Grab our RSS Feed

AND

GM Considering Extended-Range Electric Pickup Truck

March 2nd, 2009 | Posted in: Engineering, Hybrid, Voltec

One of the things many people here have expressed interest in is the possible use of GM’s Voltec extended-range electric drivetrain in the form factor of a truck.

GM already has 2-mode hybrid pick-up trucks that achieve 25% better fuel efficiency than conventional models and offer considerable towing capability.

AutoBlogGreen published the account of an interviewer from PickupTrucks.com named Mike Levine who interviewed GM’s truck vehicle line executive, Gary White.

Levine was interested in how these GM trucks will evolve. The current 2-mode hybrid pickup truck offers about 6000 pounds of towing capacity. White noted that “we think we can raise towing by up to 50 percent more than today’s (hybrid) trucks. For us, it just makes sense that we want to improve the trailering capability. It’s one of the top reasons people buy a truck.”

Levine wondered how GM could improve future towing capacity to 9000 pounds and fuel efficiency at the same time. The answer…

“E-Flex is an option that’s on the table. I don’t know if the current system, the one that’s in (today’s) trucks, could evolve enough. One of the things you might consider is E-Flex,” said White.

The next generation GM hybrid pick-up trucks are expected to arrive in 2013.

(PickupTrucks.com) via (AutoBlogGreen)

Posted by: Lyle

83 Responses to “GM Considering Extended-Range Electric Pickup Truck”

koz Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:35 am

YES. I don’t know about 9000lb in 2013 but definitely do a 3000lb small pickup ASAP (2012)! Voltec II with 160KW traction motor or dual 110KW traction motors. They can work on a 9000lb Eflex in later generations.

(Quote)
Jim I Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:46 am

I would be more interested in a small E-REV CUV than a huge truck.

Even if it only had a 15 mile AER, it would work for the wife, and it would still almost never use any gasoline. Smaller battery pack equals lower upfront cost.

Or just finish the Saturn VUE PHEV and rebadge it as a Chevy or a Buick…. Maybe all the E-REV and PHEV’s should be Chevy to start. Make that the “green” division.

I don’t have actual numbers, but it would seem the sales of that type of vehicle would be huge compared to a truck with a 9K lb towing capacity.

But I still want the original Volt for my daily driver!

Go GM – Go GM Volt Team!

NPNS

(Quote)
Marcus R. (WL #5275) Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:47 am

I can certainly see the appeal, but I won’t be in line for one, unless its even smaller (read economical). Something around the S10 size.

(Quote)
nuclearboy Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:47 am

Sounds great but this is a complete non-story. Having E-Flex on the table is a no-brainer. Of course its on the table… along with 20 other things.

One of the things you might consider…. is E-Flex……

(Quote)
nuclearboy Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:48 am

PS.. I wonder how the Volt will do in the snow. It is coming down hard in the DC area today. I wonder if they have the option of positive traction.

(Quote)
Van Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:06 am

Years ago I drove a Ford pickup and towed a 9000 LB boat. The truck needed a little more power. So I bought a 1991 Chevy with the 7 liter V-8 and my power problems were solved. It got about 11 miles to the gallon. So you need about 220 hp and loads of torque to tow 9000 lbs in my opinion. So it seems post #1 had it right, a 160 KW motor that was robust enough could do the job. But it might need a “granny” gear to crawl up the boat ramp and pull a boat with a bilge full of water out of the water. And I expect the battery would need to be larger as well, perhaps 24 KWh.

(Quote)
AutoElectric Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:07 am

Come on Chrysler, make me a Jeep too!

(Quote)
Adam Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:37 am

Yea, the volt with low-resistance tires = not very good in snow. Remember how they make tires low-resistance? In short, they don’t have the same amount of contact patch as a normal tire, it’s about 1/2 the footprint. I suppose you could use chains though..

(Quote)
Anto Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:41 am

Maybe I am a pessimist but I believe GM should stop investing in any research and development other than the Volt. Whatever remaining funds GM has (if any) should be directed into the Volt. The Volt team should expedite the delivery date of the Volt not wait till Nov. 2010…GM as we know it may (probably) not be around.

(Quote)
RamZ Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:49 am

If GM can make a Voltec full size truck with 30-40 mile range work, I think that would sell like crazy and this would really put a dent in the CO2 emissions and our use of foreign oil.

The big trucks that have sold so well are what so many people really want to buy. I think most people on this site want a Volt style car but if you look at what half the drivers in the US have been buying and continue to want as soon as the price of gas slips a hair, its big trucks.

I need both. I have a short commute to work and the Volt is perfect for that. I also have a family and dog and Boy Scout troop to haul around with camping gear and there is nothing like a Suburban for this job. Contractors can’t get buy without their trucks. This is where the gas and emissions and really be cut.

(Quote)
Van Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:04 am

Off topic but Green Car has an article on the new Prius that has
several bits of new information. It will go on sale in May.

Here is the link: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/03/toyota-previews.html#more

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:37 am

I don’t need to tow anything.
I would like to have a regular sized 4×4 pickup truck for Home Depot and dump runs.

Voltec should be in all their vehicles.

(Quote)
BillR1 Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:45 am

I just look at the efficiency of a truck as consuming twice as much as the Volt. Therefore, with the Volt’s battery pack, you get 20 miles AER and 25 mpg thereafter with the range extender.

For a 40 mile commute, this still equates to an equivalent 50 mpg! Not bad for a full size truck/SUV.

Now, will there be a market for these vehicles with this type of mileage?

Seems to me that many households ideally would like to have a sedan like the Volt (or perhaps slightly larger that can carry 5 people) and a utility vehicle like a pickup or an SUV. Gives you the best of both worlds, a car for commuting or passenger trips, and a utility vehicle for 4×4 weather, trips to Home Depot, taking a group of 8 to Little League, etc.

(Quote)
Bearclaw Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:01 am

I vote for an electric El Camino. A small E-REV truck would be a huge seller.

(Quote)
CorvetteGuy Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:01 am

A small E-Rev pickup would be cool. It might even be the right vehicle to bring back the “El Camino” nameplate!

(Quote)
BillR1 Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:02 am

#9 Anto,

I understand what you are saying about GM concentrating on the Volt, but my guess is that at this time, the design of the Volt is mostly complete. Although some engineers are still focused on fine tuning and so forth, the real task ahead for the Volt is ramping up production. This is where the manufacturing people take over the project. So the designers and engineers need other products on which to focus.

In this scenario, the designers and engineers work on new upcoming projects year after year, while the manufacturing folks work on those completed projects that are passed to them. It is difficult to bring out a dozen new products in one year, and then go 4 years with no new ones (not to mention, it isn’t good marketing strategy).

GM knows that not everyone wants a smaller 4-passenger car like the Volt. So by leveraging their knowledge from the Volt, they can build other vehicles with Voltec technology that will use a lot of the parts and technology from the Volt.

As an example, a Voltec truck/SUV could use the same 111 kW drive as the Volt, only with one at each axle to provide more power and 4×4. The battery pack could be identical. The ICE would probably be larger than 1.4L, but could be another GM standard engine like the 2.4L with direct injection slated for next year’s Equinox. Obviously, GM already has truck bodies that could be modified to accept the Voltec system.

For efficiency, the battery would power the rear wheels, but for added power, the ICE could come on to the power the front wheels.

If GM has already received 40 battery packs, and will get another 200 or so this year, I would be surprised if GM doesn’t have a prototype truck already made with the Voltec system in testing.

(Quote)
Kingofl337 Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:05 am

Give me a something like the Subaru Baja with Voltec / 20miles AER and I’ll wait in line to buy one.

It’s too bad Subaru missed the boat on the Baja, I think they would be selling like hotcakes now.

(Quote)
Schmeltz Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:11 am

I think that applying Voltec to Pick-ups and SUV’s is a great idea, but will be too cost prohibitive until they can get the price of batteries down. I mean, people think the Volt is too expensive at $40,000, your’e probably looking at $55,000 for this configuration. A 2-mode hybrid is already at the doorstep of $50,000 already. If they could design and sell Voltec pick-up maxed out at $40-$45,000 in a healthy economy, I think then they could sell some of these. I like this idea, but they have to simply get the battery costs down though—that’s the key.

(Quote)
Adrian Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:13 am

since trucks are always the top selling vehicles, this a no brainer. GM must get volumes up on batteries to get prices lower and personal and business trucks are ‘holy grail’ to achieve this.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:16 am

Pick-up trucks are an important aspect to most consumers. Many of us on this site own at least one. I do. I would love to see the two-mode hybrid model evolve to increase towing and mileage. If not that, then add the Voltec system to them. Even if GM has to build a smaller pick-up truck (smaller than the current small Chevrolet and GMC trucks) to really get increased mileage, that would be OK with me. I know GM needs to provide towing capability for some buyers, but I suspect the majority of truck owners buy them for carrying occasional loads in the bed, not for towing large boats, etc.

(Quote)
Jeff Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:36 am

#9 Anto & #16 BillR1

I like “wide stories” of the future better vehicle as much as the next guy. GM needs to “put up” or “shut up”…they are just losing even more credibility on their hybrids. They have been promising hybrids for years…and the actual GM hybrid vehicles on the road are just insignificant to their publicity on the subject. In other words…if GM could sell their “talk” about hybrids, they would be able to loan the federal governement money to bailout the banking industry. Of course, I forget that the governement will buy anything…and they already have in this case.

Sorry to everyone…Ok…I’m off the soap box now. I’m just beginning to think that GM has lost focus on the Volt.

(Quote)
Dan Petit Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:38 am

Absolutely there ought to be an extended range GM pickup!!!
The half-ton pickup customer should be able to enjoy all of the benefits of the Voltec customer. In fact, it is possible that the Voltec technology applied on behalf of GM’s pickup customers may actually save *more* CO2 that in a Volt, (bragging rights included), because *more* work would be done electrically instead of with the ICE overall on short trips, of which there would be the overwhelming majority of short trips compared to towing.
So, yes, absolutely is this a great story and critically-important thing to do as well!!
Dan Petit Austin, TX.

(Quote)
TALLPALL Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:43 am

*** only 638 days to go ***

Voltec SUV / Trucks are definately a natural progression for GM.

Bare in mind that they will have to be Gen 2 or Gen 3. The battery packs will have moved on by that time. So if GM kept the packs the same size as the gen 1 Volt, they should be able to fit in an extra 8+ KWHs to 24+ KWHs, at no extra cost. That should help push it along.

(Quote)
Ray Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:51 am

The trouble with the trucks AND the Malibu Hybrid is that they are priced (at least up here in Central Alberta Canada) up to $8000 more over a similar non hybrid… You just cannot justify the extra cost with any fuel savings… I was tempted to get the Malibu Hybrid but I would have to hang onto the car for 8 years just to get to a break even point on the amount of fuel savingings that would be generated.

(Quote)
RdG Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:56 am

INTERESTING EMAIL IN MY INBOX THIS MORNING:

The President of GM sent out a letter to employees and some suppliers…… and one of them responded, sent a copy to his
mom, who in turn, asked him if she could circulate the letter……. very interesting……………………

Abridged letter from Troy Clarke, President of General Motors

Dear Employee,

Next week, Congress and the current Administration will determine whether to provide immediate support to the domestic auto industry to help it through one of the most difficult economic times in our nation’s history. Your elected officials must hear from all of us now on why this support is critical to our continuing the progress we began prior to the global financial crisis……………….

As an employee, you have a lot at stake and continue to be one of our most effective and passionate voices. I know GM can count on you to have your voice heard. Thank you for your urgent action and ongoing support.

Troy Clarke
President
General Motors North America

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here is a response from one supplier:

In response to your request to call legislators and ask for a bailout for the United States automakers please consider the following, and please also pass this on to Troy Clark, the president of General Motors North America for me.

You are both infected with the same entitlement mentality that has bred like cancerous germs in UAW halls for the last countless decades, and whose plague is now sweeping the nation, awaiting our new “messiah” to wave his magical wand and make all our problems go away, while at the same time allowing our once great nation to keep “living the dream”. The dream is over!

The dream that we can ignore the consumer for years while management myopically focuses on its personal rewards packages at the same time that our factories have been filled with the worlds most overpaid, arrogant, ignorant and laziest entitlement minded “laborers” without paying the price for these atrocities and that the masses still will line up to buy our products.

Don’t tell me I’m wrong. Don’t accuse me of not knowing of what I speak. I have called on Ford, GM, Chrysler, TRW, Delphi , Kelsey Hayes, American Axle and countless other automotive OEM’s and Tier ones for 3 decades now throughout the Midwest and what I’ve seen over the years in these union shops can only be described as disgusting.

Mr Clark, the president of General Motors, states: “There is widespread sentiment in this country, in our government, and especially in the media that the current crisis is completely the result of bad management. It is not.” You’re right – it’s not JUST management. How about the electricians who walk around the plants like lords in feudal times, making people wait on them for countless hours while they drag ass so they can come in on the weekend and make double and triple time for a job they easily could have done within their normal 40-hour week?

How about the line workers who threaten newbies with all kinds of scare tactics for putting out too many parts on a shift and for being too productive (mustn’t expose the lazy bums who have been getting overpaid for decades for their horrific underproduction, must we)? Do you really not know about this stuff?

How about this great sentiment abridged from Mr. Clarke’s sad plea: “Over the last few years,we have closed the quality and efficiency gaps with our competitors.” What the hell has Detroit been doing for the last 40 years?!? Did we really JUST wake up to the gaps in quality and efficiency between us and them? The K car vs. the Accord? The Pinto vs. the Civic? Do I need to go on?

We are living through the inevitable outcome of the actions of the United States auto industry for decades. Time to pay for your sins, Detroit ..

I attended an economic summit last week where a brilliant economist, Alan Beaulieu surprised the crowd when he said he would not have given the banks a penny of “bailout money”. Yes, he said, this would cause short term problems, but despite what people like George Bush and Troy Clark would have us believe, the sun would in fact rise the next day. And something else would happen. Where there had been greedy and sloppy banks new efficient ones would pop up. That is how a free market system works. It does work . . . .if we would let it work. But for some reason we are now deciding that the rest of the world is right and that capitalism doesn’t work – that we need the government to step in and “save us”.

Save us? Hell, we’re nationalizing. And unfortunately, too many of this once fine nation’s citizens don’t even have a clue that this is what’s really happening. But they sure can tell you the stats on their favorite sports teams. Yeah – THAT’S important. Does it occur to ANYONE that the “competition” has been producing vehicles, EXTREMELY PROFITABLY, for decades now in this country?…. How can that be???

Let’s see:
* Fuel efficient
* Listening to customers
* Investing in the proper tooling and automation for the long haul
* Not being too complacent or arrogant to listen to Dr W Edwards Deming four decades ago
* Ever increased productivity through quality, lean and six sigma plans
* Treating vendors like strategic partners, rather than like “the enemy”
* Efficient front and back offices
* Non-union environment.

Again, I could go on and on but I really wouldn’t be telling anyone anything they really don’t already know in their hearts.

I have six children, so I am not unfamiliar with the concept of wanting someone to bail you out of a mess that you have gotten yourself into – my children do this on a weekly, if not daily basis, as I did at their age. I do for them what my parents did for me (one of their greatest gifts, by the way) – I make them stand on their own two feet and accept the consequences of their actions and work them through. Radical concept, huh. Am I there for them in the wings? Of course – but only until such time as they need to be fully on their own as
adults.

I don’t want to oversimplify a complex situation, but there certainly are unmistakable parallels here between the proper role of parenting and government. Detroit and the United States need to pay for their sins. Bad news people – it’s coming whether we like it or not. The newly elected Messiah really doesn’t have a magic wand big enough to “make it all go away”. I laughed as I heard Obama “reeling it back in” almost immediately after the vote count was tallied. “We might not do it in a year or in four.” Where was that kind of talk when he was RUNNING for the office. Stop trying to put off the inevitable.

That house in Florida isn’t worth $750,000.

People who jump across a border really don’t deserve free health care and welfare benefits.

That job driving a forklift for the big 3 really isn’t worth $85,000 a year.

We really shouldn’t allow Wal-Mart to stock their shelves with products acquired from a country that unfairly manipulates their currency and has the most atrocious human rights infractions on the face of the globe.

That couple whose combined annual income is less than $50,000 really shouldn’t be living in that $485,000 home.

Let the market correct itself people – it will. Yes it will be painful, but it’s gonna be painful either way. And the bright side of my proposal is that on the other side of it is a nation that appreciates what it has, doesn’t live beyond its means, gets back to basics, and redevelops the work ethic that made it the greatest nation in the history of the world, and probably turns back to God.

Sorry – don’t cut my head off. I’m just the messenger sharing with you the “bad news”.

Gregory J Knox
President
Knox Machinery, Inc.
Franklin , Ohio 45005

Doug McGlashing
Sales Representative
Weatherford Open Hole Division
Office: 693-7665
Cell: 620-1542
email doug.mcglashing@ca.weatherford.com

(Quote)
Maynard Keenan Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:58 am

Energy efficiency is the future topic. Future electric cars have to be lighter and smaller, like the Aptera (www.aptera.com) or the Loremo (www.loremo.com).

Trying to reduce the consumption of such monsters seems very odd to me. Maybe that’s an American fetish (mine’s bigger), but you can’t see such monsters anywhere in Europe or Asia…

(Quote)
CorvetteGuy Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:22 am

Mr. Knox is right. The problem now is that Obama has already pushed the flush handle on the American Economy with 3-Trillion in toilet paper.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:33 am

RdG #25

Very interesting indeed.

Hard to argue with that.
I would add this though. I don’t think it really matters if Obama or McCain became President. I think both would have done the same thing.
There was a lot of pressure to do “something”. And for the government, doing “something” means spending money.

(Quote)
RB Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:36 am

I have a wonderful regular size Silverado pickup that I use frequently. I would love to be able to replace it with a Voltec version. Please make me one. Here we are talking about real gas savings.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:37 am

I’m “considering” winning the lottery next month……

(Quote)
Starcast Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:37 am

A full size truck would be a huge seller likely far out selling the Volt. What were the 2 top selling Vehicles in 2008?????? Fullsize PUs.

This would be building the Vehicles Americans want!!!!!!!!!!!

The market for this would not only be everyday people. (many of us like to drive PUs) but all of us who tow a boat or snowmobiles and of course Business would what them too.

A small pu would be nice but a fullsize would be great. And $40,000+ would not be a problem.

(Quote)
Tim Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:41 am

RdG (#25)

TRUTH hurts, but we all need to hear it over and over again.

Socialism/corporatism always leads to tyranny and economic failure because it runs contrary to the NATURAL law that competition in a free and diverse system produces ever-improving, stronger life forms and a stronger system over all.

Taking from the strong and giving to the weak, weakens the entire ecosystem and is as bad as allowing monopolies to form. Monopolies in natural system ultimately self-check and die due to diminished resources, but monopolies in an economic system must be checked by gov’t as one of its few responsibilities which include maintaining sound money, the rule of law and national defense for the common welfare (not empire or nation building which wastes resources).

It’s interesting to note that those same liberals who believe in Darwinism won’t allow it to exist in economics. John Maynard Keynes was a communist tool of the New World Order as are those Statist “economists” who follow his central planning foolishness!

GM, the banks and others who mishandled their business should have been allow to fail to make room for others to buy-up their assets and produce a business model and products that WORK.

One can tell from GM making 2 Volts that allowing them access to taxpayer money has allowed them to keep their arrogance from top to bottom. Failure produces humility and introspection and THESE are what GM’s employees need most of all.

(Quote)
Luke Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:41 am

I’d love to replace my Ford Ranger with a comparable EREV vehicle. I’m not interested in a full-size truck — it wouldn’t fit in my driveway, my garage, or my budget.

A station wagon or CUV that can haul a 4′x8′ sheet of plywood without scuffing up the interior (or tow a 4′x8′ utility trailer) would meet my needs, too. An EREV Subaru Legacy would really work for me.

The existing GM hybrid Tahoe / pickup are way too big and too expensive for my needs. I’m a homeowner who does a little woodworking — I’m neither a contractor nor a horse/boating/RV enthusiast. I can’t see needing more than a 2500lb towing capacity for my own needs.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:44 am

#3 Marcus:

My sentiments exactly.

#14 Bearclaw & #15 CorvetteGuy:

Great idea!

(Quote)
Brian Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:46 am

A simple 4 door sedan is 40k, I can’t even imagine how much the truck would be with optional 4×4. Insane cost. I’ll pass on both actually as the cost is just too much.

(Quote)
StevePA Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:53 am

Back to the extended range pickup with 50% more towing capacity…

IMO – If GM survives long enough to produce them, and by then costs (batteries, software controllers, etc) have come down, there could be a market for them. Recently relocated from midatlantic region to central / southeast region. Gents do like their trucks down here, and they like their trucks to work. Almost none of the small / compact truck variety – all 4wd, many extended cab, lots of “doolies” and diesels, heavy duty tow packages, trailering everything from steel to horses to cars to construction and landscape equipment. Find a way to effectively “erev” those vehicles and market it right (”green” – perhaps not; save gas and pull stumps with the torque – yes), should sell bunches.

(Quote)
Luke Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:02 pm

Adam @ 8,

Yea, the volt with low-resistance tires = not very good in snow. Remember how they make tires low-resistance? In short, they don’t have the same amount of contact patch as a normal tire, it’s about 1/2 the footprint. I suppose you could use chains though..

I follow your reasoning, but I don’t think the tire is the main factor.

My girlfriend’s Prius is a wonderful snow car — just so long as it has the ground clearance for that day’s snow, anyway. Part of is that it acts like it has a limited-slip differential and it certainly has some sort of traction-control system / ABS. But, I think the biggest reason is that it has a continuously variable transmission — it never jerks the wheels. Even the best automatics that I’ve driven jerk the wheels a little when they shift, and no matter how gingerly I handle the clutch in the manual, I still slip it some of the time… But the Prius’s system can absorb more idiotic snow-driving than the other vehicles I’ve driven regularly (Honda Accord, Ford Tempo, Ford Ranger, VW Jetta TDI).

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:05 pm

In regards to a Voltec truck, I think I’ve suggested this before; but …

2-mode drives the rear wheels (most important for towing). An EREV system drives the front wheels (which do most of the braking, and therefore get most of the regeneration). The 2-mode engine is also the range extender.

Most trucks just carry the driver back and forth to work except on rare occasions that towing or hauling is needed. Under most circumstances, the front-wheel drive EREV is enough. When the bed is loaded and/or the truck is towing, the 2-mode takes over. The battery pack could be split into two banks in order to allow the rear propshaft access to the back wheels.

An admittedly complex control system (which you would need anyway), could use some combination of drives off-road and in snowy weather.

Oh, and don’t hold your breath; no EREV or EREV-assisted 2-mode will hit the market until battery costs drop with volume, as others have said.

None of it happens if GM folds.

(Quote)
bbm Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:10 pm

I’ve said this before, but we need a Minivan!

So much more useful than an SUV.

(Quote)
Luke Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:26 pm

Tim @ 32,

Socialism/corporatism always leads to tyranny and economic failure because it runs contrary to the NATURAL law that competition in a free and diverse system produces ever-improving, stronger life forms and a stronger system over all.

I used to have the opinion that you have, but I only held that opinion while I was working in a small business and while everyone that I knew was either involved in small-business or local government. It was a workable philosophy in the isolated community that I lived in at that time, and it’s given me what is likely a lifelong appreciation for the libertarian way of life.

Then I went to college, and I’ve been making my living by supporting university scientists ever-since — using the same computer-skills that I learned in the free-market small-business where I grew up. My salary is paid by taxes, and my work supports the technological leadership that this country has historically had. Things look a lot different from my perspective here — investing in infrastructure (physical, scientific, and other kinds) seem like a good idea that will pay off for the citizens of this country — it looks like a win for all.

How well would your business function without roads and schools? Do you want to pay a toll at every intersection — surely that would impede your daily business? And not being able to find employees with basic literacy and numeracy probably means that you personally have to train them to have those skills — it would be much easier to hire graduates of a government-run school. And that government-run school also provides class mobility (based on ability), so that the child of the poorest person can (if they have the ability) grow up to be a leader of some kind, or so that the child of the richest person may end up mopping the floor of a McDonalds. Or, for my industry (big science), it seems like it would be better for us produce new knowledge (say, a guide on how to build houses that require less heat to stay comfortable) for everyone to use as they compete in the free market. (Though we’re still working on getting that knowledge out to the public — http://www.plos.org is a start.)

Anyway, having been a libertarian and now having a wider perspective, I do think it makes sense to invest in the public good — and, if a possible answer to the current economic clusterf*ck is to invest in the public good, than I’m cool with that.

Disclaimer: Yes, investing in science does mean I get to keep my job. Make of that what you will — but my skills are useful in private industry, too. Science is just more fun!

(Quote)
unni Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:47 pm

I am looking for Dave G comment :

I think nobody is sure on the extended range, If its for Volt 120 mpg ( thatz – no battery only an ultra capacitor as a buffer for eletric charge and no plug ). If the above config make sense them i think they should be able push a truck.

If this technology is less energy efficient then no other way. The trains go for this technology for less complexity on transmission ,high torque etc.

All questions are on extended range efficiency and range .

CUV – i still vote for the flextreme ( it can go for a 4×4 config )

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:00 pm

Luke #40 says,

Science is just more fun!

———
Being a strong believer in science, I agree with you 100%

(Quote)
Laura Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:49 pm

Tim @ 32

I was an econ major, and I couldn’t disagree more. Economic Darwinism doesn’t take into account numerous “market failures.”

Take gasoline as an example. The price of taking oil from the ground, and refining it into gasoline does not reflect the true price to society. There are many other costs like air pollution, global warming, the effect on national security, etc. That’s why the government should intervene and put a tax on it.

On the other hand, free trade and comparative advantage sound great in a text book. But not everyone plays by the rules. Intellectual property must be protected if we are going to have innovation. Individual companies cannot compete with a government.

Yes, the big three managements made significant mistakes. But the US gov’t played a huge role in their downfall. And once the big three management woke up, it became impossible to overcome the US gov’t intervention to adapt.

But fault isn’t the point. The point is our economy needs Detroit. GM alone is largest private consumer of information technology in the US. The Detriot three are important customers for AT&T, Microsoft, Oracle, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, etc. Toyota, Honda, and Nissan buy their information technology from Japan.

Also, we already have a huge trade deficit. The 2008 trade deficit was 677 billion (it’s actually down 3.3. percent from last year). If GM, Ford and Chrysler were to liquidate, that would jump dramatically. We can’t let that happen.

The start up costs are too high, and there’s too much competition to expect a new American automobile industry to develop. I’m rooting for Tesla, but the odds are against them. Their best chance is if they buy certain Chrysler assets when Chrysler liquidates (which I think is inevitable). The Japanese government kept out the foreign competition, and subsidized Toyota for over 20 years before Toyota even tried to sell cars in the US. South Korea did something similar. Do you really see the US government doing that?

I do think that this point, they need to let AIG liquidate. They’ve bailed out it’s trading partners enough. And someone will buy the other still profitable businesses. And I think the market has had time to adapt to the nationalization of Citibank. As long as the depositors are protected, I think it will be fine. But investing in GM and Ford is an investment in the future of the American economy, and, honestly, I don’t think we do enough of that.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:02 pm

#25 RdG

That was a great read. It should be sent to every member of congress. But, those butt holes wouldn’t know how to understand it anyway. If I had read this last fall, I would be totally against any bail-outs – including GM’s. I still am as far as the banks are concerned. Now they are talking about bailing out casinos in Nevada. Of course, that makes sense – Dingy Harry is from there. You know, the idiot that go the maglev train from L.A. to La Vegas in the pork bill congress passed with 3 republican senate votes. How shameful can it be.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:15 pm

E-FLEX for a pickup will need a much larger battery pack than is in the Volt. That sill take a few generations to get the cost down. You’d also think a PHEV system would work better than a serial system since with the PHEV you’d have two drive trains and two propulsion systems working together to get more power.

Luke & Tim: On the one side of the argument we have the Nobel Prize winners in economics and on the other side we have …. you. If you needed surgery, would you want a world renown surgeon or yourselves performing the surgery? Just curious.

#43 Laura — AIG can’t liquidate because there aren’t buyers for the assets. It could just default — a la Lehman — but that would just bring down many more financial institutions.

Keep in mind that there is a reason we don’t allow banks to go bankrupt. We take them over, sell the good assets, and eat the losses on the bad ones. The problem with AIG is that it’s so large there aren’t buyers for the good assets and the losses on the bad assets would be very high given the current market conditions.

(Quote)
Laura Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:26 pm

#45 DonC

I agree that we can’t let Citibank just go bankrupt, but I do think we should the same thing with them we did with Indybank–let the FDIC seize the assets, and auction them off.

If there are no other buyers for AIG, then we should do the same thing with them. If there are no buyers for their assets? Then do the same thing we did with Washington Mutual–provide government guarantees to help along the sale.

(Quote)
ccombs Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:34 pm

I would love to see something around the size of an S10… especially because it will be awesome for such a small car to have as much or more low-end torque as a big V8 truck. If you’ve ever seen the miniature trucks that pull huge airplanes, they are electric for a reason. That said, it will be hard to get Voltec in a big truck at this point.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:52 pm

#43 Laura

I agree with most of what you said. I especially agree about AIG. I think we should let all the banks fail that are floundering at this point. Let better managed banks pick up the pieces. We are building a banking system that is totally dependent on government bailouts every 10 years of so. We need to flush some of the managers, bad banking practices and regulations down the drain and start over.

As far as GM, Ford and Chrysler are concerned, I agree again. GM and Ford will remain a big asset to our country, if we can turn them around. Chrysler has been bailed-out once and bought once by a foreign company. Unless the auto market quickly rebounds, the best hope for them is for someone to pick up the pieces and build from that. Tesla would be an iffy potential buyer, in my opinion. We all hope Tesla continues to grow, but it is very difficult to go from a “niche” car maker to a national car manufacturer. Maybe with the right investments and management they could do it. I just don’t know.

On a side note. Laura was my mother’s name. Bless her heart. She was a wonderful woman and I have always had a soft spot in my heart for anyone named Laura. I miss her very much. Thanks for commenting on this site. It is nice to see the name every now and then.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:58 pm

Trucks are such an essential necessity in today’s world that it will only be a short time before one gets introduced with Voltec type of technology. There are plenty of Ford Rangers and other trucks that have been successfully converted to electric only. There is more than enough room under the hood and under the truck for all the necessary equipment to do a Voltec drive train. Cost is the biggest stumbling block because of the battery. That will come down one day and we will get our EREV trucks (ERET).

(Quote)
D. Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:09 pm

I’m kinda fond of the idea of truck rental By the hour-day-week. this kind of economy and utility seems the way to go if i’m truly concerned about shrinking my carbon footprint. – NO more cruzin’ the drag in the big honking 6 -passerger boat, wastin’ gas. truck is not a babe magnet, it’s there to do a job, then returned expeditiously! – And this imagined rental should be from a non-profit agency perhaps organized by the community. somehow I think if the community gets involved in a project for the common good, rentals would be more affordable. 100 bucks to haul a piece of plywood won’t cut it. So in conclusion, GM should not set it’s sights on selling large numbers of 6-passenger behemoths. (Just a few in the niche market.) Not gonna happen in the brave new world.. Maynard,# 26 above, has it right. Think Aptera, think Loremo(high-mileage ice). If you have a really big family, think Volt… NPNS

(Quote)
stas peterson Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:15 pm

The EREV with its present cost of batteries is just a bridge too far for the big PU application. We will need parallel-series systems for another decade or more in these vehicles.

Big towing is what diesels engines are designed to do. It has taken a while in designing clean diesels but they are here now. Just spread the use of them. Here is another example of where a merger of Chrysler into GM would be useful.

GM has halted the design of Duramax clean diesels for lack of money. But Chryler had contracted a brand new factories output of Cummins clean diesels, more than enough to power its own trucks. Those Cummins diesels could provide the towing and fuel economy, capacity for the GM big rigs too.

The dual mode GM PUs need a smaller more fuel efficient engine, rather than a larger one. That would be clear as soon as they abandoned the dual hybrids being an across the board answer, for every need. The solution is clean diesels for towing buyers, and more fuel economy for the vast majority of general use PU buyers.

Don’t forget the “full size” PU is MUCH BIGGER and more capable than it used to be. In fact it is as as capable as old flat bed trucks only a generation ago.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:46 pm

If actual use and need was taken in consideration with pickup trucks, about 60% of full sized trucks could be changed over to smaller more efficient trucks. Problem is at this point in time, the smaller trucks are no more fuel efficient than the larger trucks. Trucks need to be smaller and more efficient. There is not any real need for most of the large trucks on the highways today. The vast majority of them could be smaller and more efficient trucks, if they were available. Sure, you need that large V-8 powered big rig for large towing and hauling jobs, but just how often do we do that?

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:52 pm

Back in the mid ’90s I owned a full sized Chevy truck and it was great. In 2000 I purchased a Nissan Frontier Crew-Cab truck (which I still have) and it meets most every need I have. I have not missed the full-sized truck at all. I did shop for a small Chevy and Ford truck, but could not find one that was priced right for me and offered what the Nissan Frontier Crew-Cab did for the money. I would just love to see GM and Ford beat Toyota and Nissan at the small pickup truck business. Plus now you have Honda competing in this market with a very fine truck with a lot of features. Expensive though, but aren’t they all? Too expensive, if you ask me for small trucks.

(Quote)
BDP Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:54 pm

100 MPG Watch the video…

http://www.rasertech.com/media/movies/html/fev_jan09.html

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:06 pm

Interesting link, BDP. Thanks for it. I took a look at it even though I had seen it before. You would think GM and/or Ford would be sleeping in Raser’s lab to stay up on what is happening. I could see Raser licensing this technology to either or both of them. I am ready to see some action on the truck front.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:30 pm

4 cylinder diesel turbocharged in a 1/2 ton pickup. Should average mid 20’s on mpg and price. Not overloaded with hp but enough torque to get the job done. How hard is that?

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:44 pm

Given the high torque at all speeds, this makes a lot of sense. I suspect this would be a better application for a plug-in fuel cell vehicle. In 2013, they already expect the battery pack to be 1/2 the size, so it may be ready for a pick-up application by then.

(Quote)
statik Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:48 pm

An limited electric propulsionsion application for any of your more common ‘land whales’ would be a great thing. Even if that means just the basic 16 kWh pack that giving out 15-20 miles of EV range, seems like a easy call.

As always the issue is price. However, it is a lot easier to hide 10-15K of ‘Voltec’ in a $35,000 truck, rather than a $17,000 Cruze. It is also a lot easier to do ‘hybrid math’ off of 15MPG rather than 50MPG….or advertising it doing the ‘around town’ jobs without using gas at all.

As for using the electric application to increase towing capacity…meh. I don’t know if that is a selling feature or not, it certainly is not a market I have ever been in. Is a guy that is towing 9,000lbs really all that concerned about his gas mileage over a limited range? I’m thinking probably not…but again, I have no solid basis for my opinion…just my 2p.

(Quote)
Jake Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:03 pm

I agree completely with Anto’s post # 9

“Maybe I am a pessimist but I believe GM should stop investing in any research and development other than the Volt. Whatever remaining funds GM has (if any) should be directed into the Volt. The Volt team should expedite the delivery date of the Volt not wait till Nov. 2010…GM as we know it may (probably) not be around.”

GM sounds like a child with ADD (no offense to any parents out there) pick a task/goal ie the Volt, complete it, sell the damn thing, move on to task/goal # 2. GM does not have the luxury of multi tasking, the only thing they can multi task on is begging for a bail out and hyping the Volt.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:06 pm

I have been wrong before, but I don’t see electric drive trains taking over the towing done by full-sized trucks any time soon. Maybe in a decade or two. But, after saying that, I don’t see why smaller trucks that don’t need towing capability could not be done with a Voltec drive train. Something on the order of GM’s small truck line-up or even smaller. These trucks could replace 50 to 60% of the pickup trucks on the road today. Most of the full-sized trucks are used for commuting to and from work and short haul jobs to and from work sites. I could see a future where a small Voltec truck, a two-mode truck and a full-sized truck with a big V8 gas/diesel engine would be in use. Given time and battery advancements all but the big towing trucks could be electric driven within a decade or so. IMO.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:13 pm

#59 Jake

Saying GM should only concentrate on one thing is asking them to be left behind as other companies are moving new products through the development and production cycle. You have got to “mult-task” if you want to survive. Just because GM is focusing some design time on the future cars and trucks does not mean the Volt is being left behind. These design teams are finished with the Volt and need other work to stay ahead of the production people. Otherwise you have an elastic band approach to manufacturing vehicles. One time you are stretched out design, developing and producing and other times the band contracts and slaps you in the face because you don’t have any activity going on to keep it stretched out. You just can’t operate in the manner you want them to do. Lurching and lurching from job to job trying to catch up with the competition. And you better believe the competition is not going to sit around and wait until GM is ready to start a new design, development and production cycle. That is a fast track to the dust bin of history for any company.

(Quote)
Fahrvergnugen Fanboy Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:14 pm

On a lot of job sites, an electrified truck could either supply electricity if there isn’t any, or recharge if there is electricity available. An electrified truck makes a lot of sense.

(Quote)
Timaaayyy! Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:22 pm

Voltec in a non-car is a WAY better mkt for GM than Volt’s, and is perhaps one of the best or only ways for GM to survive as a big company, even post-prepak bk.

Big demand.
Small supply.

Timaaayyy say duhhh!

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:28 pm

The truck market in North America is huge. Whatever company is able to address fuel efficiency and power in this market will have a huge impact. GM and Ford controls the truck market. Maybe they will address this new market in better ways than they have in the past. GM’s two-mode hybrid, while a good start, is just too expensive and still needs to improve mileage even more to make a real dent. The biggest problem with two-mode is strictly cost. If that hurdle were removed, efficiency of 25% improvement in fuel economy would look really good to most buyers. But can GM get the cost down to where it is the same or very little more than a conventional truck? How about it GM? Are you up to the task?

(Quote)
StevePA Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:30 pm

Laura #43

My thoughts as well, but more reasoned and reasonable.

(Quote)
Ron Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:30 pm

I love the Volt concept for simple personal transport, but there is no way it could ever be everything to everybody. We still need big vehicles to get the grunt work done. For that reason, when I bought my 3/4 ton pickup I paid about an 8K premium to get the diesel torque for pulling trailers. Diesels get better mileage, but I will NEVER get that money back in fuel savings. Period. I’ve done the math every way possible and it just can’t be justified by counting beans. I bought it because I wanted more torque and because I could afford it. Perhaps that’s a bit snobish, but I have the money and don’t mind paying for something that’s clearly better even if it isn’t really “needed” to fill the minimum requirement. It also gave me an excuse to start making my own biodiesel.

If I could pay an 8-10K premium to get electric torque (which should put diesel to shame…) with an almost guaranteed payback in fuel costs it would be very hard to stay out of my local Chevy dealer’s showroom!

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:34 pm

#66 Ron

If Raser’s electric truck technology gets picked up by Chevrolet or Ford, you may get what you want. I don’t know if Raser is planning on producing trucks themselves or licensing out the technology. But from what they show on their web-site, it looks promising.

Thanks to #54 BDP for the link:

http://www.rasertech.com/media/movies/html/fev_jan09.html

(Quote)
Timaaayyy! Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:35 pm

Timaaayyy’s solution for electric truck affordability: downsize!

http://www.ikoneng.com/photos/fire_engine_xl.jpg

Timaaayyy!!!

(Quote)
noel park Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:22 pm

#43 & #46 Laura:

Right. When banks become insolvent, a la Indybank, the FDIC takes them over and liquidates them. They’ve done it for years, numerous times during the current unpleasantness

Somehow, when the banks are as big as Citi or B of A, it becomes “nationalization”. IMHO, someone has just conjured up “nationalization” as a loaded, pejorative, spin word to discredit whoever has the courage to do what needs to be done.

It looks to me like the either the FDIC doesn’t have the resources to handle Citi or B of A (I notice that they are raising fees to the surviving banks), or the Feds are just terrified of the psychological/political fallout if they have to take over one of these giants. So it looks like they are doing it by the death of 1000 cuts, all at the cost, or at least the risk, of us.

Some NPR commentator said today that the USG now owns 80% of AIG. What a warm fuzzy feeling.

# 52 & 53 N Riley:

Amen on the small trucks. We have a 2000 S-10 for everyday business errands and commuting, and a 3500 to tow our trailers. We have had the 3500 four years, and it is just about to turn over 30K miles. We have had the S-10 nine years, and it has gone 220K miles. So you can see our priorities. I realize that not everybody can do this, but it we use the trucks enough that we can live with it.

Somebody was talking earlier about renting bigger trucks. If I had it to do over, I think that I might do that and not even buy the 3500. It really does the job, though, and makes the trips a LOT nicer.

The S-10 won’t last forever, I guess. The Colorado is just too big, IMHO. The Honda Ridgeline is built on an Accord platform, as I understand it. Sort of a “crossover”. So, how about a Volt based Ridgeline style “pickup”? Isn’t Toyota going to do that with the Prius?

BTW, wasn’t it the Great Lutz who said that the EREV concept wouldn’t work for full sized pickups/SUVs? “EREV for cars and dual mode for trucks.”, or something like that.

(Quote)
LauraM (formerly just Laura) Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:50 pm

#48 N Riley

Thank you for welcoming me to the site. I’m so sorry about your mother. I know how devastated I’d be if anything happened to either of my parents.

I think you’re right about Tesla, and the difficulty of becoming a mainstream automaker. That’s why I think the US government should save GM and Ford. The thing is, Chrysler is a mainstream automaker without any interesting cars. Tesla has interesting cars, but isn’t a mainstream automaker. If they could link the two without being bogged down by Chrysler’s debts, legacy costs, union contracts, dealership contracts, or perception problems then it could solve a lot of problems. Including producing an affordable electric car sometime in the near future. I would assume if this were to happen, it would be the result of a ch.7 liquidation. But I don’t know enough about the auto industry to know if it’s at all workable.

By the way, I just noticed that someone else named Laura also posts to this site. So, I’m changing to LauraM.

(Quote)
Jake Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:08 pm

Am I the only one that gets a bad taste in my mouth from the “response letter” in post #25? Does anyone else think that a huge rambling rant full of words like “ass” and “cancerous germs” is not a very likely format for a FORMAL letter to the president of GM from a reputable supplier? I’d love to be wrong, but this is the internet we’re talking about here.

How can anyone complain that GM has plans for other electric/hybrid vehicles besides the Volt? Since when do car companies abandon existing programs and focus on just ONE vehicle? Things have to be researched and planned well ahead of time. I am glad that GM is thinking of having a wide portfolio of fuel-efficient vehicles. The Volt cannot save GM on its own, period.

By the way, I’m not the “Jake” from post 59 above.

(Quote)
koz Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:58 pm

Van #11

Great find! There are some interesting details there. I wonder if the Prius III 50mpg is in normal, sport, or econo mode? Also, the little subtleties show why the Voltec approach is a better move toward electricfication of automotive transportation. Not to diminish the Prius’ success, which is undeniable, but it does not lend itself as well to affordable mainstream electrification. The next gen prius has upsized the ICE to 1.8 liters. This is to offset inefficiencies in the low end torque of the smaller engine. It also adds some power to the power starved car. So, they have to add a more expensive and larger engine to obtain efficiency. That’s ironic. How does this affect the ability to make a more affordable and efficient PHEV? Negatively. The Prius technology is great for HEV but only suited for very short range PHEV. It is also not well suited to take great advantage of battery improvements and doesn’t decouple the ICE from the immediate/transient power demands of the car. These two parameters are what could motivate the accelerated developments of the technologies the will bring electrification to the mainstream. The Volt isn’t a great development because it is itself a fantastic value proposition (not that I think it is terrible either), but rather because of the path it puts the technology on. Simply put, it greatly rewards developments becuase of its ability to implement them.

Prius IV and Voltec 2 will cross paths in value and not meet again unless Toyota decouples the ICE from mechanical propulsion.

(Quote)
Van Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:22 pm

Hi Koz, in a few months, well about 9 months, the lithium plug in Prius will begin testing with fleet sales. Then we will be able to revisit your hypothesis that the Prius design is not well suited to take advantage of battery improvements such as lithium chemistry. Time will tell.

(Quote)
koz Says:
March 3rd, 2009 at 7:50 am

Van,

Don’t get me wrong. The Prius, or I should say HSG, is better suited than any other technology in mass production today. 10 miles AER and under will work OK with today’s batteries. Actually, I think it would work better for the Highlander and Lexus SUV rather than the Prius as far as real value add is concerned. My contention was that improvements in the ICE will be minor and iterative. Futher battery technology improvements will only bring minor improvements to the HSG PHEV value proposition. I am anxious to see what Toyota comes out with and just about any well thought implementation of a PHEV HSG will be a good thing, but I don’t if we’ll ever be able to quantify which implementation is a better technology driver.

(Quote)
Van Says:
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:12 am

Well Koz, I suppose it depends on how you define “minor improvements.”

With the ICE off, the HSD allows pure electric propulsion up to about 60 miles per hour. So it should allow a Prius with a 4-6 KWh battery to
not burn a drop of gas for 2/3rd of my driving pattern.

And my current car gets 30 miles per gallon on my trips to Phoenix, whereas the Prius will get 50. I suppose that could be called a minor improvement.

In sum, my car gets 25 mpg overall, and therefore I burn 400 gallons of gas a year. If the Plug-in Prius meets my expectations, and that is a huge if, I will burn less than 100 gallons of gas in a year.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:14 am

The Prius, or I should say HSG
_______________________________

No, you shouldn’t, since it’s HSD.

As for that assessment, it doesn’t make sense. The ICE is already decoupled. When MG2 (the big electric motor) operates in both EV mode and Stealth, the ICE remains stationary. And when the ICE does spin, what does it matter? That use of the word “good” is so terribly vague it could mean anything.

Put another way, it’s going to boil down to Price & MPG based upon judgment of real-world data by consumers, not estimates from enthusiasts.

(Quote)
Bob G Says:
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:35 pm

#71 Jake Says: “Am I the only one that gets a bad taste in my mouth from the “response letter” in post #25? Does anyone else think that a huge rambling rant full of words like “ass” and “cancerous germs” is not a very likely format for a FORMAL letter to the president of GM from a reputable supplier?”

I agree. I represent a major supplier at a large aerospace company and I can tell you that if I sent a scathing letter to my customer’s management, I’d certainly be fired on the spot. Regardless of whether they are true or warranted, such statements make the supplier’s company look bad in the eyes of the decision-makers, and could cost future business (which is hard enough to find right now).

(Quote)
Koz Says:
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:13 pm

Van,

“Minor” improvements in the context I was speaking was regarding one generation HEV Prius to the next and betweeen one generation PHEV Prius to the next. Certainly even today’s Prius compared to your 25mpg ICE will be a significant improvement, reducing your annual consumption from 400 gallons to just over 200 gallons. I hope you are correct about the further reduction to less than 100. We’ll have to know a lot more detail on the plug-in Prius before we could make those kind of predictions.

John1701a,

Yes HSD, mea culpa. My comments regarding decoupling the engine are in regards to the implementation HSD. As long as the ICE is utilized as a mechanical power source, there will be a requirement for a power split mechanism of some sort and power requirements on the engine that limit the ICE technology that can be used. By decoupling, I meant removing the ICE from direct mechanical propulsion.

No, it doesn’t just boil down to price & MPG. That is a drastic oversimplification of what drives sales and completely ignores technological trends. There would be very little innovation or advancement in technologies if it only boiled down to the first generation’s price and one performance component.

From the article linked by van: “EV mode helps keep the vehicle in electric-only operation for up to about 1 mile at speeds less than 25 mph”

(Quote)
Jimmy Hodges Says:
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:38 pm

Heck Yeah! Bring back the “Luv” model in an extented range electric compact truck great for commuting to/from work and hauling small loads.

(Quote)
Let the experts do the product mix. Says:
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:53 pm

#31 Starcast

You said:
“A full size truck would be a huge seller likely far out selling the Volt. What were the 2 top selling Vehicles in 2008?????? Fullsize PUs.”

Reality replies:
What are the worst sellers in 2009, based on just out February numbers? Fullsize PUs. Ford F-series pickup trucks are down 55%, 22% worse than the Prius.

What worked for product mix yesterday does not work today. What works for product mix today will not work tomorrow. Regardless, electric drive is always most efficient.

(Quote)
PJK Says:
March 4th, 2009 at 6:20 pm

Hmmm 22% worse than Prius so Prius was down 33% and some how this is better? But the FORD F150 still sold hundreds of thousands more than the Prius. Why is it that after about 20 years Hybrids still only make up a very small percentage of autos sold? Even with the Japanese government giving billions to Japanese mfrs. to produce them. Why is that?

(Quote)
PJK Says:
March 4th, 2009 at 6:32 pm

Also.. the Volt is the best concept to date and GM the best mfr. to make it.
I’m waiting for the Volt technology in a hydrogen fuel cell version SUV.

(Quote)
Randy Says:
April 12th, 2009 at 10:57 pm

As a truck driver and small business owner most of my trips are less than 10 miles. A have absolutely no use for a small sedan. Its too small for my family and not practical for my business. I love the volt concept but not the platform.MAke it a van or truck.

(Quote)

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud? November 20, 2009
This is how open minded liberals operate. "And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best... […]
BigCityCat
Is the Volt Engine Direct Injected? November 20, 2009
I recently read that the Cruze's engine will be DI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Cruze#Chevrolet_Cruze Obviously the Cruze's engine will... […]
omnimoeish
First Reports of the Chevy Volt's Charge-Sustaining (Generator) Mode Operation November 20, 2009
The first two journalists' reports of what it's like to drive the Chevy Volt while in generator mode operation have been published. 1) New York... […]
admin
Florida giving $5000 rebate to convert Prius to plug-in November 20, 2009
- Probably Hymotion - $10,400 standard price - $5000 state rebate - $1000 additional federal incentives - $4,400 final cost. Hurry because their... […]
Texas
New York Times CSM story November 20, 2009
Link to the New York Times story of November 19, 2009 about a test ride of the Volt in charge sustaining... […]
srschrier
New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 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

GM Considering Extended-Range Electric Pickup Truck

83 Responses to “GM Considering Extended-Range Electric Pickup Truck”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts