The other day we (and many others) reported on a study from Carnegie Mellon which concluded a PHEV with 7 mile electric range like a plug-in Prius was more cost-effective than a series hybrid with 40 miles electric range like the Volt. The primary reason for the study’s conclusion was the prohibitive costs of cutting edge lithium-ion cells assumed to be $1000 per kWh.
Jon Lauckner is the co-creator of the Chevy Volt and GM’s VP of global program management. In an interview and on GM’s FastLane blog he took the study’s authors to task, blasting the report as flawed and defending the decision-making that led to the Volt.
He cited three primary critical flaws of the study that render it worthless.
1. Cost of Cells . Lauckner said the Volt’s lithium-ion cells do not cost $1000/kwh which is the assumption the study made. He said “that’s very high compared to the cost we’re paying today,” referring to the LG Chem cells the Volt is using, “and very, very high compared to the (battery cost) in the near future.” He wouldn’t say exactly what GM is paying but said “this cost is many hundreds of dollars per kWh higher than the actual cost of the Volt pack today,” and added “our battery team is already starting work on new concepts that will further decrease the cost of the Volt battery pack quite substantially in a second-generation Volt pack.”
2. Government Incentives. Lauckner noted the study did not take into account government incentives. The already legislated plug-in tax credit pays a base of $2500 for 4 kwh and $417 per kwh up to a maximum of $7500. The Volt would qualify for the full tax credit. The PHEV-7 3 kwh battery advocated in the study would qualify “for nothing”.
3. Charging Assumptions. The study assumed people could recharge after every 7 miles of driving. Lauckner said “How many people are going to stop every ten miles or less and recharge for a half-hour?” He concluded “very few”. He also added the fact he also added that a public charging infrastructure to do so doesn’t even exist at this time. He also noted “And, if customers don’t recharge during the day, these “token” plug-ins will run primarily on gasoline. How is that consistent with reducing green house gas emissions and our dependence on petroleum?”
Lauckner concluded “The bottom line is there isn’t anything in this study that would change the decisions we made for the Chevy Volt.”
Source (Edmunds) and (FastLane)
This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 4th, 2009 at 7:01 am and is filed under Battery, Financial, Research. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Mar 4th, 2009 (7:09 am)First of all, I am very happy that GM responded to this.
Second, I am very happy the battery costs are going down.
Third, I agree that I would not want to stop every 10 miles for a recharge.
Fourth, Voltec is the way to go at this time.
Fifth, I ask for forgiveness in any grammatical errors I have committed during this comment.
Mar 4th, 2009 (7:10 am)Second?
Mar 4th, 2009 (7:17 am)I find the phrase Token Plugin to be quite comical for some reason.
Mar 4th, 2009 (7:18 am)Fourth?
Yes the study was simply nonsense. Of course if you buy enough battery to recharge every 30 miles, and your driving pattern results in you recharging every 10 miles, it does not make economic sense to buy the extra un-used battery capacity. Duh.
Mar 4th, 2009 (7:26 am)Volt looks much better than Prius.
Mar 4th, 2009 (7:34 am)Repost of my comments from yesterday made in response to this article http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/03/autos/gm_volt.fortune/index.htm which sites the Carnegie Mellon study.
The FORTUNE article linked by #143 is a poster child for what is wrong with journalism today. The MotorWorld writer is retreading a misleading article written from Bloomberg from a couple of days ago.
Here, http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/02/study-conclud-2.html, is a “real” article that actually quotes from the study and gives direct examples and not somebody’s secondhand jaded opinion substantiation. From this article:
“The researchers used the split drivetrain configuration of a 2004 Prius as the baseline HEV, and examined PHEV versions of it sized for 7, 20, 40, and 60 miles (11, 32, 64 and 96 km) of all-electric range (AER) with comparable performance characteristics.”
The study was on PHEV’s, specifically the Prius, NOT THE VOLT NOR EREV’s. It does not speak directly to the viability of the Volt. Although this article has a lot more substance to it, there still is not enough information about the study to draw many conclusions about the PHEV Prius either.
LJGTVWOTR! NPNS!
Mar 4th, 2009 (7:41 am)Here is a proper study to look at.
The development of the costs and benefits of cars powered by gasoline, electricity and hydrogen in the Netherlands in the period 2008 – 2030
From the Summary:
According to the benchmark which is performed in this study the costs per kilometre of the electric car are lower then the costs of the hydrogen car and the car with an internal combustion engine for all the calculated years. The total costs per kilometre of the electric car are lower for the situation in 2008 and are estimated to remain lower for the situation in 2020 and 2030. Especially the lower fuel-, tax and maintenance costs of the electric car offer cost advantages compared to the car with an internal
combustion engine.
Besides economic benefits the electric car offers other advantages such as a reduced oil dependency, a better environmental performance and reduced environmental costs. Electricity can be produced from a variety of sources which makes it less vulnerable for large price fluctuations. A transition to electric cars makes the Netherlands less dependent on oil from political unstable regions. Compared to cars with an internal combustion engine the drive-train of electric cars is much more efficient which results in environmental benefits such as a reduced energy use and a reduced CO2 and PM10 production.
http://www.peakoil.nl/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/a_cost__benefit_analysis_of_combustion_cars_electric_cars_and_hydrogen_cars_in_the_netherlandsfinal.pdf
/warning 72 page, 3.6 Mb Thesis
Mar 4th, 2009 (7:48 am)The Fortune article said that the price estimate was $10,000 and GM says that it is many hundreds of dollars less than that. The price estimate in the C-M study is one of the flaws that I noticed.
The Fortune article didn’t mention the estimated weight of the battery pack and I don’t recall if GM has ever said what their pack will weigh. One of the issues with battery pack weight is that you have to lug around the whole battery even if you happen to only drive 10-15 miles a day. There is a case to be made for a 20 mile AER vehicle if it were to be $10,000 cheaper. I doubt that the smaller battery would actually be that much cheaper. It assumes that the cost of the battery is directly proportional to the driving range and doesn’t assume any fixed costs. It’s not hard to imagine that there is at least $1000 of costs to the battery before you even add the Li-ion cells. The control system, ICE, and electric motor are also going to be fixed costs and weight as well.
GM’s 40 miles or less a day estimate was not chosen lightly, however. They could very well have chosen 30 miles a day and still picked up 80% of the market but GM want to promote the idea that this drive train is the wave of the future and an aggressive 40 miles per day does that.
GM as stated repeatedly that their next pack will weigh substantially less than the current pack for the same range. The weight issue may simply go away.
I haven’t read the C-M study and have only read the Fortune article about it. Reports about the contents of scientific studies in the press can diverge greatly from what the study actually says.
Mar 4th, 2009 (7:55 am)Again, this study is utter foolishness. Nobody has ever said that Volt will result in cost savings from reduced gasoline usage. What will the geniuses at CMU come up with next; a study showing how the purchase of a Toyota Camry will never pay for itself over the purchase of a cheaper Kia Rio? Of course it won’t. The Volt and other long range EREVs are all about increased energy independence, reduced air emissions, and the excitement of a state of the art drive train. If this can be accomplished in a fairly economical way, then it is a success.
But the part that truly qualifies as junk science is the finding that “…the additional weight of a PHEV60 (volt) results in a 10% increase in operation related costs and greenhouse gas emissions per mile relative to a PHEV7 (prius) for drivers who charge frequently (every 7 miles or less).” Yes, geniuses; Under the physically impossible condition of <7 mile recharges, the Prius is more energy efficient due to its lighter weight. And just think how more efficient it could be if the battery were reduced to a 3 mile range. Woohoo!
Of course they do NOT then go on to describe how this balance shifts to the favor of the Volt under actual real world driving conditions (30-40 miles between charges). Junk science, plain and simple.
Mar 4th, 2009 (7:58 am)Even with a 7 mile range, the plug in prius (current aftermarket conversion) still won’t give you EV mode on the highway or if you want to accelerate like a normal human being. I have a 2005 prius and looked into it. Consumer reports recently evaluated the Hymotion conversion kit and concluded it only went from 42 mpg to 67. To me EREV is the smartest path to take. I want my gasoline to fuel a backup generator only.
http://www.hybridcars.com/news/consu…ity-25392.html
Mar 4th, 2009 (7:59 am)How much AER is required to avoid the disparagement of “token plug-in?” If 7 miles fits the definition, how about 15?
Lets say 75 to 80 percent of drivers have a daily commute of less than 40 miles. But only 10% have a commute of less than 7 miles. And lets say another 20% have a commute less than 15 miles. What that means is 30% of the drivers would be money ahead to buy a plug in Prius with an AER of greater than 15 miles.
The question we must ask ourselves is not, “Do you feel lucky” but how far on average is our daily commute.
Mar 4th, 2009 (8:05 am)Pack weighs something like 400#.
Are Melonheads global warming freaks also? They use a lot of bogus data to make huge assumptions using models that are demonstrably inaccurate with valid input data.
Cap & Trade will make electric cars more expensive since electric rates will skyrocket if the bozos in Washington force this farce upon the unsuspecting American public.
If they really cared about the possible effects of CO2 emission, they would push like hell for nuclear power – the only proven resource we have to displace coal generation. Last time I checked the sun doesn’t shine at night and the wind blows some of the time. That means you need all the capital plant to serve the peak load that would be necessary if there was no solar and no windmill generation. So you are going to build hugely redundant facilities. Winder who pays?
I ask forgiveness for any errors in grammar made during this comment.
Mar 4th, 2009 (8:05 am)When the Volt goes on sale, and the users start to report about their experiences, everything will come into sharp focus.
There are too many “experts” reporting on things where they are terribly misinformed, which just causes FUD. Or maybe that is the idea…..
I have the feeling that GM, the Volt team, and especially the owners of these vehicles will have the last laugh!!!
Go GM – Go GM Volt Team!
Mar 4th, 2009 (8:19 am)If this program is such a winner, why did GM lobby for a $7500 tax credit per vehicle?
GM has, at present, not just one but TWO unsuccessful hybrid programs in showrooms. The BAS system is overpriced for the effect and the two-mode hybrids are selling to a market that couldn’t care less. GM could have taken the resources expended on either and built appealing, highly fuel-efficient conventional cars. Or, they could have taken the money blown on the two-mode and bolstered the BAS system to the point where it’s worth buying and aimed for the thrift end of the hybrid market.
Instead, they developed two programs that are failures.
Toyota and Ford, on the other hand, both have successful hybrid programs. Toyota’s system is currently a big success in the Prius and a modest success in a few other models. Ford’s program isn’t a big seller but the vehicle works well and there’s usually a waiting list for it and full MSRP.
The two market winners, Toyota and Ford are both moving to small-battery PHEVs. GM, the market loser, is building a large-battery RE-EV.
CMU studies the situaiton and discovers that the winners appear to be right again.
I’d place my bet on the proven winner, too.
Look beyond the electrified vehicle programs and think about the businesses and their leadership… Toyota has a healthy balance sheet and is challenged by the current market. Ford is in rough shape but is hanging on without resorting to a government bailout.
GM is on welfare. There’s no better term for it. GM is a complete basket case and would have gone under in December without taxpayer assistance. They can’t even file their annual report at this point.
Which companies have the best leadership? Which companies do I believe could build an advanced technology project successfully and profitably?
Not the welfare case, that’s for sure.
Mar 4th, 2009 (8:20 am)The greencarcongress article has a much better summary of the CMU paper. This has a different perspective on what the CMU people were trying to say. From a public policy point of view, which type of plug in hybrid reduces the CO2 emissions the most for the least cost. Their conclusion seem pretty sound provided you produce an Urban car and make people buy them. You do seem to get the most bang for your buck with a smaller AER.
GM, however, has to make a car that people will actually buy. They have tried in the past to make cars tuned for the urban driver and they have just sat on the lots. People want more flexibility in their cars and GM knows this. For my driving habits, for example, I drive less than 20 miles a day for about 4 days a week and drive less than 40 miles a day for the other three days with a longer trip about about once every 10 days or so. The 20 mile AER car is probably a better deal for me but I don’t want that. If I”m going to pay a premium for an electric car, I want be running electric most of the time.
Mar 4th, 2009 (8:26 am)I’ll add that Lauckner’s message insult the intelligence.
“The study assumed people could recharge after every 7 miles of driving. Lauckner said “How many people are going to stop every ten miles or less and recharge for a half-hour?” He concluded “very few.”"
As in, no one. It’s a PHEV… you keep going on gas just like the Volt concept.
As it happens, I can use 7 miles of range and go almost completely electric. Paying an extra $10K or so for a Volt would be pointless. That’s the problem GM faces.
Put another way, you must drive, every day, 40 miles to get maximum benefit from the Volt. The shorter your regular trips, the longer the “payoff” will take, the less attractive the long-range Volt is and the more attractive a shorter-range electrified vehicle is.
Many of the people who are the real target market, people who care about global warming and oil dependence, have already taken steps to minimize their daily travel. The Volt is overkill for the part of the market that cares enough to do something about it, which is also the part of the market that would have been willing to spend something extra for an electrified vehicle.
Mar 4th, 2009 (8:28 am)Don’t trust GM, their Volt is destined for failure! Volt battery doesn’t last more than 5 years!
Mar 4th, 2009 (8:35 am)Some of you are now blasting the study for being blamed for concluding things that they didn’t attempt to conclude!
From the study:
“Large-capacity PHEVs sized for 40 or more miles of electric-only travel are not cost effective in any scenario, although they could minimize GHG emissions for some drivers and provide potential to shift air pollutant emissions away from population centers.”
Many of us have shown this more than once… it is obvious that the Volt isn’t cost effective but will eliminate some GHG and reduce fuel usage.
Here is what really threatens GM, and it is also obviously true:
“Given the alignment of economic, environmental, and national security objectives, policies aimed at putting PHEVs on the road will likely be most effective if they focus on adoption of small-capacity PHEVs by urban drivers who can charge frequently.”
To quote a child, “Duh!”.
It is a no-brainer that a lot of people are going to haul around a lot of useless battery with the Volt. The longer the AER the more this will be tend to be true. Putting in a smaller battery increases the odds that it will all be used and at the same time decreases cost and increases availability.
The Insight uses ~1/27 the battery of the Volt, will probably sell for half as much and without incentives, will be profitable for Honda, will make economic sense for the purchaser, will be widely available, will be available years earlier and will get people 50ish+ MPG regardless of distance traveled. As I have shown in previous posts, the Insight will save billions of gallons more than the Volt.
The Volt has always been about PR and PE (Prius Envy)… not about what actually makes sense or is right.
Mar 4th, 2009 (8:45 am)Great answers… clear and concise and full of logic. Are we talking about someone from GM?
Mar 4th, 2009 (8:50 am)My god, the more I look at this study, the more apparent it is that the authors skewed the results by assuming unrealistic conditions. The authors use accurate data, but then create ridiculous theoretical driving conditions to minimize the Volt’s advantages in every regard. They do this via two methods:
1.) As GM notes, the Conclusions of the study assume an absurd <7 miles between battery recharge for PHEVs. This gives the Prius (PHEV7) an unrealistic advantage over the Volt (PHEV40). Every comparison between PHEV7 and PHEV40 is skewed to favor the PHEV7.
2.) The study ignores that 75% of Americans drive <40 miles per day. They do this by evaluating “long range” comparisons over 100 miles as the long range point. See the color charts on Page 33. Note how the Volt’s huge advantages at 40 miles is consequently obliterated by pushing out the travel distance. It is only the more equalized values at 100 miles that are discussed in the text, not the more likely range of 30-40 miles.
The bottom line is that the study used ok data, and even did an ok analysis based on the page 33 figures, but they blew it on the data interpretation in the text of the report.
Mar 4th, 2009 (9:06 am)From the article: 3. Charging Assumptions. The study assumed people could recharge after every 7 miles of driving. Lauckner said “How many people are going to stop every ten miles or less and recharge for a half-hour?”
————————————————————————————–
What more, this assumes that people will charge during the day. As plug-ins go mainstream, daytime charging will wreak havoc on our electrical grid. Plug-In experts all agree that most people should only charge overnight.
With a typical driving pattern, plugging in the Volt only at night will only use 37 gallons of gasoline per year. A PHEV-7 would use 195 gallons per year.
Mar 4th, 2009 (9:10 am)From the first paragraph:
” … a study from Carnegie Mellon which concluded cars like the Volt are not cost-effective compared to plug-in hybrids.”
=D~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No wonder this study is totally flawed, the Volt IS a plug-in hybrid!!!
A reformulation of the first sentence from this article would read:
” … a study from Carnegie Mellon which concluded cars like the Volt are not cost-effective compared to plug-in hybrids like the Volt.”
Retarded idiots at Carnegie Mellon.
Mar 4th, 2009 (9:11 am)#17 GM No Good – You’re a funny guy. Hint; To be an effective troll you have to hide your bias better. I’m also looking forward to your secret GM battery testing results. Thanks for the morning laugh.
Mar 4th, 2009 (9:17 am)I’m no believer in “leave everything to the free market” (seeing how it got us into our current economic quagmire) but in this case, I believe the market will determine the viability of the Volt once it goes on sale, not some academic exercise written by someone with no inside knowwledge of actual production costs.
I’m glad to see GM forcefully shoot it down.
As for the comments by #14 Charlie H and # 17 GM Nogood, you, too, are part of the market. You buy your Japanese car, I’ll buy a Volt.
Mar 4th, 2009 (9:18 am)What GM is trying to do right now is light a fire; how big that fire eventually becomes is what matters. Gen 2 packs will be lighter, cheaper and possibly more reliable. Gen 3? Gen 4?
The Mellon-heads needed to be squashed for piddling on GM’s charcoal.
Mar 4th, 2009 (9:19 am)The study was indeed foolish. I think if I was them I would have just let it go…
However, claiming viability/cost effectiveness because it qualifies for a government stimulus package that was essentially created because EVs are not yet priced efficiently is kind of dumb…by any stretch.
It is viable because it is subsidized? Weak sauce.
I define a viable project as independently building a product that the market will buy. The market will quickly decide for themselves which is the right choice.
However, what GM is doing here is getting a 30% rebate on all plants/startup costs, they then build a product that gets a further 20% government rebate ($7,500) to try and make it palatable to the market, and even still…success is not assured (whereas it is with the Prius, as it is just a ‘add-on option’, with profit margin/set up already built in). This project is no more viable than Citi group or AIG is…it is totally propped up. In reality this car should never come to market.
/that being said…I still want one, just don’t try to tell me old socks smell like roses, lol
Mar 4th, 2009 (9:20 am)Charlie h
“Toyota has a healthy balance sheet and is challenged by the current market. Ford is in rough shape but is hanging on without resorting to a government bailout.
GM is on welfare. There’s no better term for it. GM is a complete basket case and would have gone under in December without taxpayer assistance. They can’t even file their annual report at this point.
Which companies have the best leadership? Which companies do I believe could build an advanced technology project successfully and profitably?
Not the welfare case, that’s for sure”
&
“The study assumed people could recharge after every 7 miles of driving. Lauckner said “How many people are going to stop every ten miles or less and recharge for a half-hour?” He concluded “very few.””
As in, no one. It’s a PHEV… you keep going on gas just like the Volt concept.”
First. If Toyota is in such great shape, why ask for a 2 Billion USD loan? they reportedly made almost 1.5 TRILLION yen last YEAR!
Much has to do with the Japanese banking system, and the interconnectivity of Japanese firms. (See last thread for an excellent explanation) It is true that Toyota is in a better position, but I mean when you make that much one year, and need a loan the next..hmm. Also Ford mortgaged everything early on. In other words, its OWNED by other people already, they just have the chance to buy it back. It did so BEFORE the financial crisis Basically it owns nothing (including the blue oval), but does not need to borrow. Gm still owns itself, but in this credit crunch, no one want to lend it money. If GM could sell, or levereage its assets because the market can’t or won’t do it. so it went to uncle Sam for a loan.
Second in your scenario, you fall into the 7 miles, yes..you can continue on gas like the volt, difference is you will drive 33 miles more on gas than a volt.
The Comparison Laukner was making is that the study said recharging every 7 miles to use all electric for the average drive (80% are 40 miles or less) is an unrealistic assumption…
Mar 4th, 2009 (9:26 am)From the article: 1. Cost of Cells . Lauckner said the Volt’s lithium-ion cells do not cost $1000/kwh” … “this cost is many hundreds of dollars per kWh higher than the actual cost of the Volt pack today,”
————————————————————————————–
CPI (part of LG Chem) gave a more specific answer on the cost. They said today’s costs were $1000/available kWh. This corresponds to $500/kWh for the total size of the battery.
Specifically, Dr. Prabhakar Patil, the CEO of Compact Power, Inc. said:
• First, … automobile traction battery pricing is based upon end-of-life capacity and … the ratio of end-of-life to beginning-of-life is 75%.
• Second, the automobile traction battery application is sized for a 70% depth of discharge…
… these items together justify a 2.5x premium for the automobile traction battery application (or approximately $ 1,000/available kWh)
We know from GM that the Volt’s battery is 8kWh available, and 16kWh total. CPI is saying that the total battery storage must be de-rated by 75% for end-of-life, and 70% for depth of discharge. 70% of 75% is around 50%, which lines up exactly with what GM said on available kWh.
Bottom line: The Volt’s 16kWh battery costs around $8000 today. Dr. Patil also says the price will be 1/4 to 1/2 of today’s cost in 5-10 years. Details here:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/02/profile-li-ion.html
Mar 4th, 2009 (9:48 am)#14 charlie h Says: If this program is such a winner, why did GM lobby for a $7500 tax credit per vehicle?
————————————————————————————–
CPI (part of LG Chem) says the Volt’s battery costs $8000 today, and will be $2000-$4000 in 5-10 years, assuming volume production.
The government tax credit of $7500 covers the first 200,000 vehicles from each manufacturer. By the time they’ve made 200,000 battery packs, they will have figured out how to make them cheaper.
So the Volt should be profitable to GM both during and after the tax credit.
By the way, Toyota lobbied for the PHEV tax credit as well.
Mar 4th, 2009 (9:50 am)I have not (and will not) waste time reading the C-M study because it’s clearly and unmistakeably based on the false assumption that Jon Lauckner disputes, that the Volt battery will cost ~$1,000/kWH (or $16,000).
I have believed for more than a year that the REAL cost of a Volt battery in initial production quantities will be less than 1/2 this — i.e., < $500/kWH — based on detailed projections independently published by the US Battery Consortium (DOE) and by Compact Power, Inc (LG) last year. I even recall one or perhaps both of them forseeing the cost/kWH dropping to ~$300/kWH in substantial quantities.
GM has long been walking a tight rope between convincing the US Government to grant a large tax rebate and the prospective early adopter Volt buyer that he’s getting a fair value at $40K — by talking up how expensive the Volt battery would be — while setting themselves up for significant Volt MSRP reductions after the first 1-2 years of production to increase sales volume without making early adopters feel they had been “gouged”. In other words, I think GM has deliberately overstated published battery cost estimates to justify high MSRPs (& profits) and high government rebates for the first 1-2 years of production, followed by a large reduction in Volt MSRP to increase sales volumes later — all “thanks to significant battery cost reductions” …..a clever and effective marketing ploy …..and one that’s easily concealed by bringing all pack/battery production in house, as they’ve announced.
BTW, the reasons I believe the DOE & CPI studies last year projected battery costs as low as ~$300/kWH are primarily these….
1) Lithium & all other raw materials are already widely available and costs are well known
2) Cell, pack & battery manufacturing and testing all readily lend themselves to automation (very little hand assemby or testing will be needed)
3) Low materials cost and low labor content (thanks to automated assembly & testing) will dramatically reduce finished battery costs
Mar 4th, 2009 (9:52 am)Hey Charlie H – Own a lot of Toyota stock ? Maybe you sell Toyotas? Do you like crackers with your whine ?
Mar 4th, 2009 (9:56 am)Just a thought.
” He wouldn’t say exactly what GM is paying but said “this cost is many hundreds of dollars per kWh higher than the actual cost of the Volt pack today,”
Could it be that the Volt will cost far less then the $40,000 everyone is expecting if the batt cost are $100s less?
Mar 4th, 2009 (10:01 am)Off topic, but hot off the press and very interesting…..
“GENEVA AUTO SHOW
German car sales leap 21% helped by scrappage incentives
Automotive News Europe
March 4, 2009 06:01 CET
GENEVA (Reuters) — New-car sales in Germany rose a fifth in February helped by government scrappage incentives.
Registrations of new cars in Europe’s biggest market increased 21 percent to 278,000 units — the best February sales in a decade — and held out hope full-year sales could top 3 million units, the VDA industry association said.
It was the first rise in German new-car sales in half a year.
Encouraged by a 2,500-euro bonus for scrapping cars older than nine years and tax changes that favor fuel-efficient models, Germans have been rushing to showrooms.
Domestic orders advanced 63 percent in February.
VDA President Matthias Wissmann said at the Geneva auto show that if other countries’ economic stimulus schemes gained traction as well then “it could come to the first gradual recovery of global sales in the second half of the year”.
Could the U.S. government learn from Germany’s 21% jump in car sales prompted by their 9-year scrapping bonus and their tax changes favoring fuel-efficient cars???
Mar 4th, 2009 (10:08 am)Charlie H:
Toyota just asked for a 2 billion bailout from the Japanese government. Welfare Case. Ford will be in the line in 6 months or less.
I can skew your argument another way: If these companies have two successful platforms why would they spend more money developing new technology rather than make token changes to their existing product and charge more for it and let their brainwashed fanboys eat it up.
Mar 4th, 2009 (10:18 am)What does “hundreds less” mean? On a per KWh basis GM is saying their cost is at a minimum, $200 less than $1000 per KWh, or less than $800 per initial or beginning of life KWh. How much less is open for debate.
Mar 4th, 2009 (10:18 am)Does anyone have a cite to this study? I’m beginning to think that the study may be fine but what we have is a case of whisper-down-the-valley where the study is being cited to support a thesis that it simply doesn’t support. If the study is comparing PHEV to HEVs then what it has to say about E-REVs is extremely limited. The media reports may simply be failing to understand the nuances here.
#33 nasaman – The scrap program has been a big success in Germany but only for modestly priced fuel efficient cars. (IOW Mercedes and BMW have not seen a sales increase but VW and Opel have). Such a program here would primarily benefit Honda. Nothing wrong with that but you’d want to understand what sales would be boosted.
Mar 4th, 2009 (10:25 am)#29, Dave G, “By the way, Toyota lobbied for the PHEV tax credit as well.”
Toyota’s not stupid. They lobbied to make sure it wasn’t $7500 for the Volt and $0 for any other advance.
#34, Morgan, on Toyota’s loan.
Toyota is going to the government because it’s cheaper, not because they can’t get a loan elsewhere. Toyota still has an good credit rating but money is tight. GM couldn’t get a private loan to save its life. Literally. That’s why we’re bailing them out.
Ironically, if we let GM go, Ford would probably move towards profitable market share.
#34, Morgan, on platforms…
You have two companies that introduced successful platforms (both of which can act exactly like an RE-EV, if fitted with a larger battery) and one of these companies unquestionably has the resources to introduce another, if it makes sense. These two companies with good track records have both looked at the situation and said, “No, thanks” to the idea of adding on the order of $10K to the car and now the CMU study tells us why they think it’s a bad bet.
The company with the worst track record and biggest financial mess thinks it’s a good idea. Well, even a broken clock is right twice a day but it’s knowing WHEN it’s right that’s the trick. You need an external reference to figure that out. At this time, there’s three and they’re all us this isn’t the time.
GM’s biggest problem isn’t the electric car market, GM’s biggest problem is their $9billion Q4 loss and $3(?)billion/month negative cash flow.
Mar 4th, 2009 (10:26 am)#30 nasaman Says: … I think GM has deliberately overstated published battery cost estimates to justify high MSRPs (& profits) and high government rebates for the first 1-2 years of production,…
————————————————————————————–
I agree about GM overstating costs to get the maximum tax credit.
When Congress was debating the amount of the tax credit, Lutz said every Volt would need 2 batteries over the life of the vehicle (original & replacement), and that GM’s cost would be well over $40K. Then right after the tax credit was passed, Lutz said new battery test data showed that most Volts would require only 1 battery pack after all. What a coincidence!
As for MSRP, all recent reports from GM are significantly lower ($35K-$38K). In other words, it appears the Volt will cost less than $30K after the tax credit. I believe the Volt will be profitable at that price, but not lucrative.
GM’s original promise on the Volt was 40 miles AER for less than $30K, and I think they will live up to that.
Mar 4th, 2009 (10:33 am)I learned along time ago to fallow the money on these things…. I wonder who paid for the study?
Mar 4th, 2009 (10:51 am)#37 charlie h,
Japanese car companies seem to shy away from radical new designs. They tend to innovate within the box, by refining existing designs to increase reliability and lower costs.
In the early 90′s, the American led “Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles” created the hybrid electric vehicle. This program essentially scared Toyota enough to copy these radical design concepts and create the Prius. Then in the late 90s when gasoline prices dropped to 89 cents per gallon, all other car makers canceled their hybrids, while Toyota decided to stick with the Prius. So while Toyota seems to enjoy the reputation for creating the hybrid car, the real credit goes to GM, Ford, Chrysler, and the U.S. government:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNGV
This time around, Toyota is much stronger, and GM is much weaker, so Toyota is not scared enough to copy the the range extended EV design concept. Left to their own devices, Toyota will never drive plug-ins. Prius conversion kits have been around for many years, and Toyota is still just experimenting with fleet tests. They will drag their feet as long as possible. All of Toyota’s rhetoric is aimed at preserving the status quo.
If GM survives, they will be way ahead of Toyota with the Voltec drive train.
Mar 4th, 2009 (10:52 am)Wow, the Prius looked far more aerodynamic than that boxy Volt.
I am sure the Prius get better gas mileage than the Volt even though it has a bigger 4 cylinder engine. GM needs a better engine than that Cruze carryover.
My money is on the Prius or Insight until GM proves the Volt in the wild.
Mar 4th, 2009 (11:00 am)Thanks Raschiid, Nasaman, and others,
I was also disturbed by the assumptions of the study.
But I may add some stats to nasaman’s ones : Opel sold more than 40,000 cars in Germany in February, that is the best month of the last five years (and it has only 28 days).
Source : (in German) http://www.presseportal.de/pm/59486/1357794/adam_opel_gmbh/rss
The success of the new Insignia (more than 70,000 orders until now) and the anticipated demand for the Ampera are good signs for the future.
See Carl-Peter Forster in Geneva : http://drivingconversations.gmblogs.com/2009/03/impressions-from-geneva.html
Regards,
JC LJGTAWOTR !! NPNS
Mar 4th, 2009 (11:00 am)These are the people that paid for the study.
This research was supported in part by 1) the Climate
Decision Making Center, which has been created through a
cooperative agreement between the National Science
Foundation (SES-0345798) and Carnegie Mellon University;
2) by a grant from the National Science Foundation program
for Material Use, Science, Engineering and Society: Award
#0628084, and 3) by a grant from Ford Motor Company.
I wonder if any of these foundations have oil money or other than GM car interests?… Oh look Ford…
Mar 4th, 2009 (11:01 am)22. Guy Incognito said, “No wonder this study is totally flawed, the Volt IS a plug-in hybrid!!!”
You are completely wrong. The E-REV is an Extended Range Electric Vehicle–NOT a hybrid electric vehicle. What’s the difference? Simply put, a hybrid electric vehicle like the Prius or Insight have two completely separate power trains: one powered by the battery packs through electric motors, and one powered by the gasoline engine through a conventional transmission. The Chevrolet Volt will be a purely “electric vehicle” with only one power train–electric motors powered by the battery pack. The small gasoline engine is ONLY a generator providing charging power to the battery pack should the vehicle be driven beyond its pure-electric range. This is absolutely no power train connectivity between the gasoline engine (generator) and the drive wheels. Therefore, this is NOT a hybrid electric vehicle. It is what its name correctly states: and extended range electric vehicle.
Side Note: To those who have expressed concern over the weight of a battery pack, please consider that GM engineers have more than compensated with the weight savings associated with eliminating a second, unnecessary power train for the gasoline engine. The Volt’s performance, convenience (read as “everyday practicality”), and long-term cost of ownership will prove themselves soon enough.
Mar 4th, 2009 (11:03 am)GM Nogood #17
Don’t trust GM, their Volt is destined for failure! Volt battery doesn’t last more than 5 years!
====================================================
Says who ? When the Prius went on the market, Toyota engineers predicted the batteries should last at least 7 years and the warranty covered that. In reality, they almost never changed the batteries on the Prius they made so far. That’s a fact backed by statistics.
At this point, GM engineers are predicting their Li-on batteries should last at least 10 years at 40 miles AER range and deplete gradually after. My opinion is that they will last the lifetime of the car and we will recycle them at the end.
Even Lutz said it : batteries are of no concern at this point.
Mar 4th, 2009 (11:06 am)Folks, the study is invalid, it is nonsense. First only 10% of drivers are able to recharge after a daily commute of less than 7 miles, yet this was the driving pattern assigned to those who bought a plug-in with a 40 mile AER. Nonsense.
Second, it used an outdated cost for the batteries, $1000 for each initial KWh of capacity, when the cost is south of $800. Just how far south we do not know.
Perhaps Lyle could post a poll, “Does your daily commute average:
(a) less than 8 miles
(b) between 8 and less than 20 miles
(c)between 20 miles and less than 32
(d) 32 or more miles
Mar 4th, 2009 (11:10 am)#41:
Roger: Run, don’t walk, to the nearest Optometrist. Considering all the bad-mouthing the Volt’s styling got here, there’s no comparison when you see it alongside the Prius. If you think that this Pug with a bug up it’s nose is pretty — oh, wait. You said “aerodynamic.”
Making a car “look” aerodynamic strikes me as being easier than making an aerodynamic car “look good,” or at least, “look good enough.”
Mar 4th, 2009 (11:10 am)Give ‘em hell, Jon!
I still can’t believe the number of people who do studies or comment on the Volt, but have no real idea of what it is about.
A 50 mpg car emits about 115 grams of CO2/km, so where does the Ampera (Volt) stack up?
http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/238332/
Less than 40 grams/km.
Mar 4th, 2009 (11:12 am)Lyle – Where does this $40,000 number keep coming from?
I hear this $40,000 number thrown around in the press all the time, but GM sources seem to give significantly lower figures.
For example:
Lauckner indicated he expects the Volt to cost in the mid 30s…
http://gm-volt.com/2008/10/17/car-and-driver-on-the-volt-tens-of-thousands-in-first-year-generation-two-after-5-years/
GM CEO’s Best Guess: Volt Will be Priced in “Mid to High 30’s”
http://gm-volt.com/2008/08/19/gm-ceos-best-guess-volt-will-be-priced-in-mid-to-high-30s/
Mar 4th, 2009 (11:17 am)#14 Charlie H
By that measure, the ipod should have been a resounding market failure. And Palm should forget about the Pre and dissolve the company.
#24 Statik
New technologies are always more expensive. Unfortunately, in this case, society at large benefits more from the Volt than the actual owners. So, personally, I believe that subsidizing both hybrids and electric cars are a good use of tax dollars.
Mar 4th, 2009 (11:19 am)Statik #26
This project is no more viable than Citi group or AIG is…it is totally propped up. In reality this car should never come to market.
========================================================
You’re right according to a simple supply and demand analysis. But this is not what it is about. It is about implementing a new industry (absolutely) and giving America the lead again, lead they lost to Japan in conventional car market.
It’s worth subsidizing in my opinion.
Mar 4th, 2009 (11:23 am)There are plenty of reasons to support various types of hybrid drives. When e CharleiH ,a toyoto-phile says only the strong HEV is a valid concept, he isi wrong. EREVs are the most efficient design for mid size to smalll vehlcles,at this time. PHEV Parallel- Series designs can power the larger to largest vehicles. Mild hybrids can achieve some mileage increases with universal adoption, which is coming. BMW a small scale, upscale manufacturer has already committed to universal mild hybrid adoption and it will spread to other automakers.
Look beyond today charlieh. One size does NOT fit all applications.
Mar 4th, 2009 (11:25 am)#50 LauraM
Ask Statik about the big subsidy he got for his solar system ( I think at his former home), not to mention the big subsidy he then got from the energy it produced.
Mar 4th, 2009 (11:25 am)#41 Roger Green Says: I am sure the Prius get better gas mileage than the Volt even though it has a bigger 4 cylinder engine. GM needs a better engine than that Cruze carryover.
————————————————————————————–
First, forget about “miles per gallon” and start thinking about “gallons per year”. With a typical driving pattern:
Vehicle ……………… Gallons per year
Volt ………………….. 37
Prius ………………… 228
30 MPG car ………… 380
20 MPG car ………… 570
Second, the camshaft tuning of the gas engine is the most important, and this is very different for the Volt and Cruze engines. The Volt will use an Atkinson cycle tuning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkinson_cycle
while the Cruze will use the standard Otto cycle.
Also, the Volt will run the engine at one of several fixed RPMs:
http://gm-volt.com/2008/08/26/the-chevy-volt-generator-will-run-at-one-of-several-fixed-rpms/
which implies that the intake, exhaust, and camshaft will be optimally tuned for those RPMs.
So while the Volt and Cruze share the same basic engine design, the tuning and operation is completely different.
Mar 4th, 2009 (11:36 am)#40 Dave G
======
I think another reason I believe Toyota has less desire for PHEV’s is their (Japan’s) infrastructure. Most people that I worked with in Japan did not have a garage or a place to plug their car in. It’s just a totally different culture over there. Remember when the first McDonald’s drive thru’s opened up there.. chaos. You still see very few. Now the same is happening in China and they are just as clueless.
I dont know where I was going w/this, other than everyone see’s things through different eyes.
Mar 4th, 2009 (11:37 am)As I said a few days ago, if you dig very deep into the financing behind this report by Carnegie Mellon you will find one or two things and maybe both. One, Toyota or someone associated with Toyota put money into the study or are financing other “research” by the university employees involved in the study. Two, the university employees doing the study are just plain biased towards Toyota and foreign autos, especially Japanese autos and biased against American autos. I just think one or both are the simple explanation for the results of this study. They seem to go out of their way to force the results they had already decided they needed before starting the study. This happens much more often on college campuses than we would like to believe. Academics are not above breaking laws, regulations and showing their biases to prove their beliefs.
Mar 4th, 2009 (11:42 am)N Riley… I agree… Ford was a major contributor.
Mar 4th, 2009 (11:43 am)_____________________________________________________
VOLTEC Is Best.
The VOLTEC Platform, to GM’s credit, is the best path for both current and future Electric Car development, production, marketing, and sales. Toyota will bit-by-bit migrate towards the VOLTEC way.
$300 Per Barrel Oil Coming Soon Better Start Planning Now:
This post http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1019218_300-per-barrel-oil-coming-soon-better-start-planning-now by Lyle on http://www.AllElectricCars.com illustrates that the VOLTEC advantage of being able to drive “gas free” is much better than Toyota’s “must use gas” alternative.
_____________________________________
Electric Cars + Nuclear Power = American Energy Independence!
______________________________________________________
Mar 4th, 2009 (11:46 am)From the above statement grom GM…
“He said “that’s very high compared to the cost we’re paying today,” referring to the LG Chem cells the Volt is using,”
That’s the price GM pays in house and NOT what the customer will be purchasing. Customers will be purchasing the battery with charge controller and BMS, etc…. Can someone calculate what that might be $$$ per KW? Wasn’t the battery expected to cost upwards to $10,000.00?, $12,000.00 maybe $15,000.00? I can’t remember…
16 (KW) / 10000 ($$) = $625 per KW
16 (KW) / 15000 ($$) = $937 per KW
Personally I didn’t read their article.
I’ll take my Volt with No Generator, No ICE, ShAkEn not StirreD…
Mar 4th, 2009 (11:49 am)OK. I found the study. Basically a 2004 Prius with varying sized battery packs.
http://www.cmu.edu/me/ddl/publications/2009-EP-Shiau-Samaras-Hauffe-Michalek-PHEV-Weight-Charging.pdf
Here is just one paragraph that talks about assumptions:
“Cheap battery costs of $250 per kWh would significantly increase competitiveness of PHEVs, making them similar to or less expensive than HEVs and CVs across all distances driven between charges. A battery technology with an increased SOC swing, which would allow more of the battery’s physical capacity to be used in operation, would also improve PHEV competitiveness, making moderate ranged PHEV20s cost competitive with the HEV and CV.”
Mar 4th, 2009 (11:54 am)Is someone being paid off to spread untruths?
Mar 4th, 2009 (11:56 am)#26 statik says “It is viable because it is subsidized? Weak sauce.”
The analytic problem is that you’re effectively looking at one side of the balance sheet. Gas prices are unrealistically low because they don’t capture the huge externalities related to health, climate change, and national security. If those costs were captured then gas prices would be very high and cars like the Volt would be cost competitive without subsidies.
Essentially you’re complaining about the subsidy for one technology but ignoring the costs associated with its competitor.
Mar 4th, 2009 (12:02 pm)We went all over this the other day. Ho hum.
#7 NZDavid:
Thanks for the study.
#13 Jim I:
Me too.
#452 Jean-Charles Jacquemin:
Very informative, as always. Thanks.
Quality small cars sell well. What an amazing concept!
Mar 4th, 2009 (12:11 pm)#43 Scott Casteel Says: These are the people that paid for the (Carnegie Mellon PHEV) study… 3) by a grant from Ford Motor Company.
————————————————————————————–
Right. During the Senate bailout hearings, Ford’s CEO clearly stated that they will pursue increased gas efficiency over plug-ins.
A strong hybrid can easily be converted to a PHEV-7 by simply converting the NiMH battery pack to a Li/Ion pack of the same size and shape. The result is just a plug-in option on the standard hybrid vehicle. The option will probably cost around $4000, and takes relatively little effort to develop. By comparison, the Volt has design features that are specifically required for a large battery, like a chassis with a big T-shaped hole in the bottom. So something equivalent to the Volt is a MUCH bigger development effort.
The Ford sponsored CMU study assumes that people will charge during the day. As plug-ins go mainstream, daytime charging will wreak havoc on our electrical grid. Plug-In experts all agree that most people should only charge overnight. If you restrict a PHEV-7 to night-time charging, there is not a lot of benefit to plugging in.
It’s obvious that the Ford sponsored CMU PHEV study was severely slanted to show a PHEV-7 in the best possible light.
Mar 4th, 2009 (12:17 pm)In the original C-M study:
Uninformed, arbitrary and biased assumptions.
Inability to consider alternatives or perform sensitivity analysis using appropriate variables.
Lack of clarity and spareness, overcomplicating an oversimplified argument with inadequate analysis.
Fails to add economic value to technology improvements.
Carnegie is hurling in his grave now.
Don’t send an engineer to do an economists job.
Mar 4th, 2009 (12:22 pm)#59 CaptJackSparrow Says: That’s the price GM pays in house and NOT what the customer will be purchasing. Customers will be purchasing the battery with charge controller and BMS, etc…. Can someone calculate what that might be $$$ per KW?
————————————————————————————–
CPI (part of LG Chem) is producing the packs right now. They say today’s packs cost $1000/available kWh, or $8000 for the Volt’s battery pack. This includes battery packaging, cooling, integrated BMS, etc..
Here’s a quote from CPI:
…
Fourth, a vehicle pack battery pack has non-cell costs such as a monitoring system.
All four of these items together justify a 2.5x premium for the AT application (or approximately $ 1,000/available kWh) compared to the $350/stated kWh of a CE system, CPI says.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/02/profile-li-ion.html
The battery charger is a separate unit that sits under the left front fender. The design of the charger is probably similar to a switching power supply, which is fairly cheap.
Mar 4th, 2009 (12:35 pm)#50 LauraM Says: New technologies are always more expensive.
————————————————————————————–
This is true for consumer electronics, but not so much for cars.
The first Prius cost about the same as today. Car makers are expected to subsidize the costs of their initial products. Maybe that’s why car technology moves at a slower pace than consumer electronics technology.
Mar 4th, 2009 (12:41 pm)Everybody has their own “experts” to “prove” their position or spin is correct. Ever go to court? Or watch “Larry King Live”?
It’s jut a sad fact of life. I try to live with it and go on. It got so bad on “Larry King Live” last night that I just had to turn it off.
Mar 4th, 2009 (12:44 pm)Performance of Volt is better than Prius. Therefore base price of comparative ICE for Volt is higher. Thus, for a 12 YEAR NPV LIFETIME COST, Volt is competitive with ICE. However, research has shown that most buyers base their decision on the two to three year cost savings, not over lifetime. See “CM Study for Volt” at http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?t=581&page=4 and http://www.leapcad.com/Transportation/Re-Simulation%20of%20Carnegie-Mellon%20Study.pdf.
Tom
Mar 4th, 2009 (12:53 pm)#55 k-dawg Says: I think another reason I believe Toyota has less desire for PHEV’s is their (Japan’s) infrastructure. Most people that I worked with in Japan did not have a garage or a place to plug their car in.
————————————————————————————–
That’s a good point. The American dream seems to drive more single family homes. Other industrialized nations have a much higher percentage of apartment dwellers.
This means America is in a perfect position to lead the plug-in revolution. Once plug-in cars go mainstream, apartments will start adding electrical outlets to their parking spaces. This would create a model for the rest of the world to follow.
Mar 4th, 2009 (12:55 pm)The Volt , if ever built is a SERIES HYBRID .
Call it an extended range electric vehicle all you want ,
it still is a SERIES HYBRID.
There are two different types of Hybrids one is called
Parallel and that one uses a transmission in parallel
with the vehicles engine .
A Series Hybrid does not have a transmission usually, but is powered directly by the electric motor (s) but never by an engine through the transmission . ( That is a Parallel Hybrid ) .
By putting a bigger battery in a Parallel Hybrid and making it into a plug-in doesn’t change its configuration it is still a Parallel Hybrid.
By the same reasoning take a Series Hybrid and put a bigger battery in it so it has a longer driving range on electrical energy and installing a plug in doesn’t change anything either , it still is a Series Hybrid .
Don’t feel bad about this because a Series Hybrid is superior to a Parallel Hybrid any day , with or without a transmission .
Take a Pure Electric vehicle even if it has a transmission in it and it is driven only by an electric motor and add a gen-set to it as long as the engine doesn’t drive the wheels through the transmission it becomes a Series Hybrid .
Series is an electrical term from the way things are wired up like one after the other in succession .
Parallel is a mechanical term but it also is used as an electrical term meaning how things are used , like together or side by side.
Hybrid just means two or more sources of energy for powering the vehicle when talking about vehicles.
In the planed Volt the first source of energy is from the battery , the second source is from the gen-set. The gen-set doesn’t charge the battery , it provides just enough electrical energy to meet the operating demands of the electrical drive motor when the battery is at its optimal low state of discharge so the owner will benefit from the plug in recharge when the vehicle is next plugged in.
Mar 4th, 2009 (1:00 pm)thread fantastic read! thanks
coupla comments: Still crying over spilt milk… $7000K tax credit to promote USEV development should not extend to foreign automakers who assemble cars here. Ballooning deficits, shrinking employment make this largess a fool’s game. Program’s funds gonna be gobbled up by the Priuses before Volt gets mass quantities of wheels-on-the- road.
Dave G #28-” the CPI (part of LG Chem) gave a more specific answer on the cost. They said today’s costs were $1000/available kWh. This corresponds to $500/kWh for the total size of the battery.” (or $8K for volt’s 40mi. battery)Thanks for that, info from last week I coundn’t recall…and battery pack costs to fall to $300/kWh when produced in volume, then half to quarter that in 5-10 years. WOW!
Mar 4th, 2009 (1:02 pm)I love to see people arguing over which EV is better! Oh yeah.
Mar 4th, 2009 (1:11 pm)Blah Blah Blah….
Yak Yak Yak…
Just build my Volt Dangit!!!
No Power Windows
No Power Adjust Seats
No Power Side view mirrors
No Power Sunroof (Actually No Sunroof at all)
No Power Door Locks
No Power Trunk lock
No Radio (Remember that fiasco? – Get an iPod)
No Heated Seats
No OnStar!!!
Make the garbage I listed as an “Upgrade”.
Back to Basics Boys!
I’ll take my Volt with No Generator, No ICE, ShAkEn not StirreD…
Mar 4th, 2009 (1:14 pm)#71 Keith Says: The Volt , if ever built is a SERIES HYBRID. Call it an extended range electric vehicle all you want, it still is a SERIES HYBRID.
————————————————————————————–
The folks at Tesla Motors would disagree with you:
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog3/?p=67
Here’s a quote:
Many people have criticized GM for spinning the issue and calling the Volt an EV with a range extender, and not a hybrid. Those people are usually surprised when I tell them I agree with GM 100% on this. Although the technical terminology of series hybrid has been in existence for over 100 years, the marketplace has redefined “Hybrid” in such a way that I think it misrepresents the key differences between the platforms. You might argue that the average Joe won’t understand the difference between series and parallel hybrid systems if you were to tell them about it but I can assure you that they will understand the difference when they get behind the wheel.
The key difference is that with the “Range Extended EV” approach, you have a 100% electrically driven powertrain. The characteristics of this powertrain, with the smooth power and the high torque, will feel substantially different than a parallel hybrid system, which is fundamentally a gas motor with an electric assist. The electric motor in a parallel hybrid system will not have the power to provide the kind of thrills that a pure electric drivetrain can offer. There are other reasons to consider these two approaches substantially different that relate to CO2 emission under typical driving patterns but the bottom line is that I think these will evolve as two distinct market segments in the timeframe we are talking about, with customers choosing between them based on the merits of each approach and the criteria that is most important to them.
Mar 4th, 2009 (1:26 pm)Who here actually owes the government $7500 at the end of the year? It’s not a rebate, it’s a credit and if you don’t owe anything to Uncle Sam, your Volt is still full price.
Mar 4th, 2009 (1:27 pm)#71 Keith Says: There are two different types of Hybrids one is called Parallel and that one uses a transmission in parallel with the vehicles engine .
————————————————————————————–
Actually, the correct terms for something like the Prius are:
• Series-Parallel Hybrid
• Power Split Hybrid
• Full Hybrid
• Strong Hybrid
See here for details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vehicle_drivetrain
Bottom line: there are 3 types of drive-trains that use electric motors:
1) Vehicles where the gas engine must always run (a.k.a. weak hybrids, parallel hybrids)
2) Vehicles that can run on the electric motor alone, but not at high speeds (a.k.a. strong hybrids, full hybrids, series-parallel hybrids, power-split hybrids)
3) Vehicles that run on the electric motor exclusively, and use the gas engine to produce electricity (a.k.a. series hybrid, EREV, REEV)
Mar 4th, 2009 (1:31 pm)#14 charlie h
“…GM is on welfare…”
Perhaps. Noticed in recent days’ news that Toyota has now gone back to its government for loans / bailouts / whatever you want to call it. Not the same scale obviously, but since they couldn’t raise it in the capital markets, and had to beg their government for it, what is that? Welfare?
Mar 4th, 2009 (1:32 pm)These continuing arguments and misconceptions about “what kind of hybrid” the Volt is and how it works is the number 1 reason GM needs to start a marketing campaign on TV and radio ASAP.
“A new kind of Hybrid. A new kind of Chevrolet”.
Mr. Wagoner: give me a call. The time to advertise is now!
Mar 4th, 2009 (1:33 pm)Keith!! meet Charlie h…
Charlie…Keith…
Mar 4th, 2009 (1:40 pm)#76 Matt:
If you paid it in during the year as withholding, you get a refund at the end of the year. Who here doesn’t pay in $7500 in withholding over the year. And/or quarterly estimates? I know !@#$% well I do!
Mar 4th, 2009 (1:42 pm)The study must have been made by all the flunkies. Stupid kids didn’t do their research.
“F”
Mar 4th, 2009 (1:46 pm)#62 DonC
Thank you for your more-holistic approach to the argument.
Mar 4th, 2009 (1:49 pm)#76 Matt Says: Who here actually owes the government $7500 at the end of the year? It’s not a rebate, it’s a credit and if you don’t owe anything to Uncle Sam, your Volt is still full price.
————————————————————————————–
The $7500 credit relates to the total tax, not the tax you owe. Here are some examples:
Example 1:
• Taxes deducted from payroll: $18,000
• Total tax: $19,000
• Without Tax Credit: You owe $1000 by April 15th
• With Tax Credit: You get a $6500 tax refund
Example 2:
• Taxes deducted from payroll: $23,000
• Total tax: $21,000
• Without Tax Credit: You get a $2000 tax refund
• With Tax Credit: You get a $9500 tax refund
Does this help?
Mar 4th, 2009 (2:04 pm)#26 statik says “It is viable because it is subsidized? Weak sauce.”
I love reading statik’s posts, even when I disagree (which is often)…The best projects are viable without subsidies. Other projects must be justified by the entire macro system. Development of alternative energy (including Nuclear) and alternative means of transportation have long development and longer implementation horizons. If significant development must wait until oil/gas prices “stablize” at high rates, the countries that have the oil/gas will suck us dry before alternatives can take hold.
Free markets are amazing things, but some systems don’t function well in a free market because the true costs and benefits cannot feedback directly into the decision maker/investors…like Nuclear power that requires and will require huge subsidies to safely dispose of the waste…or the cost to contain the damage from oil rich regimes’ foreign policies…or the cost of mercury in our fish from coal…(I’ll stay away from the climate change debate)
———-
NPNS unless my 15 year old car dies
Mar 4th, 2009 (2:07 pm)#53 BillR said:
Ask Statik about the big subsidy he got for his solar system ( I think at his former home), not to mention the big subsidy he then got from the energy it produced.
====================
Yupe. I didn’t get hardly anything off the system, but the gov’t pays a nice .42 per kWh for whatever you sell back to the grid.
…and I’ll take advantage of the EV rebate
…and I have bet against the market, using gov’t subsidized interest rates and accessibility to then plug that right back into the same goverment’s own munis/securities at higher interest
…and I take advantage gov’t incentives to get me to spend my money, only to hoard it in a big pile
Fact is I take advantage of lots of things/everything I can get my hands on. That is the way it works…people with money/access to money make more money on the backs of others.
Is it right? No.
Are those rebates/incentives working as intended? I doubt it.
Would I not have bought a solar system, or a electric car, or not abused market conditions if it was not for gov’t intervention? I think I still would have/will.
——————–
Side rant, (nothing to do with your comment Bill)
The problem with the EV rebate is it is geared to the super high end, 40K Volts with 16kWh packs. The fact is, you have to be able to plunk down $45,000 up front, then wait 4-16 months to get your 17% off rebate check in the mail. This is not really helping anyone here…other than me, and others that are in the ‘comfortable’ or ‘well-off’ category.
If they wanted change, REAL change (both long-term and meaningful…and not just a ‘stimulus’ incentive to companys and for the short term economic outlook), how about starting with some other things first, before they get to the rebates:
A) repealing the ridiculous 10yr/150mile warranty
B) easing the more stringent safety standards that add 3-5K on standard cars
C) moritorium on taxes paid on a new EV
D) then after all those things, a flat $7,500 for any car that can go 10+ miles EV, which is ALSO MSRP’d under 25K…that why we don’t get it sucked up by manufacturers like we have happening now
The Volt is not a 40K car, rebated down to $32,500. It is a $32,500 car with $7,500 of premium added on top so the manufacturer can retain that ‘incentive’. The Volt started as ‘comfortably below 30K’ car with no rebate at all on the horizon, then it went to low 30s when they realized they couldn’t build it that cheap…the high 30s/40K numbers only started to come out of their mouths when the gov’t started proposing a rebate system. (Just the same way the Tesla Roadster’s ‘standard features’ suddenly where a $7,000 option starting on deliveries January 1st…coincidence?)
Mar 4th, 2009 (2:14 pm)Matt Says:
March 4th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Who here actually owes the government $7500 at the end of the year? It’s not a rebate, it’s a credit and if you don’t owe anything to Uncle Sam, your Volt is still full price.
This is not a deduction it is a tax credit. With a tax credit you get the money back in a refund even if you did not pay that much in tax.
Kind of a welfare check to help you pay for your Volt.
Mar 4th, 2009 (2:20 pm)@Dave G 85
Hey Dave, thanks for the clarification. Has anyone who reads this site ever applied those incentives? Is that really how it works?
Is it safe to assume that it is a “Fedral Tax incentive”? I ask because if it is at the state level, I live in CA, we would have to claim that refund as income the following year. What a phukin stupid as$ law fir CA.
Mar 4th, 2009 (2:20 pm)I’m glad that we have here people (most, anyway) who really do know the technology behind the Volt. (Dave G., thanks for post #77)
It really irritates me that whenever I here information regarding the Volt’s technology either on TV, radio, Internet News, etc. they seem to get it wrong 99% of the time by stating that the Volt’s ICE will charge the battery in order to extends it’s driving range.
It would seem to me that Post #44 is also incorrect.
From…
#44 Truth in Engineering Says:
The small gasoline engine is ONLY a generator providing charging power to the battery pack should the vehicle be driven beyond its pure-electric range.
Maybe I just don’t fully understand what is happening electrically. Now…I understand the ICE dives the generator, but if the battery pack was removed (not literally of course because the wiring probably wouldn’t allow it), wouldn’t we still be able to drive the Volt. I understand that we need the additional power from the battery even with the ICE operational under certain circumstances (i.e. long hill climbs, acceleration for passing at highway speeds, etc.).
Can some please correct me or confirm my reasoning?
I really want my Blue Volt!!! Where’s my Blue Volt?!!!
Mar 4th, 2009 (2:21 pm)I often hear journalists criticizing bloggers — the criticism being that journalists actually gather the facts while bloggers just comment about what the journalists wrote.
I think that this is a great example of the reverse being true.
Either that or Lyle is the journalist and those at Bloomberg and Fortune are bloggers!
Uniformed drivel is just too common, and that’s why I read this site everyday day!
I guess an advantage to blogging sites is that people who actually have a clue are able to write about what interests them and they actually know about. Rather than have someone (in Bloomberg or Fortune) write about something they are ill-informed about and/or don’t sufficiently understand.
This may be part of the problem with the current reporting business model and part of the reason news papers are in deep trouble.
One of the other well informed blogs that I read is theoildrum.com
Thanks Lyle!
Mar 4th, 2009 (2:22 pm)#62 DonC said:
(in response to statik saying “It is viable because it is subsidized? Weak sauce.)
The analytic problem is that you’re effectively looking at one side of the balance sheet. Gas prices are unrealistically low because they don’t capture the huge externalities related to health, climate change, and national security. If those costs were captured then gas prices would be very high and cars like the Volt would be cost competitive without subsidies.
Essentially you’re complaining about the subsidy for one technology but ignoring the costs associated with its competitor.
=====================
Your right in the ‘bigger picture’ of course…I was just going by the comparison offered in the study.
If we are taking into account the overall ‘bigger’ picture, then we have to go down the road of the Volt vs the greater cost/efficiency of the Hyundai Accent, and then public transportation vs any car, then a electric NEV vs the bus, then riding your bike vs taking the a NEV, then walking vs riding a bike, etc.
/there never is a right answer here…very chicken and egg, it always ends up with a Amish person on a commune somewhere
Mar 4th, 2009 (2:23 pm)Aw man I just re-read my question and remembered there is no “Mass Produced” vehicle that qualifies for the entire $7500….lol
Tesla can though. Anyone buy a Tesla and applied such incetive deductions?
Mar 4th, 2009 (2:27 pm)#76 Matt Says: Who here actually owes the government $7500 at the end of the year? It’s not a rebate, it’s a credit and if you don’t owe anything to Uncle Sam, your Volt is still full price.
==================
Nice. Sorta what I was trying to say (but a lot less words)
+1
Mar 4th, 2009 (2:29 pm)Here’s a good video of the volt by CarDataVideo
Chevy Volt – How It Works
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXD30uA1th0
Mar 4th, 2009 (2:38 pm)EDIT
Mar 4th, 2009 (2:39 pm)#70 Dave G,
Several years ago I spent about 2 weeks in Italy on a business trip. I got to talk with one of the local engineers from time to time about everyday life.
It seems that in Italy, his apartment was limited to no more than 3 kW of power. So on a hot day he might need to unplug his refrigerator to run a small AC unit. Some people had access to more power, but apparently it was the people who had money, because the electric rates were much higher for those who needed more than 3 kW.
So it would seem that we in the US are fortunate to have a very large and cost effective electrical grid that allows us to draw more power (hell, my electric dryer takes about 5 kW all by itself). My 200 amp service at 240 volts equates to over 40 kW of potential power draw.
So I agree, some of the reason that GM has taken advantage of the plug-in concept is that we here in the US and Canada have easy access to power, where in other countries this may not be the case.
Mar 4th, 2009 (2:40 pm)RE #76, #93
If you know that you are buying a Volt, and will get tax credit, then adjust deductions early in the year to underpay taxes. But then you sure had better buy that Volt or there will be a fine! On the safer side, adjust tax deductions on day of delivery of Volt. (This applies to US tax system at least)
Mar 4th, 2009 (2:41 pm)#93 Statik(me)
#76 Matt Says: Who here actually owes the government $7500 at the end of the year? It’s not a rebate, it’s a credit and if you don’t owe anything to Uncle Sam, your Volt is still full price.
————
Nice. Sorta what I was trying to say (but a lot less words)
+1
===============
I think you still get the cash back, even if you didn’t pay out…but the principle of you have to have money to spend it, is kind of the jist.
Mar 4th, 2009 (2:45 pm)Mitch #27
GM is in CHAPTER ‘G’ with a T/DIP financing agreement* AND is on welfare.
__________________
The welfare being the generous tax incentives for plants, equipment, research, which you could equate to public subsidies for housing, work programs and retraining.
The $7500- rebate you could equate to food stamps, which were sold to congress as help for farmers with dangerously fluctuating commodity prices (because hard working farmers deserve it) and not as help for poor consumers who (according to congressional opinions) don’t deserve it.
*Government funded/sponsored bankruptcy (though unnamed) with Taxpayer/Debtor in Possession financing.
__________________________________________
Nasaman 33
This would be a good way to get money flowing to taxpayer sponsored organizations…Um, I mean Detroit. May be an ideal time to remove a lot of old polluters from the ranks of daily commuters.
________________________________________
Tall Pete 51
There may be long term viability for the Volt program. Start-ups are risky, that’s why new companies embark on them, and old companies generally keep them small or spin them off. – Laura 50 – if owners don’t receive valued benefits there will be no owners.
Mar 4th, 2009 (2:50 pm)#89 David K (CT) Says: Maybe I just don’t fully understand what is happening electrically. Now…I understand the ICE dives the generator, but if the battery pack was removed (not literally of course because the wiring probably wouldn’t allow it), wouldn’t we still be able to drive the Volt.
————————————————————————————–
These diagrams may help:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/Volt_Electrical_Block_Diagram.jpg
Mar 4th, 2009 (2:56 pm)Statik 91
Run the analysis backwards to answer the question what is sustainable with respect to;
1) Lifestyle now and for kids,
2) Carrying capacity of earth and disruptions from rising energy costs.
If someone has the computing capability to do that then we’d be able to look at some general goals for energy use and economic/environmental viability instead of arguing strong hybrid v. series EREV v. bicycle.
Mar 4th, 2009 (2:58 pm)My bottom line is:
I’m 84 yrs old.
I live on a dirt road 1/2 mile from a paved road.
A small town of 500 pop, is 2 1/2 miles away.
Grocery shopping is 12 to 22 miles away.
I have a second hand 1977 KIA with no air, radio, questionable heat.
I live on a monthly SS check and go to the VA, 102 miles away, for medical care. I’ve been pretty lucky, considering.
I have enough to spare for my little home upkeep and emergencies.
(my stove went and I believe my septic tank needs a pumping.
I have no television, thank goodness.
I have a computer for information and contact with the world. I can’t afford satellite and there is no cable or high-speed Internet down the paved road.
So, how does this old lady get to afford a VOLT, which I would dearly love to have.
(I don’t think it is a hybrid!)
My last car before the KIA was a VW Rabbit that lasted about 410,000 miles at 45 to 55 MPG. Before that, there were many years of VW’s.
This KIA isn’t going to last much longer.
How does this “under the poverty level” person get to town affordably when the KIA goes?
Sigh!
Mar 4th, 2009 (3:04 pm)Dave G. #100
Thanks. I’ve seen these charts before. If they are correct (and I have no reason to think they are not), then I do have the correct understanding of how the Volt works.
And the man video that Tom posted in #94 DOES NOT. The video states that the gasoline engine runs the generator that charges the battery to extend the range.
It just erks me that GM allows this mis-information continue.
Mar 4th, 2009 (3:16 pm)GM really needs to advertise the Volt and it’s new technology.
Mar 4th, 2009 (3:16 pm)#96 BillR Says: It seems that in Italy, his apartment was limited to no more than 3 kW of power. So on a hot day he might need to unplug his refrigerator to run a small AC unit… we in the US are fortunate to have a very large and cost effective electrical grid that allows us to draw more power (hell, my electric dryer takes about 5 kW all by itself).
————————————————————————————–
This is a good point. At 110v the Volt’s charging rate is around 1.2kW. But in Europe, the Volt would charge at 220v, so that would be 2.4kW. Perhaps Volts sold in Italy and other similar countries would have a way to lower the charge rate.
As for the U.S., yes, the service to each house is relatively high, but the service to a city or larger area is not so high. When it gets hot outside and everyone puts the AC on full, you have blackouts. Imagine what happens if everyone plugs in their cars on hot days. This is why plug-in experts say most people should only consider charging overnight.
Mar 4th, 2009 (3:26 pm)#4 is quite right. Seeing them next to eachother the difference is very obvious (even though the Prius looks *much* better than it used to.
Anyhow, I think GM is dead-on here. Toyota is the market leader, as many have mentioned, but this in no way means they are right. So was GM when they were building massive SUVs, but that sure turned out to be a bad decision. It looks to me like Toyota has invested so much in their parallel HSD that they don’t want to give it up even when a demonstrably superior system is staring them in the face. I don’t really blame them for it, but they are playing into GM’s hands. If gas goes up again (and it will eventually), Toyota is gonna be hit hard, since by the time they come to their senses and come out with an EREV of their own GM will have a lineup of EREV cars, trucks, and SUVs. For the time being however, I am worried that GM is going to lose a fair bit of money on the Volt since gas prices are so low.
Mar 4th, 2009 (3:31 pm)2 things.
If you want to know what a ‘study’ will conclude without reading it, just find out who paid for the study.
Those who adore Japanese cars and foreign imported anything and deplore anything American paid for a big chunk of this study. I’ll also bet my next paycheck the federal government paid for the rest in the form of grant money to study how global warming is (fill in the blank here)
A: killing Polar Bears
B: causing asteroids to be more attracted to earth and increasing the chance of an asteroid strike on a major city.
C: Will cause a volcano in the pacific to blow, triggering a tidal wave that wipes out California.
Now, all bow to the east and pray to the great god of Prius. Human sacrifices are optional.
E-Rev technology, at this point in time, appears to be the magic bullet in light vehicle development. Nothing on the drawing boards that I have seen, comes close.
Mar 4th, 2009 (3:37 pm)If i remember the CPI interview and ensueing discussion about 2 weeks ago on this site, wasn’t it decided the final cost of the current CPI Volt battery at about $12,000.
I think the CPI guys words were ‘$1000/KWH – end of life.’ With the Volt using 12KWH end of life then the cost would be $12,000 for the current Volt battery.
Mar 4th, 2009 (3:40 pm)#102 Clara Says: I’m 84 yrs old… I live on a monthly SS check… I have enough to spare for my little home upkeep and emergencies… So, how does this old lady get to afford a VOLT, which I would dearly love to have.
————————————————————————————–
This is a good point. There are many retired people that have enough money to buy a new car, but don’t make enough to qualify for the tax credit. Perhaps the whole tax credit idea should be re-thought. What would be wrong with a federal rebate? Why punish retired people?
By the way, what state do you live in? It sounds nice there…
Mar 4th, 2009 (3:43 pm)Hybrid Cars web-site has a good write up on the Chevrolet full sized hybrid pickup trucks. An interesting read. You should take a look at it.
http://www.hybridcars.com/news/drive-report-gm-new-hybrid-pickups-25615.html
I know this is a little off today’s subject, but still worth looking at.
Mar 4th, 2009 (3:45 pm)INteresting information inthis link. Toyota has rented a containership to store unsold vehicles, apparently they about 27,000 units on the docks, and no place to sell them…
Gee, if only they could adjust their manufacturing to actual sales… and save some money from the good years…
Must be the UAW’s fault
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/596092
Mar 4th, 2009 (3:46 pm)#107 solo2500nt Says: If you want to know what a ’study’ will conclude without reading it, just find out who paid for the study. Those who adore Japanese cars and foreign imported anything and deplore anything American paid for a big chunk of this study.
————————————————————————————–
Actually, it was Ford that paid for this CMU study. They don’t have an EREV in the works, so they want their PHEV Fusion to look good. See post #64 for details.
Mar 4th, 2009 (3:48 pm)#111 Mitch Says: Toyota has rented a containership to store unsold vehicles, apparently they about 27,000 units on the docks, and no place to sell them… Must be the UAW’s fault
————————————————————————————–
LOL!
Mar 4th, 2009 (3:50 pm)#113
EXACTLY!!
Although it explains a lot about why they have short time on the lot..controlled release and hidden inventory..
Mar 4th, 2009 (3:52 pm)#112 Dave G
It seems rather short-sighted on Ford’s part since they might end up with the Volt program if GM goes under….
Mar 4th, 2009 (3:54 pm)I still want a Volt!
Mar 4th, 2009 (4:03 pm)#44 Truth in Engineering
Actually, I’m correct.
The argument that you make that the Volt is not a hybrid is wrong.
What you’re actually saying that because the Volt is not a parallel hybrid, its not a hybrid.
Wrong. The Volt is indeed a hybrid; it is a serial hybrid rather than a parallel hybrid.
When the electric drive is’nt being powered by the Lithium-ion battery pack-
its being powered by the ICE-genset.
This classifies the Volt as a Serial Plug-In Hybrid (SPIH).
Your argument is a flawed as the Carnegie-Mellon PHEV Study.
Mar 4th, 2009 (4:10 pm)There are quite a few over-opinionated and under-informed individuals posting here that are convinced that Toyota’s way is THE way; no matter which way that may be. I think this is a good time to remind them that Toyota as recently as last year was badmouthing LiIon batteries, saying that NiMH was the only way to go. They have now done an abrupt 180-degree turn and will be jumping on the Volt / LiIon bandwagon with the plug-in Prius. GM is already starting to lead the way, folks. I know… it hurts… it hurts…
Mar 4th, 2009 (4:16 pm)#118
you are so right..they were “no plug ins, no Li-ion”
I also like hop whtey are so well planned, financially sound.
they have cars that can’t sell too, going to the governement for loans (someone said gvmnt loans are cheaper, but hell why do they need it?? they made over a trillion yen last year alone!)
seems T’s +1 cloak of invicibility requires more mana points than they can sustain…
Mar 4th, 2009 (4:19 pm)The article says, “3. Charging Assumptions. The study assumed people could recharge after every 7 miles of driving. Lauckner said “How many people are going to stop every ten miles or less and recharge for a half-hour?” He concluded “very few”.
A credible study would have either assumed that drivers would recharge only once per day, or would have provided justification for the preposterous assumption that drivers will recharge every 7 miles. Then, to remain consistent with the 7-mile assumption, a credible study would have included the cost of replacing the batteries every few years (because of the excessive charge/discharge cycles).
#8 maharguitar Says, “… One of the issues with battery pack weight is that you have to lug around the whole battery even if you happen to only drive 10-15 miles a day.”
I contend that the effect of weight on fuel efficiency is far less with an electric car than with an conventional ICE car. This is because, when a car accelerates, it requires a large amount of energy to get it up to speed. The heavier the car, the more energy it takes. When a conventional ICE car slows down, all of that energy is lost as heat (in the brakes). But when an electric car slows down, most of that energy is re-captured into the battery (via regenerative braking).
Rolling resistance and conversion losses still increase with weight, but I contend that these are small compared to the energy expended to accelerate the car. So there is still an incentive to minimize weight, but I think weight is far less important in an electric car than in a conventional ICE car.
Does anyone have access to some actual numbers that can corroborate or contradict my theory?
Mar 4th, 2009 (4:21 pm)Statik @ #98 – Don’t know if you pay US taxes or not. I’m not a tax attorney, so I may not add much to what you said. I think that your answer is basically right.
The person asking the question may not understand the difference between income taxes paid in during the year v. not owing money at the end of the year. I’d guess that a plurality of US taxpayers fall in the 25% tax bracket, and pay in far more than $7500 during the course of a year. So they are going to get $7500 more back than they would have otherwise. The amount of actual cash received (if any) will vary because of how much you choose to withhold during the year, but the value of $7500 will be there for most people.
It gets trickier for those at the top and bottom. Those at the bottom probably won’t be able to afford a Volt (apologies to Clara). Some tax credits (e.g. earned income credits) are available, even if you never had income to withhold. But many are not. I don’t know how this credit plays out for people who never paid in $7500 in taxes during a particular year. My guess is that if you owe less than $7500 in income taxes for a given year, you will not get the full $7500 value of the credit.
Those closer to the top face other barriers to getting the full value of the $7500 tax credit: phase-outs based on income (usually starts to kick-in for families making over approximately $154,500 USD per year) and the Alternative Minimum Tax. Either of these will effectively reduce the value of the $7500 Volt credit. I can’t say by how much because: 1) I believe there was an AMT fix in the stimulus bill, but I don’t know exact info; and 2) again, I don’t know if the Volt credit in particular is subject to an income phase-out, independent of the AMT, but I imagine that it will be.
On another topic, the link below concerns the Chinese stimulus. I wonder if as a Chinese stimulus is passed that we won’t see the stock market pick up. If we do I think it will be a symbol of America’s decline as the leading player in the world economy.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Chinas-lawmakers-weigh-new-stimulus/story.aspx?guid=%7BF544BDAE%2D7547%2D44AA%2D8AE2%2DCE0642B01BE0%7D
Mar 4th, 2009 (4:50 pm)I’m going to buy a no frills model with roll down windows and install a squeeze bulb horn, then I’m going to rip the four cylinder engine out and put my honda 2000 watt generator in it. I hope I can locate the correct adapter plug.
Mar 4th, 2009 (4:58 pm)Fred. (#122)
ummmm HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
reminder here…2000 watts = 2 Kw..you really think it will drive a 16Kw car? that a 5hp resi gen set can run a what? something like 150HP electric motor?!?!? (actual number not in my brain right now)hell the inrush of current required will melt that little engine that could(n’t)
why bother..if you want to stop every 7 miles so you can recharge the unit for 7 hours or so get a prius..at least it will still continue on a gas engine after battery depletion like the volt…yyour cockamamie idea will have you burning more gas than not, with very high emmisions…
BWHAHAHAHAHA
Mar 4th, 2009 (5:00 pm)The study is indeed bogus. Look . . . here you can buy Li-Ions on the web for less than $500/Kwh
http://shop.junglemotors.com/category.sc?categoryId=2
Here is another place:
http://elitepowersolutions.com/products/index.php?cPath=16
LiFePO4s are becoming much cheaper. A123 is going to have to cut their prices to compete.
Mar 4th, 2009 (5:05 pm)Do any cars now-a-days come with roll down windows?
I realize the power windows will use precious battery power, but I think that the mechanism for manual roll type windows is more costly to produce and install than the modern electric windows. Just a hunch.
Mar 4th, 2009 (5:06 pm)Here is another data point . . . last July, Lyle Dennis got Enderdel’s CEO to indicate that they can sell batteries for $500/kwh too:
http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/05/update-enerdels-chairman-on-the-cost-of-the-thnk-lithium-ion-battery-pack/
Mar 4th, 2009 (5:09 pm)i am nude to this bord what is this volt ting a muhbob? kinda look like a toester can i fit my muffins in da back seet?
Mar 4th, 2009 (5:15 pm)#89 David K (CT) Says: Maybe I just don’t fully understand what is happening electrically. Now…I understand the ICE dives the generator, but if the battery pack was removed (not literally of course because the wiring probably wouldn’t allow it), wouldn’t we still be able to drive the Volt.
————————————————————————————–———
To answer your question , YES you could still drive it . the problem would be that it would take a lot longer than you would want to get up to highway speed or any speed for that matter without the electrical power for acceleration coming from some storage place.
The power can come from battery or capacitor storage .
GM chose battery as the main power source which is a technology that is over 100 years old for some reason .
( I guess they just wanted to go plug in and you just don’t get the long driving range out of capacitors )
Capacitors will get you up to cruising speed quickly and the gen-set will keep you cruising at highway speed .
I built a Series Hybrid over 30 years ago using a Ford Fairlane four door sedan , two 144 VDC aircraft generators / starters , and a Morris Minor 800cc engine . I made it without any batteries or capacitors and controlled the operating speed by the speed of the gen-set.
Today I would do it different , I would use Maxwell Boostcap capacitors for electrical power storage and for regenerative breaking , I WOULD NOT use batteries for power storage since I don’t like the idea of plugging the darned car in and I would use a smaller engine for the gen-set.
By the way , I got 80 miles to a gallon with the thing too on the freeway driving freeway speeds with only one very long hill .
If you were to run the Volt on capacitors without any batteries you would have to have the gen-set running all the time except for when you came to a stop. If the gen-set were 800cc you would probably get over 80 miles to a gallon too because it is a lighter body and aerodynamically designed , not like the Ford Fairlane that I used.
I am a Mechanical Engineer and a University Professor so this sort of thing is very simple to me .
Mar 4th, 2009 (5:29 pm)#128 Keith,
Batteries in general are hundreds of years old . . . but Lithium Iron phosphate batteries are only about 10 years old. And GM uses batteries because electricity is much cheaper than gasoline. The point is to switch from gas as fuel to electricity as fuel. Although a series hybrid is nice in that they get very good gas mileage, driving on electricity is even better since it only costs pennies per mile. And what is wrong with plugging in a car? It takes about 5 seconds to do. MUCH less of a hassle than filling up at gas station. I’d rather plug in every night which takes seconds compared to a weekly gas fill up that takes 10 minutes or so.
Mar 4th, 2009 (5:29 pm)Keith @ #128
Thanks. So, when some says “after driving the Volt 40 miles then the gasoline engine starts and charges the battery extend the driving range” they are WRONG. And I hear this all the time!
The correct statement would be “after driving the Volt 40 miles then the gasoline engine starts and runs a generator that in turn drive the wheels to extend the driving range”
Mar 4th, 2009 (5:38 pm)117 Guy Incognito says, “Actually, I’m correct. The argument that you make that the Volt is not a hybrid is wrong. What you’re actually saying that because the Volt is not a parallel hybrid, its not a hybrid. Wrong. The Volt is indeed a hybrid; it is a serial hybrid rather than a parallel hybrid.”
I think this argument is academic. My observation is that the general public considers a “hybrid” to be any car that uses electricity to get better fuel economy, and the Toyota Prius is the prime example. The nuances of “serial” versus “parallel” don’t make much sense outside of technical circles. So if you call the Chevy Volt a “hybrid,” then the average car buyer will naturally see the Prius as a better value (i.e., same technology, lower price). This works to the marketing advantage of Toyota (and other parallel hybrid manufacturers), because it obfuscates the real advantages of the EREV technology.
Mar 4th, 2009 (5:41 pm)Bob G. @ #131
I agree.
Mar 4th, 2009 (5:43 pm)Keith 128
“I am a Mechanical Engineer and a University Professor so this sort of thing is very simple to me”
Taking it to the next step to eliminate overseas oil use and pollutants from oil burning should be simple also…just plug the darned thing in!
Mar 4th, 2009 (5:48 pm)i hav red da many posts twoday
ball of confuzion
all must be new to bord like me
i ring bell to wake yur branes if yoo scratch mi back
Mar 4th, 2009 (5:49 pm)I already have my plug ready. Its 3 feet from where my Blue Volt will be parked.
I’ll have a plug at work as well.
What will I do with all the extra time that I don’t have to stand around squeezing the trigger on the gas pump?
I REALLY want my Blue Volt!
Mar 4th, 2009 (5:50 pm)#131 Bob G Says: The nuances of “serial” versus “parallel” don’t make much sense outside of technical circles. So if you call the Chevy Volt a “hybrid,” then the average car buyer will naturally see the Prius as a better value (i.e., same technology, lower price). This works to the marketing advantage of Toyota (and other parallel hybrid manufacturers), because it obfuscates the real advantages of EREV technologies.
————————————————————————————–
Yes, well said.
It’s a marketing issue, not a technical one. Cars like the Volt eliminate the vast majority of gas usage, and provide that distinctive grin you get when you drive other EVs. That’s what consumers will notice. So marketing the Volt as a “hybrid” is a bad idea.
Mar 4th, 2009 (5:56 pm)The C-M study went wrong on two counts – not only did they get the current cost of the batteries wrong but they also failed to acknowledge that the battery cost would drop at a much faster pace once such cars start to roll in not too distant future.
Mar 4th, 2009 (6:02 pm)131 & 136
“First, forget about “miles per gallon” and start thinking about “gallons per year”. With a typical driving pattern:
Vehicle ……………… Gallons per year
Volt ………………….. 37
Prius ………………… 228
30 MPG car ………… 380
20 MPG car ………… 570. ”
What ever you call it and how ever and when ever you advertise it, when people tell their friends and families about results that match the chart you made… it will sell. When some guy says I haven’t bought gas in four months and his friend says what are you talking about you drive your car here very day, the light bulbs will go off in the brain, the front window curtains will be opened and people will look enviously out to the new car parked on the curb and say, oh yeah, you drive that new Chevy Volt don’t you. The rich Prius drivers will make mental calculations and the every day ones will make excuses and privately think, D— I should have waited.
Mar 4th, 2009 (6:11 pm)Do a bit of research by entering “mellon “gm grant”" into Google:
Jun 09, 2003 – GM Grant Supports “Smart Car” Development
“…Carnegie Mellon will receive $8 million over the next five years from General Motors…”
Could it be that Carnegie Mellon isn’t getting any more money from GM? In 2008 they were continuing the study, but with the financial problems GM is having, are they trying to get Toyota to help fund something?
Enter “mellon “Toyota grant”" into Google:
In 2008, a $20 million Toyota grant was given to Audubon, the largest Audubon has received in its 104-year history.
Audubon Society of Western Pennsylvania and Carnegie Mellon are both located in Pittsburgh, PA.
Mar 4th, 2009 (6:13 pm)#26 statik : The point is fools can also publish reports without understanding anything .There is no law blocking it.
In my opinion ( i should write start it like : this paper is blah blah ) :
Govt should fund these kind of research and industry push ( yes there is advance technology loans ) and govt should
give better advantage to early adapters. ex: japanese govt gives 50% subsidy for purchase of EV.
I personally believe, the same 50% subsidy should be given to volt because it optimizes the cost of battery without pulling people to a range anxiety issue.
Its an optimal approach for west/America because the car use is daily commute to work and weekends out with family or going to some friends,some trips. Its good that we can use volt for both purpose.
Once the battery technology advances to a 200-500 mile and fast recharging and recharging stations deployed . Till all these advances occurs, Volt is the best to way.This gives traditional gas station an upgrade path to be fast electric stations.
Please understand that Volt reduces the dependency on import oil also and gives a zero emissions on the normal day commutes.
Once the infrastructure and technology in place, the range extenders can be replaced with fuel cells or big battries/ultra capacitors.
So i think we should go for a study report considering these factors.
Mar 4th, 2009 (6:13 pm)#128 Keith Says: If you were to run the Volt on capacitors without any batteries you would have to have the gen-set running all the time except for when you came to a stop. If the gen-set were 800cc you would probably get over 80 miles to a gallon too because it is a lighter body and aerodynamically designed , not like the Ford Fairlane that I used.
————————————————————————————–
I’m not sure I agree on this, for many reasons:
1) Toyota has shown that the engine displacement is not necessarily related to efficiency. They just went from a 1.5L to a 1.8L engine and increased fuel efficiency. A larger engine running at a lower RPM can be more efficient. The engine tuning (e.g. Atkinson cycle, fixed RPMs, etc) is more important than displacement.
2) Weight is not as much of an issue with these cars. The extra energy used to accelerate the car is recovered on braking. The friction on the tires increases with weight, but this doesn’t affect efficiency as much as you would think.
3) To go up steep hills at a reasonable speed, you would need a heck of a lot of capacitors.
But once again, I find we are talking about engine efficiency, which really misses the point. We should forget about “miles per gallon” and start thinking about “gallons per year”. With a typical driving pattern, assuming you only charge overnight:
Vehicle ……………… Gallons per year
Volt ………………….. 37
Prius ………………… 228
30 MPG car ………… 380
20 MPG car ………… 570
That’s the real advantage of the Volt.
Mar 4th, 2009 (6:15 pm)With more and more multi-mode vehicle designs, the whole series versus parallel hybrid distinction is obsolete and pointless. The key distinction is:
1. All electric drive, 100% percent of the time, with or without a range extender (any type, using any fuel type), using any energy carrier.
2. Everything else.
The Volt is 1, the existing BYD F3DM and planned plug in Prius are 2. 1 is the at vehicle efficiency end game.
If your torque curve doesn’t look like this:
http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/acceleration_and_torque.php
or
http://www.motorcycle.com/gallery/gallery.php/d/171577-2/Zero_X_dyno_chart.jpg
then you don’t have squat.
Mar 4th, 2009 (6:19 pm)#121 MartinWI says “Those closer to the top face other barriers to getting the full value of the $7500 tax credit: phase-outs based on income (usually starts to kick-in for families making over approximately $154,500 USD per year) and the Alternative Minimum Tax. Either of these will effectively reduce the value of the $7500 Volt credit.”
The bill allows the credit as a personal credit against the AMT and there is no phase out for credits. So everyone should get the full value of the credit assuming they pay at least $7500 in taxes. Even if they don’t they can probably get a carryover but seriously, if your income is this low should you really be looking at a first generation Volt?
Mar 4th, 2009 (6:21 pm)Simplify the series/parallel nondebate @ #142
All electric drive..100% of the time!
I like that.
Planes, trains, and automobiles.
Mar 4th, 2009 (6:29 pm)Hybrid series and parallel as described by me, the trailer park maggot….
Think of a small electric powered go cart….
Think about a horse drawn (OK, ICE Drawn) carriage…
Now think about the electric powered go cart pushing/assisting the horse drawn carriage….
Parallel hybrid.
Think about the electric 110VAC powered go cart…
Think about a 40AH battery with a Pure Sine 110V inverter connected to the electric go cart motor…
Think about this 110VAC Generator (http://www.nextag.com/Blue-Max-1-250-581980431/prices-html)
Now think about the generator plugged into the electric go cart motor…
Series hybrid.
I’ll take my Volt with No Generator, No ICE, ShAkEn not StirreD…
Mar 4th, 2009 (6:31 pm)As its positions itself to compete with GM and Chryller, Ford is trying to restructure by converting over $10B in unsecured and secured debt to equity.
Mar 4th, 2009 (6:40 pm)Matt #76
People not owing at least $7,500 to Uncle Sam are not buying the $37,000-40,000 Volt, period! That is a non-issue.
Mar 4th, 2009 (6:42 pm)I’d been wondering who it was behind a university to conduct a bogus attack with fake data regarding a so called “study”. I thought Ford Motor had already sufficiently embarrassed itself by having their lady rep tell us that Ford Motor projected [falsely] that the Volt would experience “battery fade” going up a very long hill when the driver wanted to pass several semi’s if the battery was at a lower state of charge. (How really, reeeeeely foolish was that one!!)
The only thing Ford Motor left out was the gravity of the full moon as it would swing around in the opposite direction thereby pulling the Volt backwards with its gravity.
Now, in addition to that, the various segments of the Voltec-less-informed populace may be subject to this “study” (possibly future-promoted by Ford-Commercial-funded media). This “marketing” “study” which is an ultimate disgrace to any reputable university, may be further utilized to persuade the less-informed, it seems to me, just because Ford management is too fearful to ask for plug-in developmental help (which ALL OEM’s truly need to a FAR GREATER EXTENT THAN CURRENT REQUESTS for our green evolution).
If this sort of thing keeps on happening, the respect that Ford has so rightly earned down through the last 100 years will begin to be lost in what seems now as bad faith and back stabbing. Back-stabbing is not an effective marketing technique. It ALWAYS backfires. Ford just needs to join the green evolution and request government assistance in order to go all the way with EREV technologies at large scale production numbers, and stop paying any mind to that silly talk radio paranoia about the government taking over everything.
I just could not stop laughing at one silly talk show host right in the middle of an advanced L-1 auto diagnostic seminar that I was teaching. Finally the shop owner (a really terrific guy) went over to the radio and turned it off.
Dan Petit Austin TX.
Mar 4th, 2009 (7:15 pm)#147 Koz Says: People not owing at least $7,500 to Uncle Sam are not buying the $37,000-40,000 Volt, period! That is a non-issue.
————————————————————————————–
I disagree. There are many retired people with enough money to buy a new car, but with little or no income. See post #102 for a real example. Retired people should also be able to buy plug-ins.
Also, the issues with figuring the tax creadit into a can loan get complicated. I’m leaning toward a government rebate directly to the car dealer.
Mar 4th, 2009 (7:21 pm)By the way, GM VP John Lauckner indicated he expects the Volt to cost in the mid 30s, not $37,000-40,000:
http://gm-volt.com/2008/10/17/car-and-driver-on-the-volt-tens-of-thousands-in-first-year-generation-two-after-5-years/
Mar 4th, 2009 (7:50 pm)151st !
Mar 4th, 2009 (8:39 pm)Volt is the only truly successful concept when we look at the long range prospect of replacing the ICE which is the real goal. This is the best transitional vehicle. All the other concepts are dead end. A true EV that can replace the ICE UNCONDITIONALLY is still 10 to 20 years away. Even if Moores’ Law can be applied to battery technology. Volt is the only seamless technology that will lead to pure EV-s. Energy independence,which has to be the future goal,, will not be achieved by the mish-mash of flex fuels. They only be achieved by the electrification of transportation. The fact that this also dovetails with environmental issues is a plus. The Volt will turn out to be the right approach if GM can afford it short term.
Mar 4th, 2009 (9:10 pm)150 Dave G
“By the way, GM VP John Lauckner indicated he expects the Volt to cost in the mid 30s, not $37,000-40,000:”
————————————————————————————
I hear you. But, as always you NEVER get a statement that says something akin to “…and that is AFTER the $7,500 rebate…”
So, is the real price mid 30′s, 35,000 + 7500 = $42,500.
or 35,000 period.
or 35,000 – 7500 = $28,500.
Anyone want to venture a guess?
Mar 4th, 2009 (11:58 pm)The top and bottom comparison of the two cars above emphasizes the differences in visual appeal.
Mar 5th, 2009 (12:01 am)#152 LazP Says: A true EV that can replace the ICE UNCONDITIONALLY is still 10 to 20 years away… Volt is the only seamless technology that will lead to pure EV-s. Energy independence,which has to be the future goal,, will not be achieved by the mish-mash of flex fuels.
————————————————————————————–
While I have heard this opinion many times, I have to disagree. I believe EREVs are the long term solution, and not a transitional technology, for many reasons:
1) Even if we had the perfect battery tomorrow, it would take more like 25-50 years to completely replace our infrastructure of liquid fuel filling stations. By “completely”, I mean fast electric charging stations in ALL remote and rural areas. History has shown us this type of change will take along time to become ubiquitous. So if you want to travel anywhere in the U.S. 35 years from now, my bet is that you’ll need a car that runs on gas or ethanol. The range anxiety associated pure BEVs will continue for a long, long time.
2) Liquid fuels offer the best energy density – far better than any battery. Simple physics dictates that long distance and heavy duty transport by air, land, and sea will require liquid fuels for the foreseeable future.
3) Bio-fuels from non-food sources have become real. For example, Coskata is building a large scale plant in Pennsylvania that can produce cellulosic ethanol for $1/gallon:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9928810-54.html
Using their gasification process, they can replace up to 35% of gasoline. Also, closed loop algae bio-reactors can produce huge amounts of bio-diesel.
So EREVs can replace up to 80% of our gasoline, and cellulosic ethanol can replace up to 35% our gasoline. Together, thats 115% – more than enough to completely replace our gasoline consumption, all using our existing infrastructure of 110v outlets and liquid fuel filling stations, and all using technology that exists today.
With this in mind, I see very little incentive add fast charging stations all over the place. My bet is that EREVs will catch on like crazy, and most people won’t feel comfortable with a pure BEVs, and this will persist for the next 30-50 years.
Mar 5th, 2009 (12:03 am)While I think it’s true that the complaint about the difficulty of recharging every seven miles was a bit of a straw man, I have to ask myself if I would even bother plugging in my car to save half a liter of fuel the next day. After the novelty wore off, I don’t think so. A big advantage of a car with the electric range of the Volt is that many drivers would rarely have to go to the trouble of visiting a gas station. That’s what I call a tangible benefit, even if it doesn’t minimize the cents/mile ratio.
Mar 5th, 2009 (12:16 am)#153 JEC Says: So, is the real price mid 30’s, 35,000 + 7500 = $42,500.
or 35,000 period.
or 35,000 – 7500 = $28,500.
Anyone want to venture a guess?
————————————————————————————–
I would guess 35,000 – 7500 = $28,500. Here’s why.
CPI basically told us the Volt’s battery currently costs $8K. We know that the Volt is based on the same platform (chassis, suspension, brakes, etc.) as the Chevy Cobalt, which has a sticker price of around $16K. Note that the MSRP includes GM overhead, dealer overhead, and profit. Add the battery to the price of the Cobalt and you have $24K. I find it hard to believe the other stuff in the Volt costs GM more than $11K wholesale.
My guess is that GM will introduce the Volt at around $35K ($28K after tax credit), and that GM will make a fairly good profit at that price. I also believe that the 2012 and 2013 Volts will be priced significantly less.
Mar 5th, 2009 (12:21 am)#155
No successful BEV’s for 30-50 years?…….Tesla? (220 miles at present)
Also, i don’t believe that there needs to be nearly the effort placed on public electric infrastructure as you say…in 2 years when the Volt is out, people will plug in at home. In 5 years, many workplaces and apartment complexes will have them….and in 10 years, they’ll be on the side of the road like a gas station.
I believe that the electric infrstructure will not have an inverse relationship with the gasoline infrstructure. Meaning that the ability to drive an electric car from coast to coast in the continental USA will exist at the same time that the ability to drive that length in a gas car. It will take a long time for the gasoline powered vehicles to go away, but them slowing at going away has little to do with the marching forward of the electric car tech / industry.
FOR EXAMPLE: and i know this might sound weird but…most of the time when you see someone’s vision of “the future” expressed in a movie or tv show or book….everything is very new, as in EVERYTHING in that time (say, the year 2100) is current to that year, as in there is NOTHING that is outdated, no older vehicles, buildings, or technology are even evident. So i’m saying despite the success of electric, it’ll be a while before everyone suddenly abandons all gas cars…
many people seem to be able to only see a world where one can exist successfully, and as soon as one becomes the better technology, it’ll be a tidal wave shift…but realistically it won’t, it’ll be more like the tide than a tidal wave…how profound is THAT?!?!?!?!?
Mar 5th, 2009 (12:22 am)#156 Greg Simpson Says: I have to ask myself if I would even bother plugging in my car to save half a liter of fuel the next day. After the novelty wore off, I don’t think so. A big advantage of a car with the electric range of the Volt is that many drivers would rarely have to go to the trouble of visiting a gas station. That’s what I call a tangible benefit, even if it doesn’t minimize the cents/mile ratio.
————————————————————————————–
Yes, well said.
I’ve been trying to say this for a while now but could never quite put it as well as you do here. In the end, the electric range will be what attracts people, not the plug.
Mar 5th, 2009 (12:33 am)#158 Mike D,
Keep in mind that it took over 50 years to completely build our infrastructure of liquid fuel filling stations. Yes, if fast charging BEVs catch on big time, then we could have all the filling stations on the interstate highways built 10 years after that. That’s the easy part. But what about everywhere else? That will take much, much longer. So that will make it pretty scary to drive a pure BEV off the interstate.
And this assumes people will want pure BEVs. If an EREV-40 is viable, and ethanol is viable, then why go to the time and expense of upgrading our infrastructure with fast charging stations? What is the motivation? I don’t get it…
Also, Tesla’s 220 mile range is a good example of range anxiety. Try driving it across the country today.
Mar 5th, 2009 (1:21 am)After 160 posts, I don’t know if this will get read, but someone made a point about how much more stylish the Volt is compared to the Prius. Do many of us who visit this site often remember how much criticism GM received when the production Volt came out vs. the concept? Take one more look at the two photos. We rest our case.
Mar 5th, 2009 (2:32 am)Hmm… How many people really drive from “cost to cost”?
If I’ll need to travel to another city I’ll travel by airplane
Mar 5th, 2009 (3:37 am)I would guess 35,000 – 7500 = $28,500
____________________________________
No. 35,000 – 7500 = $29,950
You still have to pay state sales tax at the time of purchase. 7% is $2,450. The federal credit comes off of the grand total. And that’s only if you pay cash. Interest from a loan bumps the total up even higher.
Of course, the $35,000 doesn’t add up anyway. The interior of Volt is way nicer than Cobalt. The fancy interface and those screens obviously increases the vehicle price beyond just the battery estimate. $37,500 is more realistic, resulting in a post tax & credit total of $32,625.
Mar 5th, 2009 (3:55 am)I hate to break it to people but consumer distorts is famious for taking large donations.
Consumer distorts is the most biased source I have ever seen for the last 20 years. I used to work at a TV shop and they used to rate the same set RCA or GE totaly differently but when you take the sets apart they were the same electronics.
They are non-profit but there donations come from companies like Toyota. In fact there largest donations come from toyota.
Why mess with your food chain and rate toyota poorly. Consumer reports needs to be audited.
GM cant afford to give consumer distorts any money this year.
Mar 5th, 2009 (5:13 am)Charlie H, you can keep your 7 mile recharges in fantasy land. With a 40mile range, most people won’t fill the gas tank more than a few times a year, lol. How is this less efficient than running an ICE con currently with an electric motor? This makes the whole “research paper” totally bogus. Stop looking for “I told you so” points or go nit pick on Toyota for a change. Good for a laugh
Mar 5th, 2009 (6:22 am)#163 John1701a,
Sorry, John. No sales tax here in New Hampshire, $35,000 – $7500 = $28,500. Arguments about interest and so forth are worthless because you will have to pay that with any other car as well.
In fact some states, I believe someone mentioned Texas, are also considering a state rebate on electric vehicles like the Volt. So the total potential benefit may be even more than $7500.
Mar 5th, 2009 (6:27 am)#165 Andy,
I don’t get too bothered with charlie h, anymore. I just skip all his posts because everything he says is totally irrelevant.
Mar 5th, 2009 (7:31 am)the lowest cost I’m being quoted from large chinese manufacturers of lithium ion 2.2Ah laptop cells is around 310$/kWh and 400$/kWh for LiFePO4 3Ah cells. that’s in volume of 1000 cells. it’s possible the price could be much lower in high volume.
and from what I hear about the chemical composition of LiFePO4 cells the cost could drop to 1/10th of that without problem. just a matter of which factory that first quits the stagnent greed mentality.
Mar 5th, 2009 (8:31 am)For 90% of the potential market, the real motivating attraction for cars that can operate without fuel when the need arises has nothing whatever to do with this market segment’s desire to be commendably green or to reduce dependence on foreign oil.
When gasoline prices climbed in the 1970′s the reaction then was similar to today’s reaction. But then something else happened. Gasoline not only became expensive, it became unavailable. Mile-long gasoline lines complete with fights were commonplace. For many, gasoline expense was a big concern but unavailability was a disaster.
If today the public thought the availability of gasoline (at any price) was not assured, then plug-in hybrids would take on much greater value as indispensable insurance.
Consider that millions buy $2,000 auxiliary generators as insurance against electricity becoming unavailable for far less than 1% of the year. If consumers thought that a plug-in hybrid was necessary as insurance against being without transportation for several days or more each year, they would view a $5000 EV premium as being more than justified. Fuel economy is one thing, insurance against becoming stranded is quite another.
We haven’t seen gasoline lines this time (that is we haven’t seen them yet). When the availability of gasoline becomes even slightly less than a sure thing, plug-in EV’s will be seen as a necessity – not merely as a gesture or a marginal hedge against rising prices.
Consider the potential effect of gasoline rationing. If even a very mild gasoline rationing program were to be implemented, long lines would occur and the rational of going electric would be clear at all income levels. Gasoline prices would no longer be the leading consideration.
Any program or condition that causes gasoline to be even slightly reduced in availability could cause PEV sales to explode.
For most, PEV = AT. Auxiliary Transportation, nothing more.
Mar 5th, 2009 (9:02 am)Arguments about interest and so forth are worthless because you will have to pay that with any other car as well.
____________________________
$525 is worthless, eh? That’s the state tax you’ll have to pay on the $7,500.
$1,000 more is too? That’s roughly the loan interest you’ll have to pay on the $7,500.
It’s money you would NOT have to pay on any other car, since all that’s ever been represented is the post federal credit price which has NOT included either state tax or loan interest.
$1,525 of greenwashing.
Mar 5th, 2009 (11:02 am)I love it. I did not think of the real world wrinkle concerning lack of places to charge. I’d say that’s a big nail in the Prius joke of a PHEV. You all should ask yourselves why Toy wants you to keep suckling on their teet with this old technology, and also suckling on the Big Oil Teet. Amazing as it may seem, GM is telling Big Oil to go F-themselves with the Volt.
To those whiners that claim the Volt is being subsidized with taxpayer money, I’ll concede that point and ask you for clarification on one thing: what, of all the things getting gov’t subsidies these days, gets such a comprehensive mid-long term ROI for the gov’t? Vehicles that, on average, BURN NO GAS, give a nice bump to consumer pocket spending money. They make a huge dent in the need for oil, dealing with hostile foreign governments, terrorism, and all the rest. They make a huge dent in city center air pollution, reducing health care costs. And, if it matters to you, make a nice dent in GHG output as well. Tell me, with all the bailouts and subsidies going on, where does this fall on the scale of acceptable ROI?
And don’t forget, Toy subsidized the G1 and G2 Prius price with the profits they made off of their guzzling trucks. No moral high ground for any Prius owner who acknowledges reality.
Mar 5th, 2009 (11:28 am)#171 Willy Bio:
The Feds subsidized the first 65,000 Priuses (or was it 85,000?) with a $3500 tax credit.
171 (well now 172) comments on this? It only goes to show, once again, the amazing interest in the Volt. Hello GM. Hello auto industry. Hello US and State governments.
Mar 5th, 2009 (11:31 am)#169 jwcrim
“For 90% of the potential market, the real motivating attraction for cars that can operate without fuel when the need arises has nothing whatever to do with this market segment’s desire to be commendably green or to reduce dependence on foreign oil.
When gasoline prices climbed in the 1970’s the reaction then was similar to today’s reaction. But then something else happened. Gasoline not only became expensive, it became unavailable. Mile-long gasoline lines complete with fights were commonplace. For many, gasoline expense was a big concern but unavailability was a disaster.
If today the public thought the availability of gasoline (at any price) was not assured, then plug-in hybrids would take on much greater value as indispensable insurance.”
The only problem with your perspective is that the actual numbers show the exact opposite. Regular hybrid sales are being driven by consumer preference and are being surprisingly insensitive to high gasoline prices or gasoline price volatility (very different things).
Gasoline prices are hugely down (more than 50% off from last summer’s peak), yet Prius sales growth is still 22% better than Ford F-series pickup truck (the best selling vehicles in the US) sales growth, year over year, for last month.
We can argue all day long about what those consumer preferences are that are driving hybrid sales growth to better numbers than any other segment, but the fact remains that many, many consumers just plain want them some good quality, practical electric drive and/or fuel efficient vehicles, completely independent of gasoline prices. Automakers that miss this trend have done so at their own peril.
Electric drive – it’s the new turbo (hint – focus on the torque at 0 rpm). Better performance AND better efficiency. What’s not to like?
Yes, high or volatile gasoline prices will prompt more electric drive sales, mostly by focusing media and consumer attention on efficiency and substitutes, but it is not a primary driver, if it ever was – changes in consumer preferences is. Please don’t confuse the frosting with the cake.
Mar 5th, 2009 (12:22 pm)The Feds subsidized the first 65,000 Priuses (or was it 85,000?) with a $3500 tax credit.
Yet another example of greenwashing. Someone encounters incorrect information (unfortunately, sometimes intentionally planted) then unknowingly spreads it to others.
The limit was 60,000.
The credit was $3,150.
They were far from the first… not until 2006, which was 5.5 years after sales began.
Mar 5th, 2009 (12:36 pm)#174 john1701a
Greenwashing is when a product is marketed as environmentally suprior to alternatives when it is not. Even an Escalade hybrid relative to it’s non-hybrid version is not greenwashing. Johnson and Johnson claiming that bleach is good for the environment, as they do in their recent ads, is greenwashing. Please use the term correctly. That term does not match your complaint with the misstatement on tax credits for hybrids.
The term you probably meant to use in its place is “spreading lies and misinformation”.
Mar 5th, 2009 (1:09 pm)I think his point was that anyone who’s whining about tax credits for the Volt should STFU based on what has happened with the Prius in the past. You seem to be deflecting with minutia. I also stand by my assertion that the Prius was also subsidized by the gas hog truck sales, which definitely falls into the category of “Greenwashing”.
But you know what? If people would just be honest about the Prius, I would then stand up and say regardless of all of that, its still a very good thing that it came to market. In the long term, the initial messiness behind the scenes will still have been worth it. So Prius people, step up and own up to the truth, check your ego at the door.
Still waiting for someone to chime in on my ROI question, or is that whole argument too inconvenient?
Mar 5th, 2009 (1:55 pm)I really do like this paragraph: ‘Actually, as I read the conclusions of the study I had a feeling of déjà vu. Some years ago, GM didn’t introduce hybrid technology as quickly as we should have because it wasn’t considered “cost effective” at the time – and we aren’t going to make that mistake again.’
Lyle, could someone help find the answer to thgis question: why so many autos journalists are always so critical of GM?
Mar 5th, 2009 (2:38 pm)#160 Dave G
The motivation is if we shift to renewables in electricity. Ethanol currently doesn’t seem like it’s going anywhere, the better cellulosic ethanol isn’t here yet. It still requires new infrastructure (see how relatively few ethanol stations there are in the country, even though delivering ethanol & gasoline doesn’t seem that different) and subsidies to work, so building rapid chargers won’t be terribly different.
And we don’t necessarily even need rapid chargers everywhere. The proposal by Nissan is to have slower chargers in places where people go, restaurants, malls, parking structures, etc. There is a sizable amount of time when a car is parked, that can be used to charge, and the relative ease of running a power line means it can actually work and businesses may want to add it as an incentive for people to visit their business if BEVs or plugins start making it on the roads. Since we are comparing PHEV and BEVs, it seems in both cases there will be slow charge infrastructure developed for both of them. GM appears to be working on charging infrastructure for the Volt & the other 2-mode PHEVs.
Certainly a smaller battery does make sense, since even if battery cost decreases a larger battery is going to be heavy, but the current cost/weight equation of a BEV of 100-150 miles of range vs a PHEV/EREV of 40 miles of range or less is around the same (a compact sedan/hatchback BEV100-150 can be reasonably estimated to cost $30k-40k, while a PHEV/EREV of the same size is in the $30-40k range as shown by the Volt and existing Prius conversions). Some people might want to go for the BEV if it’s a second car or a commuter and maybe the PHEV/EREV if it’s a primary car or used for long distance travel frequently. Hard to say what consumers will want until we see either or both types on the road.
Mar 5th, 2009 (5:50 pm)#169 jwcrim,
I really don’t think that we have much to worry about with the unavailability of gasoline like the 70s. The oil sellers these days are so dependent on oil sales that they can’t stop selling oil Venezuela, Russia, Iran, much of mid-east . . . they are in deep trouble right now with $40/barrel oil, so there is no way they can stop selling.
However, you certainly did high-light a nice feature of the Volt that I didn’t consider . . . that it can operate without any gas. And there are other ways that gas can become in short supply . . . for example, a massive hurricane could wipeout much of the refinery infrastructure in Texas.
Mar 5th, 2009 (11:01 pm)I do not believe that even the plug-in prius will be able to travel at freeway speeds under electric power. Isn’t it 35 mph or less?
Why are we even debating. For most people, driving a hybrid instead of an EREV guarantees you WILL use gasoline.
=LGTVWOTR ASAP! NPNS!
Mar 5th, 2009 (11:57 pm)For most people, driving a hybrid instead of an EREV guarantees you WILL use gasoline.
_________________________
Someday, you’ll do a search on: 90/10
Mar 6th, 2009 (4:03 am)Toyota paid CM a huge grant to write the article.
Why mess with your food chain
The joke is the econ is so bad American university’s are going against american ingenuity and companies just to get a buck
Kinda sad
Mar 6th, 2009 (12:43 pm)Dave-109, Markin-121
Thanks for the support.
Typo-I drive a 1997 KIA, not a 1977
I concede the VOLT is a series hybrid. I understand the difference between series and parallel from school.
I still want it.
Dave, I live in a mid-Atlantic state about 200 miles from the coast in the Piedmont area.
I refuse to buy a car with a loan, and over the 10 years or so repayment, pay closer to double the price of the item. This has seen me through the last 30 years nicely, although sometimes I’ve had to depend on the VA and oatmeal 3 times a day to get through.
I seem to be the only woman on this blog which is technical but interesting. Thanks Guys!
Clara
Mar 8th, 2009 (3:26 am)horay! I’m post one-eighty-fourth!
Mar 8th, 2009 (3:04 pm)173 Reality Check
1. Of course I didn’t claim that Prius sales had any link to gas prices. Present Prius sales are to a much different market today than the market that needs to be penetrated if plug-ins are going to be a meaningful part of the automobile market. If everything goes right Prius sales will be 100,000 units in 2009. Nobody currently buys a Prius because they need to, they buy them because they want to see themselves (or have others see them) in a certain way. That sector is not going to be the major market when (and if) a major market materializes.
2. Because there are no plug-in Prius’s yet, current Prius sales cannot reflect the existence or absence of demand for auxiliary (gasoline-independent) transportation.
3. Other advantages of hybrids (given the acknowledged trade-offs) are on the balance pretty minor as market drivers.
179 Don
1. The comment that gasoline unavailability may not be imminent is probably right. A roaring world-wide economy could change that but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
2. As you say, (barring war) crude oil sellers probably won’t stop selling but given the world-wide economy, today’s sparse, decaying, under-financed refining facilities will probably begin to choke before they are expanded to what they will need to be. As you say, gasoline unavailability is probably unlikely in the short>medium term but the seventies taught us never to say never.
All that said and being a fairly typical clod, were a good plug-in to be offered and were it a good value, I would not buy it for its minor performance advantages, for its slightly better economics or for making some statement or other. I would buy it if I thought I might need it someday to run to school, for food or to the hospital when my only unfailingly accessible gas pump is my wall outlet. I may never need that capability but then how many of us really need our 4WDs and our 10KW auxiliary generators?
Nobody buys fire insurance because they like it or because they are sure they are going to need it.
Mar 9th, 2009 (2:01 pm)How much taxpayer’s money was wasted on this study by Carnegie-Mellon who obviously has no idea what they’re talking about. Just what we need – negativism towards one of the most important projects under development to impact the American economy.
Mar 11th, 2009 (5:53 pm)Ron #186: right on!
The best way to tell a good idea is when the billionaires and the other entrenched interests are so dead set against it.
Electric cars are the only solution to the problems of foreign oil dependence and the environment. EREV cars like the Volt are the only way to get there.
I don’t care if gas eventually gets so cheap that an electric car would cost me double to drive, I’m getting off foreign oil and the internal combustion engine as soon as I can. Luckily, it is far cheaper to drive on electrons AND you aren’t funding terrorists or destroying the environment.