is so lame. How on earth does that help? Gonna make it up in volume?

(Quote)
charlie h Says:
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:08 pm

#83, Dan Petit,

Truly an interesting post. Especially as Consumer Reports rates the Prius as highly reliable and TrueDelta.com does the same.

I have a lot of trust in both of those organizations.

(Quote)
Paul-R Says:
February 4th, 2009 at 4:03 pm

Those who disagree with Troy Clarke’s Prius comment seem to be missing his point. I think his point was that Prius sales are down quite a bit more than Toyota’s other (non hybrid) vehicles. That’s because hybrid vehicles make less economic sense when gas prices are cheap. My local Toyota dealer has nine Priusi sitting on their lot unsold.

I can also see why GM decided to focus on big hybrid vehicles … at the time they made that decision the small car hybrid market was already being dominated by Toyota. It’s much easier to be successful in a market with no competition.

Things I think GM needs to improve…

1) Offer a hybrid engine option across the line, without tying it to the most decked out and expensive version of each vehicle.

2) Reduce the number of engines being offered, and just sell the best ones. For example, the 260HP turbo 4banger in the Cobalt SS is awesome (powerful and efficient), but not offered in most of their product line.

3) Stop mentioning fuel cells to anyone until that technology approaches economic viability. Mentioning it just make GM look foolish.

(Quote)
M1EK Says:
February 4th, 2009 at 9:10 pm

Paul-R, nobody missed the “point”; it’s quite simply a lie – Prius sales are not disproportionately down.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
February 4th, 2009 at 10:20 pm

Those who disagree with Troy Clarke’s Prius comment seem to be missing his point. I think his point was that Prius sales are down quite a bit more than Toyota’s other (non hybrid) vehicles. That’s because hybrid vehicles make less economic sense when gas prices are cheap.
_____________________________

It has nothing to do with the new model just recently revealed?

Whatever. The spin is getting pretty transparent.

(Quote)
Paul-R Says:
February 5th, 2009 at 12:30 am

M1EK and John1701a,

Maybe you’d rather dispute these statistics from TreeHugger.com:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/12/car-sales-drop-prius-most.php

According to that TreeHugger article, US Prius sales dropped between Nov, 2007 and Nov, 2008 by over 48%, a bigger drop than any other vehicle. I don’t think the new 2010 Prius would impact that delta, since it’s not radically better than the current Prius.

Mr Clarke’s assertion that fuel prices directly affect buyer preference (hybrid vs non-hybrid, etc) seems logical to me, and TreeHugger’s stats seem to back up that assertion. I don’t see why you choose to disagree with it and insult Mr Clarke.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
February 5th, 2009 at 9:54 am

I don’t think the new 2010 Prius would impact that delta, since it’s not radically better than the current Prius.
_______________________________

Generation 2 of Volt will likely be portrayed the same way… nothing radical, just a wide array of moderate improvements.

I’ve seen the 2010 Prius. It most definitely fits that criteria, improving many features compared to my 2004 with 112,000 miles on it.

(Quote)
M1EK Says:
February 5th, 2009 at 12:05 pm

Paul-R, the Prius was down 28.6% in January 2009, which compared to the overall drop in car sales, is within a standard deviation – not a disproportionate drop. Exactly what I said. (Camry was down 34%; Corolla down 11% for comparison).

In January, the Prius was just outside the top 10 in vehicle sales. Again, without fleets, GM would be thrilled if they had a couple more car models (rather than truck) selling that well.

(Quote)
Paul-R Says:
February 5th, 2009 at 5:45 pm

M1EK, you seem to be cherry-picking statistics in order to support your point, and you haven’t yet explained November’s huge Prius drop.

Also, here is another article that seems to agree with Mr Clarke:

http://www.hybridcars.com/decision-process/toyota-gets-aggressive-prius-sales-25447.html

From that article…

“In the first half of 2008, the Toyota Prius was selling like hotcakes. But sales considerably cooled off as gas prices dropped in the last months of the year. As a result, Toyota is now offering tried-and-true dealer incentives, and customer perks, to stimulate sales. According to Automotive News, a trade publication, dealers will get a $750 “spiff” for every 2009 Prius they can sell. ”

I think those new incentives and spiffs artificially propped up the Prius for January 2009, bringing it inline with your statistics. Here are some additional January stats that I cherry-picked:

Camry down 34.2%. Camry-hybrid down 69.6%.
Civic down 32.4%. Civic-hybrid down 38.3%.
Escape/Mariner down 25.0%. Escape/Mariner-hybrid down 40.3%.

In short, you have a lot more stats to explain if you want me to agree with your allegation that Mr Clarke is a liar.

(Quote)
M1EK Says:
February 6th, 2009 at 12:05 pm

Paul-R, picking the most recent months’ data and comparing the Prius against the two cars closest to it in size is the exact opposite of cherry-picking.

A far more likely conclusion to draw is that cheap is selling better than expensive (with Camry down by much more than Corolla). Prius is expensive compared to Corolla. (This leaves Yaris as the outlier, but then again, it’s a piece of crap).

(Quote)
Michael Robinson Says:
February 12th, 2009 at 12:24 am

The Chevy Volt hydrogen is the future. Fuel cells are not fool
cells. First off, fuel cells are coming way down in price as the
expensive platinum catalyst will be replaced by carbon nanotubes.
Second, there are many safe ways to store hydrogen on a vehicle
in large quantities other than the current compressed gas tanks
which are safe. Third, all you need is water and aluminum or aluminum and hydrochloric acid to get hydrogen. There are other non electrolysis means of getting hydrogen as well that involve using bacteria.

Hydrogen is the best choice because water is the most abundant
resource on earth. As solar cells get better, electrolysis will
become more practical but so also will solar cracking of water.

Batteries have a problem, they take a long time to recharge and they wear out posing a pending environmental disaster when they are disposed of. Go to http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/ if you don’t believe in fuel cell cars and be amazed by what you see.
Fuel cells simply need to be supplied with hydrogen and they’ll
continue to crank out power. Current fuel cells that use platinum
have about a 50k mile lifespan, but that should get better. Keep
in mind that fuel cells have been getting smaller and more
powerful over time. A fuel cell stack that will run a car now is
about the size of mid tower ATX computer case.

Ethanol and biodiesel can be reformed to produce hydrogen
fairly efficiently.

I wish Oregon would get off the pot and build some hydrogen
fueling stations so that fuel cell vehicles can be tested here.

Lithium ION batteries can explode and one should realize that
the weight savings from using Lithium are lost when you build
a battery. A moderate size NiMH battery and a fuel cell make
more sense to me.

Apparently all the hydrogen that is needed for fuel cell vehicles
and half the power that the U.S. needs on a daily basis could
be supplied by Wind farms strategically placed in high wind
areas.

(Quote)

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009
November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]
srschrier
New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009
From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]
srschrier
Th!nk picks Indiana for U.S. factory November 18, 2009
Th!nk picks Indiana for U.S. factory: _Link_ (http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1038564_thnk-picks-indiana-for-u-s-factory) […]
Jason M. Hendler
FIRST ALL-ELECTRIC APTERA 2e PUSHED BACK TO 2010 November 18, 2009
FIRST ALL-ELECTRIC APTERA 2e PUSHED BACK TO 2010: _Link_... […]
Jason M. Hendler
Any news about the NiMH battery? November 18, 2009
Now that there are new owners of the patent, is there any indication that they will allow its use for electric cars? Like many others, I believe that... […]
Desertstraw
energy requirments of modern electric vehicles November 18, 2009
does anyone know any credible sources of information concerning the electricity requirements of modern electric vehicles per mile of travel and the... […]
crubkings
30% reduction November 18, 2009
The Belgian governement decided that if you buy a car with less then 60g/km emmision you get a 15% tax reduction and you can write it off for 100% if... […]
filiep

GM VP Troy Clarke on Why GM Doesn’t Have a Strong Hybrid Sedan

134 Responses to “GM VP Troy Clarke on Why GM Doesn’t Have a Strong Hybrid Sedan”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts