Tom Stephens is GM’s new VP of product development. He told the Associated Press that the type of cars people will choose to buy is based primarily on the price of gas, and that GM has not only to plan for high future gas prices but low ones too.
He also states that not only does GM have to hit the moving target of gas prices but that everything else about its upcoming cars have to be just right too.
“We cannot afford to have anything but a hit,” said Stephens. “Every launch of every nameplate has to be a home run.”
Stephens notes that each new GM car has to be increasingly efficient to meet upcoming federal standards. More importantly, he truly believes in an electric future. He is described as seeing a time when most cars and light duty trucks will run on electricity, though his specific timeframe for that isn’t given.
Stephens took over Bob Lutz’ former position and admits “Bob has brought the passion back into cars and trucks and he has brought around the right-brain emotion to them.”
“From a design perspective all of the great things that Bob has put into place will continue,” he assures.
Stephens says GM should eventually be able to make money on the Chevy Volt but not in the first generation. He says it will take three generations or several years for the company to profit on the Volt.
“Certainly we know that our costs and the price will come down over time,” he said.
Source (AP)
Also another member of the “gang of six” GM VPs besides Stephens is Jon Lauckner. He is vice president of global program management, and was the executive Bob Lutz went to in 2006 when he first conceived of a new GM electric car.
As the story goes, Lauckner known inside GM as “the Wizard” listened to Lutz’ “iCar” (as the Volt was then known) plan and after furiously scribbling some calculations declared that a gas range extender should be added to a car with a smaller electric rage. And hence the Volt was born.
Today at 2PM EDT you can have the opportunity right here to ask Jon your questions in the chat box below:
Jul 22nd, 2009 (7:37 am)Cool I’ll be here!
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (7:37 am)To really be a “Hit”, a car needs to have a snappy name.
Bring back the “Impact”.
(Quote)
-3
Jul 22nd, 2009 (7:43 am)“We cannot afford to have anything but a hit,” said Stephens. “Every launch of every nameplate has to be a home run.”
Congratulations. You’ve just figured out what has made Toyota beat you as the world’s biggest auto maker. Every car they make is intended for at least 50,000 a year being sold, almost all are above 100,000. GM has countless under 20,000 copies a year models across their brand portfolio. Most of which were spearheaded by Bob Lutz (G8, Solstice etc.). All of the money Toyota is saving on designing and engineering redundant cars has allowed them to maintain higher quality over the years. They design 1 car and make 100,000/year vs. GM’s approach of making 4 different models over their different brands and selling 25,000 each.
Now as you consolidate brands and models, it will be easier to find engineering flaws in previous generations and resolve them and you will be able to affordably compete with the Japanese in reliability.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (7:47 am)If they do offer many affordable electric vehicles, I imagine they will sell. The initial price of the Volt will deter some buyers. When electric vehicles cost the same as the current gas counterparts, then consumer will be more interested in purchasing electric drivetrain vehicles.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 22nd, 2009 (7:49 am)“He sees a day when most passenger cars and lighter-duty vehicles that transport people in cities will run on electricity, but heavier duty trucks will still run on diesel fuel.”
I agree with his position on this. Electrification will work well for shorter range vehicles (commuting to work daily) and smaller vehicles like passenger cars and trucks.
However, jet aircraft, long range trucking, heavy duty equipment (bulldozers, etc.) and other commerical equipment will likely continue to use liquid fuels for many decades to come.
But the electrification of personal transportation will go a long way in reducing our dependence on oil.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 22nd, 2009 (7:50 am)#3, omni,
No, Toyota beat GM (and Ford and Chrysler) with quality and lower manufacturing costs.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (7:50 am)BTW, Toyota had a 35% decline in sales for the month of June.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (7:50 am)“More importantly, he truly believes in an electric future. He is described as seeing a time when most cars and light duty trucks will run on electricity, though his specific timeframe for that isn’t given.”–
Regarding Tom Stephens, it sounds like his heart is in the right place. Lets hope he means all of the things he said. If GM can truly become pros at electric vehicles, I think they may have a chance at surviving. But there can’t be an attitude of going halfway on this. Electric vehicles has to be their mantra, an ingrained philosophy.
sidenote: Looking forward to the Jon Laukner interview. Nice work as always Lyle.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (7:51 am)Good point. I agree. GM should focus on one basic model for each type of vehicle (small car, large car, minivan/SUV, truck) and maybe have slight tweeks to body style, interiors, etc. so that there’s not a lot of new designs all at once. That’s expensive. I would rather see that money go into R&D to improve effiency, infrastructure, etc.
/now that I’m part owner (along with all taxpayers), I should have a say, right?
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (7:52 am)EDIT: Repeat of something said.
/Have a nice day…nothing to see, move along
(=
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (7:53 am)“We cannot afford to have anything but a hit,” said Stephens. “Every launch of every nameplate has to be a home run.”
———-
Be careful setting the bar higher than you know you can jump.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (7:54 am)Also, in the 80s and 90s , Toyota was crowned reliability king by Consumer Reports. People consider that publication gospel for automotive car buying advice. Today, the differences in reliability amongst most brands is negligible and even Consumer Reports is now “recommending” some GM vehicles.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (7:55 am)“eventually” and “seeing a time” are pretty nebulous. Considering fossil fuels will eventually run out and bio fuels may never be widely feasible, it IS inevitable that electric drivetrains will win out. Now the question is, what will be the energy storage approach – capacitor, battery, flywheel, bio-fuel, synthetic fuel (hydrogen, synthetic gasoline / diesel / methane / propane / butane) with fuel cell, etc.
I believe a combination of electric storage (capacitor / battery) and liquid / gas fuel with fuel cell will be the optimal approach.
(Quote)
-22
Jul 22nd, 2009 (7:56 am)(click to show comment)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (8:04 am)In other news. The Ford F-150 AND Chevy Silverado were passed by the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord on the top 10 list in sales for the first half of 2009. If you look at the list. The big sales are in the regular old sedan market, not niche sports cars or muscle cars anymore *gasp*.
http://www.autoobserver.com/2009/07/cars-rule-first-half-sales-toyota-camry-ranks-no-1.html
(Quote)
+3
Jul 22nd, 2009 (8:06 am)To properly plan for high and low gas prices I think GM should look into a model of all vehicles with a volt power train and vary the battery size. If you took the Malibu and used the systems from the volt but took away the battery, you’d have an electric motor replacing your transmission (That has to save some cost), you’d have an ICE that only acts as a generator and can be run at various efficient settings depending on the power needed. and you could have a small (prius sized) battery that more or less balances the energy given by the ice and used by the motor. If they went electric drive in all of their vehicles they could concentrate on a few engines, offer base models with small and cheap battery packs, and move from expensive steel parts to software, wires, and an electric motor. Have a battery cavity that could accept a 40 mile ev range battery and have options down to 5 mile EV range. When gas prices go down your business model doesn’t change, just the size battery people end up buying.
Of course this is dependent on how they set up the ice. If the ice just tracks the gas pedal than i don’t think much MPG efficiency will be seen. But if there are certain RPM’s that the ICE will be more efficient at and the engine stays at those levels based on the need, significant MPG savings could be achieved.
I don’t know what the volt power train minus the battery actually costs, but if it is cheaper than a standard mechanical power train it seems like a great business model to me.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (8:08 am)And of course, Corvair… no wait, Corvolt!
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (8:09 am)Brilliant… I am sure that a lawyer suing the company for some crash related failure would love that one.
(Quote)
+7
Jul 22nd, 2009 (8:09 am)“It is fairly well known the grid can’t handle electric cars and the power demand they require.”
Do you have a good source for this comment, as it contradicts reports by reputable organizations.
See this link for info:
http://www.designnews.com/blog/I_Have_The_Power_/1863-EPRI_Endorses_Plug_In_Hybrids_While_Auto_Manufacturers_Slam_on_the_Brakes.php
From the EPRI report:
1) Widespread adoption of PHEVs can reduce GHG emissions from vehicles by more than 450 million metric tons annually in 2050 — equivalent to removing 82.5 million passenger cars from the road
2) There is an abundant supply of electricity for transportation; a 60 percent U.S. market share for PHEVs would use 7 percent to 8 percent of grid-supplied electricity in 2050
3) PHEVs can improve nationwide air quality and reduce petroleum consumption by 3 million to 4 million barrels per day in 2050
(Quote)
-8
Jul 22nd, 2009 (8:19 am)Lutz vs. Stephens
From their bio’s, I would consider Stephens a true “car guy” . . . . Lutz, a true “blow-hard”.
http://www.autoobserver.com/2009/04/gms-tom-stephens-lutz-successor-is-a-serious-engineer—and-serious-enthusiast.html
In a big organization, it takes all kinds, but I think someone like Stephens has got a much better background than Lutz for making big decisions when GM (and all the car companies) are going to be facing massive technical changes/challenges.
/ with a background like his, Stephens will have to guard against micro-management
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (8:23 am)Here’s what would make something a hit:
Dont release a Volt prototype that looks like the Volt prototype but turn it into a mirror image of the Insight and Prius. YUCK.
I know, I know – I shouldnt be interested in what the car looks like I should care what it does. But I do care. The Insight and Prius and Volt are the same looking car. Color me not interested.
Thats part of the reason I love what Fisker and Tesla are doing. The first company that shows me an electric car thats affordable that looks good – thats where I’m parking my down payment.
http://image.motortrend.com/f/17960367+w750/112_0905_02z+volt_insight_prius+drag_comparison.jpg
http://www.globalmotors.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/insight-volt-prius.jpg
(Quote)
+25
Jul 22nd, 2009 (8:24 am)No, actually GM and Ford ALREADY make cars that are as good or better than anything the Japanese make, according to many sources, including JD Powers. Most Americans just haven’t caught up to that fact.
Americans were sensible to buy quality, economical Japanese cars back in the 1970’s and 1980’s when GM made some bad cars. But, the automotive world has changed now. It is a new Century, a new Millennium. Ford and GM make world class cars and Americans are fools to keep sending our money overseas to foreign auto companies.
Remember, just because your Japanese car may be assembled
here in the States doesn’t mean anything. The PROFITS go to the Japanese, and the jobs you think were created by them building a plant here are an illusion. Those jobs were merely shifted from American auto plants here to foreign-owned and operated plants here. That’s the reason GM has closed dozens of plants in the US.
In these dire economic times it is in our best interest to keep our money inside our shores wherever possible.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (8:27 am)From the article:
Stephens says GM should eventually be able to make money on the Chevy Volt but not in the first generation. He says it will take three generations or several years for the company to profit on the Volt.
————-
I’m guessing more than a few people ask, “How long is it between generation 1 and 2″ I think the bigger question that statement brings up is:
“Knowing you are going to lose money on each Volt you sell for several generations/years….what is the incentive to produce any quantity of cars quickly, in the short term? Is the urgency here to ‘just get it out’ to show you can indeed do it? Is it just to get to a point where they are available to order? Will production intentionally be held back to under market demand, to cap losses and keep the price high?
Moreso to that point, we know 2010 is the goal to roll out the Volt, but when do you anticipate producing cars at a rate where every Chevy dealership can have a few on their lot, in inventory, available for any ‘Joe’ to walk in and buy one…like a Malibu.
It would also be interesting to know what their internal projections for sales/orders are, and at what point they plan to put ‘feelers’ out ie) order lists/deposits…or if they even plan to take pre-orders at all. If they plan on under-producing, maybe they don’t take them (pre-orders)…other than dealers taking money at the local level for anticipated stock deliveries.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (8:27 am)#11 Adrian wrote…..
“It is fairly well known the grid can’t handle electric cars and the power demand they require.”
I beg to differ.
“Mileage from megawatts: Study finds enough electric capacity to “fill up” plug-in vehicles across much of the nation”
http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=204
“Researchers found, in the Midwest and East, there is sufficient off-peak generation, transmission and distribution capacity to provide for all of today’s vehicles if they ran on batteries. However, in the West, and specifically the Pacific Northwest, there is limited extra electricity because of the large amount of hydroelectric generation that is already heavily utilized. Since more rain and snow can’t be ordered, it’s difficult to increase electricity production from the hydroelectric plants.”
“We were very conservative in looking at the idle capacity of power generation assets,” said PNNL scientist Michael Kintner-Meyer. “The estimates didn’t include hydro, renewables or nuclear plants. It also didn’t include plants designed to meet peak demand because they don’t operate continuously. We still found that across the country 84 percent of the additional electricity demand created by PHEVs could be met by idle generation capacity.”
Bottom Line…
People on the West Coast Need To Fix “Their Problem”.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (8:37 am)According to this.
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/07/general-motors-june-sales-fell-336-yoy.html
GM June sales are down 33.6% year over year, and Toyota is down 32%.
But for some good news, if you’re American and don’t like our trade deficit.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/general-motors-first-half-china-sales-jump-38
GM is doing quite well in China.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 22nd, 2009 (8:45 am)Good point. Consumer Reports documents carry a lot of weight. I have used CR to purchase microwave ovens, water heaters, refrigerators, cameras, cars, and many other items.
This point was brought up in a “Keep It Simple Stupid” post from last year. The Volt MUST be reviewed as a winner.
CR routinely beats cars down for insignificant items such as “misplaced” cup holders, “cheap feeling” levers and buttons, and blind spots.
They make the Saturn Sky look like a headache to own. Yet owner reviews rate 4.5 out of 5 stars.
Give EREV a few years to mature with the Volt and Converj. Then watch public acceptance rise when NGMCO rolls out the basic EREV for under $25,000.
Perhaps the Cruze r3 EREV?
http://garfwod.250free.com/chevy.cruze.r3.jpg
=D~
(Quote)
+3
Jul 22nd, 2009 (8:52 am)Japan wasn’t always able to compete so well with Detroit. My grandfather used to sell Toyota’s in California back in the 70’s, back then it was a tough sell. Their Kaizen strategy has slowly turned the tables on perception of their reliability. The way they have been able to do this is by keeping a relatively small portfolio and paying close attention to weakness in the design and making sure the next year’s model, or next generation’s model was better.
Although I agree, it also helps that they are smart enough to build their cars in Republican states where at will wages are competitive, and taxes are low.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (8:52 am)Bracing for rebuttal on this post…
Saw the new Prius (silver) on the freeway yesterday. One word sums up the looks and styling, beakopotamus. What’s going on with that nose?
=D~
(Quote)
+2
Jul 22nd, 2009 (8:57 am)If Tom Stephens can carry on Bob Lutz’s plans and build on them GM can be successful if everything else falls into place. Things like workmanship, quality, price, styling and the many other little details that go into producing a “hit” vehicle. I wish him and GM much luck.
Another good article, Lyle. Keep them coming.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (9:02 am)I like “Nova”…
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (9:05 am)It’s a tricky deal.
New Technology is expensive, and they don’t have the luxury of 10 years to make the Volt profitable.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (9:08 am)I can definately see some hybrid tech being added to heavy trucks and even ships. Even heavy machinery (there is a LOT of momentum in thes big machines)
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (9:10 am)I had the same thought. I actually prefer the look of the older, “jelly-bean” Prius. Does the new look give it significantly better aerodynamics, or are they just trying to make it looker “meaner?”
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (9:13 am)“Knowing you are going to lose money on each Volt you sell for several generations/years….what is the incentive to produce any quantity of cars quickly, in the short term?”
Are the economies of scale that typically drive down prices achieved by producing in volume, or simply by moving from generations 1 to 3? I think the former more than the latter. Yes, time and experience will make some of the technologies less expensive, but they are also going to need to build the customer base in order to ever get the costs down.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (9:14 am)GREAT Word!
My opinion…
Prius is a beakopotamus..
The Volt is the wall paper on my PC… (the picture in the garage with the cord plugged in)
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (9:17 am)I do not buy the used car salesman line, “at this price I will lose money on it, but I need the space, etc” Thus the big discounts over the last year give us a window on the actual markup, at around 25%. So if Toyota can make a Prius for $22,000, then the actual vehicle cost would be in the ball park of $18,000. GM has said the battery costs hundreds less than $1000 per kWh, so the maximum cost would be in the neighborhood of $12000. Thus the Volt cost should be around $30,000 and the Volt MSRP should be around $37,500. Anything above that pegs my lollapalooza meter.
(Quote)
+7
Jul 22nd, 2009 (9:20 am)Rate of return is what the GM salesman have to focus on. Most people look at a car and say $40K, are you nuts? It’s going to be the salesman’s job to say “yes it’s a high price, but you’ll get back 7K from Uncle Sam and then your monthly gasoline bill will be almost non-existant, and one more thing, the price for the electricty to power your Volt will be 6 to 10% of what you pay in gasoline now. So your return on investment will be very short. American’s are very short sighted and the saleman will have to educate. This has happend in other industry, where a new method of doing something has come out, but not accepted until people were educated.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (9:21 am)THAT my friend is definately the $64000 question.
What WE don’t know, and the real root of it all is real and projected battery pack costs.
If the battery cell contract were to have a say 30% reduction in cell cost year over year clause then year 1 GEN1 Volts have the most expensive packs, but if the cell cost comes down 30% a year for the next 5 years (supported by increasing volume) LG (and competitors) will be well motivated to increase production and lower costs.
Of course I’m guessing, but it makes sense to me.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 22nd, 2009 (9:22 am)I agree thet there is PLENTY of off-peak hours supply of electricity for years (if not decades) to come. By then, there may be some more nuclear or renewable support.
Be well,
Tagamet
/hope to be back for 2, but also hope that someone can post the entire thing.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (9:23 am)A very good point!
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (9:26 am)if GM is still driven by bean counters without vision then they will limit production to minimize the losses and gather all the possible halo effect laurels.. but dont worry, there are plenty of companies out there with vision.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (9:26 am)With the rather large reduction in nameplates and brands this is well underway.
(Quote)
+4
Jul 22nd, 2009 (9:28 am)I have been lurking around the Chevy dealer lately. I will give my opinion. A few years ago I took a look around and did not like what I was seeing. Things are improving.
The newer cars are the Malibu redesign, the traverse, the Equinox redesign, and the Camaro.
The Malibu looks very nice and is real competition for the Camry/Accord crowd. They now have a top notch sedan.
The Traverse is very nice in and out and has nice specifications. This clearly can compete with things like the Honda Pilot and the big 3 row monsters. They now have a top notch minivan replacement.
The 2010 Equinox looks like the best in that segment to me. Very nice interior and the 32mpg highway is a big plus. This is one of the best small SUVs (a very popular segment) I have seen for the price.
The Camaro.. The roof line is too low for me. This is a niche car at best. They are apparently selling them so good for GM. I personally don’t care for it on the inside.
The point of my post….. The newer GM cars are looking good. Someone has been making good decisions somewhere in the bowels of GM. When they replace the old cobalt with the upcoming cruze in a year or two, I assume they will have another winner here too.
Of course having the Volt in the showroom will be yet another winner (at least from a green halo perspective).
GM’s future looks a little brighter to me right now.
(Quote)
+4
Jul 22nd, 2009 (9:29 am)Heh, I think that bar is already set.
They don’t have any choice, they have to clear it as is.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (9:32 am)I think it’s pretty clear that many if not most early adopters will supplement their charging by added solar and wind generators at their locations.
I think the impact will be less than you suggest.
(Quote)
+9
Jul 22nd, 2009 (9:35 am)Yes, GM is blowing everyone’s doors off in China. Why? The Chinese, having been shut off from the western world for over 70 years, and have no emotional baggage when it comes to buying cars. They have started with a clean slate, and look at cars in the PRESENT. They have voted with their pocket books and made GM the clear leader. Buick is the top selling vehicle in China. It is THE car to have over there.
I invite anyone who is in the market for a new car to go to a Buick dealer and LOOK at the cars they are producing. They are rock-solid in quality, have world-class cutting-edge technology, and are drop-dead GORGEOUS on top of it all. I like the new LaCrosse especially.
And just about anything Ford makes is better than anything the import brands can offer too.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (9:37 am)Fro the article:
“We cannot afford to have anything but a hit,” said Stephens. “Every launch of every nameplate has to be a home run.”
——
I’m sorry, but I just can’t say DUH! loud enough.
GM has plenty of experience with crap cars that people don’t want to buy.
I would really like to see them make a complete turnaround in this part of their recovery.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (9:37 am)You have some excellent points there!
I took the statement (article from a couple weeks ago) to mean that instead of the genset ’snapping’ to a given ’sweet spot’ it would move toward that speed in a controlled manner so it would feel more ‘normal’ to the driver.
This WOULD effectively be following the pedal because more power (a higher sweetspot) would be required at a higher speed and vice versa.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (9:38 am)A very smart strategy that has paid off handsomely for the Japanese and the localities where they produce vehicles in North America. GM, Ford and Chrysler could have done the same if they were not so hamstrung by the UAW.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (9:40 am)Whether this is true and whether it will work if true, only time will tell. I hope GM will pay close attention to “detail” in the future. Their future depends heavily on this.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (9:42 am)People in my office have asked what car that is on my desktop.
So far most everyone thought the Volt looks good.
—————————————–
There are absolutely costs to be saved in the Volts “guts” give the engineers some time, the car isn’t even in production yet!
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (9:42 am)I am surprised dc that you were not run over and then, backed over just to see if you were in compliance with the, ahh, “direct current”. “Nothing to see here, we have discussed this before, move along…” When I said that the concept Volt inside and out was stunning I got the chorus of, “Not aerodynamic enough, just A to B, too much… “.
For 40k I do not want to drive around in Houston having people nod and say that my car is a screaming bumpersticker in and of it’s self for Al Gortheads and their dubious ilk. (once had a girlfiend of that, “ilk” for 3 years, ripped my heart out in very non PC way) MuddyRoverRob coined it blowingly well with a Dudley Moore comment that I shan’t repeat but to say that if I get smiles from the pretties then alright then and I am saving on tons of gas!
For forty grand I do not want to climb into a car that the DINETTE SET might find appealing but will NOT buy because of the price. The beautiful Solstice and Sky prototypes were pretty much left alone. They capture the eye. They are classics in design and will age nicely and NO, you don’t have to build every car to sell one bazillion of. Stephen Jobs of Apple said that, & I paraphrase, “You have your Chevy’s of operating systems, there is certainly room for BMW’s and Porches.” Guess we indeed have a regular (in design) but expensive, Chevy and I wish it well just the same.
Regards from Higgins & The Lads waiting to be run over again.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 22nd, 2009 (9:45 am)It is not “well known” as you say (a common phrase used by people trying to hide the truth).
In fact, this point has been well researched and the gist of it is that most of the charging will be done at off-peak hours at night, requiring NO additional resources in most areas.
To repeat the citation above:
http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=204
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (9:51 am)I agree with you but the whole situtation is very complicated. The Pentagon wants a strong Japan and South Korean economy to keep communism in check. This has caused us to allow high trade deficits which these countries. The whole reason why Japanese products are more reliable is because they innovate less and streamline. The way to beat the japanese is to constantly innovate before they have time to streamline the process. Intel is doing this now vs AMD.
(Quote)
-6
Jul 22nd, 2009 (9:53 am)I figure that we’ll know that the big three really want to beat the Japanese automakers when they move their headquarters to Dallas.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (9:53 am)Higgins my friend I still think that the price of the Volt will be in the $28k range in just a few years.
(A combination of cost cutting and cell price drops.)
I still believe the whole point of the Volt is to be a regular car!
It needs to be the kind of car that a soccer mom or non car guy commuter is comfortable jumping to without any concerns.
The plug-in thing saves gas, it’s simple and people understand that.
The early adopters will eat the price premium to be first, and they will do that with their eyes open, then the prices can drop in a couple years.
/Glad to hear the Lads are back off the boat!
(Quote)
+10
Jul 22nd, 2009 (9:53 am)I agree. But how does GM or Ford overcome the mindset that has been developed and feed by the media, the foreign auto companies and by our friends and neighbors for decades. We only hear horror stories about the quality and unreliability of American auto company vehicles. Very little press is ever devoted to the problems the foreign auto companies have with their vehicles. And it is not because they don’t have problems because they do. It just does not get reported. Media sources treat American made products in the same manner they treat Republicans. As something to avoid at all cost. Too bad. Both have more to offer the American people than the alternative in the long run.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (9:59 am)Hybrid ships?
They leave port and go to 100% power for a week or longer. They also have engines that beat 50% efficiency burning bunker oil*. Compare that to 25% or less out of a truck engine. What exactly is a hybrid drive supposed to help them with?
Maybe some heavy machinery might benefit from a hybrid, but not much. They also complicate a hybrid due to the need to produce 100% power for a long period of time. This is the opposite of a car, where cars run at low power most of the time and only occasionally run at full power. There is also little dynamic braking because #1, they aren’t moving fast, and #2, rolling resistance is high. Dozer operators don’t use the brakes much.
*bunker oil is what’s left over after taking everything else out of crude. It’s slightly above road tar in consistency. It’s about 70% of the cost of raw crude.
(Quote)
-1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:00 am)I think you will find in later years that “events” have conspired to keep the electric vehicle cost well above the cost of “normal” vehicles. I think we are all whistling down a well when we think the cost of the Volt will ever fall to the level of a Cobalt or Cruz. I just don’t think it will happen. IMO.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:03 am)Dave,
What vehicle is that as pictured in your link? I don’t remember seeing it before.
(Quote)
-6
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:03 am)Note that Ford’s sales are down 28%.
Liberals buy Toyotas and Subarus. Conservatives buy domestic cars to support Americans. Now conservatives won’t buy GM & Chrysler because of the bailout.
It’s good to be at Ford.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:04 am)Stupidity would be the mother of this shortage. Time of day pricing and different incentives for electric utilities would probably solve any potential “shortages” without investments in physical plants. The average American in states other than California uses 12000 kWh of electricity annually. (increasing at 3% a year since 1974). The average California resident uses less than 7000 kWh (increasing at 0% since 1974).
Since 5000 kWh will power a car like the Volt 25,000 miles, the only hurdle standing in the way of the electrification of transportation is continuing the current brain dead utility regulation. Specifically, all that needs to happen is that the utilities need to be paid for the distribution rather than the sale of electricity, and for consumers to be charged more during peak periods. In theory this should cause the utilities to sell less electricity and for consumers to move electrical usage to off peak times, and in fact this is what has happened in practice.
Funny how basic economics work. Compensate utilities for selling an extra kWh of electricity and they sell more kWhs. Compensate doctors for selling more medical procedures and they do more procedures. Charge people more for using electricity during peak periods and they will use less during peak periods. Hopefully we’ll figure all this out sooner rather than later.
(Quote)
+3
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:06 am)CR is full of it when it comes to cars.
When they tested one ton pickups from the big three, they drove them around LA empty. They never put a load in them, and they never took them off road.
Maybe if you live in LA and drive a pickup, that’s what you do with it. But the rest of us don’t buy pickups to drive them around empty.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:06 am)When they talk about losing money for several years on the Volt I assume they are also including the amortization of R&D in this calculation….and not merely the margin on individual car sales.
I hope that’s the case anyway.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:07 am)MuddyRoverRob, The Lads have a penchant for, ah, Chinese food and are constantly hungry! Oh the woe of being their caretaker!
I think I can keep my auto car going for 3 years or so as I am a rather versed in the oily mechanical monsters and then maybe I can tag on at 28k which will placate my own concerns of driving a “regular” car, kind of and getting sultry purple haired babe smiles from Al GORTheads and soccer moms.
Or, maybe there might be something more in the works like the original prototype. Who knows. I have my books to finish writing by then, I hope.
The Lads are happy you thought of them! Off to buy some finger food.———–your friend, Higgins.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:08 am)In the not too distant past when I bought my previous new car. (2002 Subaru Impreza wagon) I did the rounds of all the dealerships and came away least impressed by Toyota and GM.
At that time they BOTH had uninspiring product lines. (With the exception of the Corvette which has backseat and price issues, we DID buy a wagon!)
My short list for my wifes commuter car was the Subaru (obviously) the Mazda protege 5, and the Acura EL 1.7 (basically a civic with a hopped up engine and leather seats).
I recently walked through my local Toyota dealer and felt uninspired, but a few days later while picking up a part for my Malibu I actually was impressed and ‘tried out’ the seats in a couple models in the Chevy showroom.
I think they really ARE turning the corner.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:09 am)Hello… are you new to this site? If not, you’d know that the government did NOT design the Volt. It was in development years before GM took any bailout money. Even if GM was able to survive on its own, there’s no doubt it would continue its trend towards the electrification of the automobile.
Oh, and hydrogen will require a lot more than fuel station ‘tweaks’.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:10 am)I am hoping for the same.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:10 am)This very website had a interview where they talked about trying to make the Volt not look like a Prius.
The problem is that Toyota got the aerodynamics right on the Prius. That’s the shape a car is for the absolute minimum wind drag.
The stylists would send a car over to the wind tunnel, and it would come back looking like a Prius. The stylists would tweak it to not look like a Prius, and send it back, only to have it returned looking like a Prius.
(Quote)
+4
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:13 am)I see a bandwagon type of success. There will be the early adopters. Then Smith’s will see the Jone’s bought a Volt. They will start asking questions, and become more educated. As more ppl learn & understand, the more success the Volt will have.
(Quote)
+8
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:15 am)GM was and can still become great even if they keep their headquarters in Michigan. They are more plentiful qualified engineers and skill trades up North than the South. So don’t me that crap!
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:16 am)Also, no one has a crystal ball for battery technology. I read something new almost every day on battery tech. How many years out are we talking about too. People throw out the word “future” all the time, but what do they really mean.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:16 am)I’ve never been a big conspiracy theory fan.
In this case my friend I hope you are wrong.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:18 am)Thanks for the link. Never fear! Ford and Chevrolet will sell plenty of trucks in the future. There will always be a big demand for trucks like the F-150 and the Silverado. As time goes on demand will keep building as people stop trying to keep their trucks longer and longer. At some point sales will soar for a few months then settle to more normal levels. Maybe not the higher levels of the past, but very good levels for today’s market. Plus, some people will find that a good pickup can still be a very good investment even as it approaches 10, 12, 15 or more years of age. I still see a lot more older pickups on the road than I do older cars. They just have a longer life, generally speaking. IMO.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:20 am)More sedans and fewer trucks is emerging as a secular trend. Also interesting is that the Malibu isn’t on this top 10 list but the Fusion and the Altima are. The Malibu is a very good product and should be competing well with these alternatives. The fact that it is not represents a marketing communication failure rather than a product failure, which is what Lutz is supposed to fix.
Maybe this is the measure by which Lutz should be judged?
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:21 am)I usually dont like to listen to anyone that gets paid to review things. I’ll go with my own data collection from friends/family/test drives/past eperience/etc.
I will use CR for some factual info, but not for their opinion.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:23 am)For cars, it wont be the flywheel
Remember that article about the Gyro-car or something like that. It had a giant flywheel. Great design until you had a crash and that flywheel went “flying” somewhere.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:24 am)I agree electric vehicles will sell. Lyle reports above that “Stephens notes that each new GM car has to be increasingly efficient to meet upcoming federal standards. More importantly, he truly believes in an electric future. He is described as seeing a time when most cars and light duty trucks will run on electricity, though his specific timeframe for that isn’t given.”
I see Tom Steven’s view here as a hopeful sign that Bob Lutz’ pessimism toward hybrids —onethat Lyle also recently reported— will NOT prevail at GM!
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:25 am)I don’t know if it is that simple, but I agree with the concept. I wonder if GM has looked at it in this manner. Hopefully they have and have some very good reasons for not doing it. If not, they should give it a look see. IMO.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:25 am)Its all those servers running at night
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:27 am)N Riley, The best I can tell is it’s a non USA Cruze r3. Here is the link.
http://www.forocoches.com/foro/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25500
Off on vacation for a few days. Plane leaves in 2 hours, see you Sunday.
=D~
(Quote)
+4
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:27 am)I don’t agree with Lutz as a “blow-hard”. That is just not true. Bob Lutz is a lot of things, but I believe you have him wrong on this point.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:27 am)I did say “even ships” knowing full well that more gains would be gained with trucks.
The huge diesels in ships are incredible machines without a doubt. Maybe there isn’t much to be gained there, but then battery weight in the context of a ship is not a big deal since they are already stupid heavy. Cruise ships and Ferries speed up and slow down all the time, who is to say there is nothing to gain here. Even 5-10% would be a big saving in running costs.
I was actually thinking about drag lines when I typed that, they swing a huge weight at really quite incredible speeds. Regen DEFINATELY has a place there.
One can always find exceptions to every rule.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:31 am)Adrian is one of our well known fuel cell advocates.
I do not call him wrong since really how the heck can any of us know for sure?
I do however think that a hydrogen infrastructure is a long way off.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:32 am)Thanks for the link, dc. I had not seen the four vehicles “lined-up” like that before. I knew there had to be a lot of design similarities between them and it looks really apparent when viewed like that.
I also agree that Fisker and Tesla have much more “beautiful” vehicles from a design point of view. I wish the Volt could look like the Fisker. It would be more worthy of its price. IMO.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:34 am)As do many of us!
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:35 am)Absolutely.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:36 am)This is an important point. GM has competitive product. The problem for GM is how to get people to look at that product, because the reality is that if people aren’t looking at your offerings they aren’t going to be buying your offerings.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:37 am)To survive GM needs cars to sell at a profit now. As simple as that, they cant afford to loose money on a car for 5 years before it breaks even. As much as we all like to Volt on the road if the car is not making money in couple years it should be separated into a new company with venture capital and Department of Energy financing. If Apple lost money on every iPhone they sell they would be also in line for federal money.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:42 am)I agree that GM should set the bar as low as possible. Isn’t the saying “Strive to be all you can easily be”. Seems like a sure fire path to success and excellence.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:43 am)A very fair question.
My thinking goes along the lines of cost reduce and improve on existing technology. Which means dropping the price of Li-ion cells.
If the magic fairy dust or the like end up appearing then WONDERFUL look at integrating the best of that.
I don’t dismiss outright claims of wonderfulness but without working prototypes they are nice bedtime stories and nothing more.
GM NEEDS to get the pack cost way down so we can buy our Volts at a good price. At this point the best bet is to run with what works and the put downward cost pressure on cell suppliers
(Quote)
+2
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:43 am)Good point, Statik. I had assumed GM would bring out Gen 2 in the fall of 2011 with a new generation offered each year or as technology improves. They have already stated that gen 1 is pretty much in a lock state and they are even now working on changes for gen 2. To get to a profitable position for the Volt GM must move new technology into it as soon as possible to take advantage of lower cost or improvements in efficiency to offset current cost. I just don’t see them “holding back” on getting lower cost into the production line.
Edited: While bringing out a new generation for the Volt, I believe it will be felt in the guts of the Volt introduced each year more than in the exterior looks. I would expect some slight modifications to the Volt exterior with major design changes delayed for the more normal 5 year cycle unless forced to speed up that time-table because of some failure in the design or the need to make changes for some other reason. I am voicing my opinion here. No inside information. Heck, I don’t even have any outside information.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:45 am)Does that 25% include the billions lost by automakers in the past few years?
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:46 am)Look above Matt_b. Your observation was most amusing and thank you for the photos.
Higgins and The Lads
(Quote)
+7
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:46 am)Yes, it amazes me how many liberals I know buy Japanese cars. Do they know the Japanese are one of the most RACIST and MISOGENISTIC societies on Earth?
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:47 am)Heh… we must agree to disagree on the looks of the prototype!
enjoy you lunch!
(Quote)
+3
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:51 am)I agree completely. When I first became obsessed with this site I didn’t care a rats ass for GM because I’d look in any parking lot, see their cars and never like what I saw (trucks aside). The volt has been a gateway car for me to look at their other products and I like where GM is going. By the way, you didn’t mention the sky/solstice that I hope finds new life as a GM model. That car is better looking than a BMW Z3 and priced like a Miata.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:53 am)I think the economies of scale are achieved by both producing in volume and by improving the Volt from gen 1 to gen 2 to gen 3 and so on. Part of the purpose of the gen 2 and beyond is to introduce more economic costs into the production of the Volt while at the same time improving the Voltec system. It will take both efforts to gain profit as soon as possible. Sure, you could keep the gen 1 Volt in production for 20 years and if production builds to where you are making 1 or 2 million or more of them, you could achieve economies of scale somewhere along that time-frame that could acquire a profitable state for the Volt. But, I think GM will use both to drive towards a profit.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:55 am)“He told the Associated Press that the type of cars people will choose to buy is based primarily on the price of gas, and that GM has not only to plan for high future gas prices but low ones too.”
Here we go again—for any of you that remember gas prices in the 70’s and late 80’s. Fuel prices are currently a lot lower than last year and the big wigs of the auto industry are ALREADY talking about making cars that reflect the price of gas. As of today, prices for regular are around $2.37…one heck of a lot lower than last year. At this rate, I will NEVER have a fuel efficient car, because, as I will be told time and time again, “We only build the cars that you want”….apparently, I’m too stupid to ponder a future further than next week.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:55 am)Everyone should be able to agree with your general point here. GM has had too many brands, too many models, and for that matter too many dealers. It may still have too many of all these things but obviously the Auto Task Force was convinced otherwise.
But Toyota has seen its share of failures. Let us not forget Genesis.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:57 am)OK. We have an engineer and a sales guy and you like the engineer. I’m not completely surprised!
(Quote)
+2
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:58 am)It’s hard to respond a comment like this without sounding like you are picking a fight.
I AM not.
Toyota sold the Prius at a loss for the first few years and that has worked out OK.
The engineers at GM will be working their ‘butts off’ to cost reduce the Volt to bring it into profitability ASAP.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (10:58 am)The one thing I have found in my 40+ years of work experience is that you can never count the “bean counters” out. I have personal experience where bean counters were given the power to make strategic decisions for our company that led to market losses that we have never regained. Sometimes you just have to tell them to sit back, pay our payable bills, keep the books straight and keep out of he company’s way otherwise. That same thing applies to other people and groups withing most companies. The bean counters are just easier targets because they have a tendency to try to tell the company how to “run things”. The best thing most companies can do is to listen to them, watch the bottom line where it makes sense and tell them to “mind their own business”.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (11:05 am)It’s not a done deal that the Cruze will replace the Cobalt. The 2009 Cobalt, with 5 speed, gets 37 MPG, beating anything like it from the competition. And it is a sweet looking car for low bucks. I just helped my daughter buy one (she got the automatic), and with incentives it was $16,000 out the door, LA, Ca. taxes and everything.
She loves it!
The Cruze will do better with MPG, but it is a slightly smaller car than the Cobalt really. So, if sales remain good, Chevy may keep the Cobalt around a while I predict.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 22nd, 2009 (11:11 am)Note that these liberals also buy foreign despite their UAW bretheren’s mindless support for democratic candidates. Too bad these UAW drones don’t open their eyes once in a while …..
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (11:17 am)“No, actually GM and Ford ALREADY make cars that are as good or better than anything the Japanese make, according to many sources, including JD Powers. Most Americans just haven’t caught up to that fact.”
It will take years, the generation of Americans who got fed up with the Big 3 has to die off.. this terrible hubris is what has damaged GM, Chrysler and Ford.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (11:19 am)Clearly that is what I said. Your just arguing for the sake of arguing with me now.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (11:21 am)Part of being able to maintain quality and have lower costs in general IS having one vehicle that sells 100,000 copies vs 4 @25,000.
Part of what the new GM is going to have to do is eliminate models AND eliminate variations of models. I don’t recall the exact stats, but at some point I looked at all the variations of the cobalt (engine, transmission, #of doors, factory-installed packages) and I think I hit ~50 variations without even taking into account colour!
Instead look at Honda. Typically they have 3-6 versions of each vehicle.
The new GM can not follow the old GM’s path of pretending to be everything to everyone.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (11:22 am)That’s a real big “DUH” for me also, Rashiid. It would be unbelievable that any one at GM would believe otherwise in today’s market and today’s environment. But you can never say ‘never’ where GM is concerned. Past history and all that.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (11:24 am)I would think you are correct in assuming its inclusion in the computation of Volt losses.
(Quote)
+3
Jul 22nd, 2009 (11:26 am)I would like to know what Jon thinks about peak oil. How much petroleum does he think will be produced over the next decade. No, not exactly but his thoughts. Some think we have tons of oil and there will be no problem even 30 years from now. Some feel we already hit peak.
This is very important because this basic belief will drive most of his decisions. It worried me that he feels they need to not only prepare for high gas prices but low ones. Low ones? If you have to prepare for everything how focused can your product line be? It’s like saying you want to be environmentally sensitive and a selfish bastard at the same time.
How about let other manufacturers worry about the low oil price situation? Just concentrate on the more responsible, likely, sustainable and smarter scenario.
Even if we end up with low oil prices (if the economy dies), the rest of the world will be smart enough to tax their fuel to promote fuel efficiency (like Europe, Japan, etc.). Thus, the low oil price models will only be useful to fill a niche in a depressed American market. Big deal.
Let the Hummer class and the giant SUVs go, unless you can make them electric.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (11:26 am)As good as the current Cobalt is, keeping it around with the Cruise in the mix as well just doesn’t make sence.
Having said that I’m hoping to work a deal on an 09 cobalt next summer for my son.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (11:28 am)While I certainly agree about Toyota losing money on the Prius for several years they also had a very profitable line of vehicles covering the full spectrum going for them. GM only had trucks and SUVs being profitable for them. Different story completely and, as we can see today, with a completely different set of results. Hopefully GM will start making a better profit margin on the Cobalts, Malibus, Impalas and other vehicles in their line-up to help sustain the company. Again, time will tell.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 22nd, 2009 (11:31 am)These are all scapegoats that GM will no longer be able to blame.
I don’t have the exact stat, but in one of GM’s presentations to the government (you know, back when they only needed a billion or two in loans and they would personally rebuild Detroit) was that there was only about 20 hours of labor in a vehicle.
We also know that aside from the legacy costs the hourly wages of unionized and non-unionized workers were fairly comparable.
GM was losing ~$2,000/car with many vehicles with $3-$4,000+ in incentives while GMAC was sweetening the deal by issuing leases that lost money. But we are supposed to believe that 20 hours of labor times $10/hour (if that!) difference in wages, is somehow going to magically warp from $200/car to $3,000+/car to give GM a profit?
As for taxes, I don’t imagine that a company that is as far in the red as GM pays much. Plus I imagine they are getting incentives up the ying-yang to stay in Detroit.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (11:32 am)Nothing that was said by Tom Stephens or anyone at GM would prevent you from purchasing a fuel efficient car today. There are many models available from GM, Ford and Chrysler not to even mention the Japanese and Korean models. So, what is stopping you? Waiting for the Volt? Or some other “electric”?
The price of fuel should never be THE determining factor in purchasing a vehicle. You should always purchase a vehicle that meets “your” needs and life style. Only you can make the proper decision. If you decide to purchase a vehicle that is a gas guzzler, you are the only person who should judge whether you made a good or bad decision. So, do it and make an intelligent, informed decision.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 22nd, 2009 (11:35 am)The “West” doesn’t need to fix its power systems. California alone, does.
The green Loons of California glory in de-industrializing California, in order to clean its emissions,by exporting pollution elsewhere. There is now not a single Coal powered generating plant in California. All but one nuclear reactor has been taken off line, as well. The only generation built is Natural Gas peaking plants, and some tiny amount of phony renewables like Solar and Windmills. Both tend to be located out in the California deserts, and our Green friends have fought building transmissions lines to bring that power to where its needed,after fighting all other power plant proposals and fighting to build Solar/Wind instead. Meanwhile total California power generation capacity is actually declining.
The Green solution? Why import it from all the other Western states including impoverished, third world Mexico. Turn power reliability on its ear and make Mexican electricity more reliable than that in California. Hide it from the citizens as much as possible, by forcing California industry to accept the rolling brownouts and blackouts, through enforced load-shedding that is now reaching almost daily occurrence.
The true situation is well presented here.
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_2_californias_environmentalism.html
The reality is that California can plunge into darkness literally overnight. Right now all the other Western states: Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and Mexico export their surplus power to California, and earn good money doing so by selling their declining surpluses.
But all it takes is a single state utility commission to decide declining reserves are insufficient at home, and deny their utilities the ability to sell power to California and the whole rickety contraption collapses. No other state can absorb the lost demand and other state utility commissions are forced to follow suit, or see their states plunge into unnecessary blackouts, that by law they can’t accept.
The only good thing about such an event is that the California’s legislature and its green fool Democrat stooges and clowns, may get tossed out, and/or stop listening to the naive, religious, Druid-revived, nature worship, and sanity can return to California power planning.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 22nd, 2009 (11:42 am)I agree, Joe.
It seems to me that leaving Michigan will be a very expensive move.
A move that is totally unnecessary.
That money can be used making very good quality automobiles.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (11:50 am)N. Riley,
That thought has crossed my mind as well.
But time will tell.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (12:00 pm)Plus the Cobalt looks dated, it was a much better car than the cavalier but still needs to go. If Chevy can come up with decent replacements/updates for the Aveo and the Impala they would have a great lineup.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (12:06 pm)That car has been cancelled. They were selling them at a loss.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 22nd, 2009 (12:08 pm)Without access to GM’s books I do not know whether the Cobalt Malibu or others are profitable or not so cannot comment further.
I think GM has a game changer in the Volt and Voltec drive.
I’ll step up to the plate once they are available.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (12:13 pm)“Spark” for the Aveo?
I think we’ll see the G8/Caprice replace the current Impala.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (12:17 pm)GM will have the Volt and they have the Tahoe.
Toyota has the Prius and they have the Sequoia.
All companies need to respond to customers demands.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (12:17 pm)I’m a Michigan engineer and I totally agree that we are really really super smart up here. GM should give lots of money to Michigan folks to keep all the technical development and R&D right here. Just my unbiased opinion of course.
(Quote)
+5
Jul 22nd, 2009 (12:21 pm)Well I consider myself to be a “liberal”, and I have bought nothing but Chevrolets for over 25 years. I do consider the idea of preserving American jobs in as many purchase as possible.
I live in a community in which the large majority of people consider themselves to be “conservatives”. I see almost no American made cars on the streets. Mercedes, BMW or Lexus if they can afford it, and Toyotas or Hondas if they can’t. Lots of Priuses, BTW.
This kind of stereotyping will not get us anywhere. Let’s try to rise above it if we can, OK??
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (12:22 pm)zipdrive,
The idea is to use off-peak generation, but please don’t confuse the issue. Running a power plant at full load versus letting it idle, for lack of demand, is not the same thing.
Bty analogy, You burn you caloric energy reserves when you run hard, as opposed to how many calories you burn sitting in a chair. Power plants work the same way. There IS enough generating machinery to provide all the electricity for a US fleet of off-peak charged electric cars. But lots more coal, gas, uranium, or falling water must be used to have those electric generating machines operate to generate the electricity you need.
There is a third aspect to is as well. Not all the power plants that a utility owns are as new or as efficient. So the Utilities wisely, or are forced by the Utility Commisions, to reserve the oldest, most unreliable, and most inefficient, plants, to be used only at times of maximum need. If off-peak demand rises to near the equivalent of the present peak demand, those old, inefficient, polluting and unreliable plants must constantly run. And they can’t; just like you must nursemaid your old antique jalopy to get it to run at all.
More fuel would be needed. Fuel demand would rise, for the dirtiest plants.
It would also stimulate demand for new power plants, which would be good. Nuclear power plants have been perfected. They are now passive and you can walk away from one and it will shut itself down safely, without relying on goofy operators, like those that destroyed TMI, or require any outside assistance. And IGCC coal CTG plants are amazingly efficient and clean, when compared to the older plants.
The USA finds itself with a large supply of very antiquated generating capacity. Many of the plants were meant to be scrapped in the 80s, or 90s, when new nuclear plants came on line, to replace them and also add capacity.
The Green fools, in their extraordinarily capacity to force unwanted, unintended consequences, as usual, forced the scrapping of lots of these new nuclear plants. So the utilities were forced to keep the old polluting pigs running long after their time. They still do.
A new building boom for generating capacity would remove a out-sized amount of extremely dirty generation. Recall that a lot of these old-timers were never updated. Under the dunder-headed Carter grandfather laws, once again pushed by the Green fools, they didn’ t have to be and weren’t required to have pollution equipment, unless a “major upgrade” was undertaken. Then the best possible pollution equipment must be provided. These old antiques simply weren’t worth investing in. The “best possible” rules also made it absolutely cost prohibitive. So except the absolute minimum of maintenance was done, to let them eke along.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (12:24 pm)Past history is really the issue, N. Riley.
They should have thought about hitting home runs decades ago.
Now, that their back is against the wall, I hope they can finally produce something of great quality and likability.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (12:38 pm)“Whistling down a well”? Never heard that expression before. Nothing on google either. But I like it so much it baits my tadpole. When people make up new expressions it really feeds my dandelions. Its like “a thousand goatherds” all clamoring for “the bride’s hedgetrimmers”.
/sorry. feeling strange today.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (12:38 pm)Not trying to stereotype. It’s just an observation of inconsistencies.
I know flag-waving conservatives who buy nothing but foreign cars.
(Quote)
+6
Jul 22nd, 2009 (12:40 pm)The really sad part that is plaging Ford and GM (Chrsler is still a mess) is perception. GM and Ford both have cars that are better than the Japanese, but most people simply don’t beleive it because of perception of poor quality in the past. If people will honestly set aside there bias for a few minutes and do some reseach and test drive some new models GM and Ford are more than competitive, they are now actually better products in many different ways. I have been a big critic of GM, but they deserved it. I used to recommend Camry’s and Accords to people, but now I am recommending the Malibu and Fusion. People think I am crazy, but they are simply misinformed. PERCEPTION is killing GM and FORD!! This will take a few years to get back, but GM and Ford are on the right track. I am currently considering the new 2010 Equinox to replace my 99 Subaru Forester. I have driven it, and quite honestly, nothing even comes close to it from anybody else. The interior is beautiful, stunning, and modern. The cabin is SILENT!! And the backup camera in the rearview mirror is a nice touch. And would anyone believe this new Equinox actually gets better gas mileage than the Honda Accord. Yes, that is not a typo. GM’s suv equionx gets better gas mileage than the mighty Honda Accord. (the naysayers will say, can’t be possible) GM has a complete hit on its hands but perception again is the biggest problem.
Hawk
(Quote)
+2
Jul 22nd, 2009 (12:45 pm)The only thing that’s stopping me is the definition of ‘fuel efficiency’. My household has 2 vehicles: ‘91 Metro @ 47 mpg and ‘99 Saturn @ 40 mpg. The Metro is underpowered and unsafe, yet I have adjusted my driving habits to match—something that the majority of people would rather not do. It’s a fuel efficient A to B car, that’s it. That’s what I want in a replacement. I realize that I’m in a very small minority and bordering on tilting at windmills.
Besides a 2010 Prius, there isn’t anything available that can match the economy of the Metro (except in Europe)…and why can’t I have one of those cars — apparently, I think diesels are still the 70’s black smoke belching pollution machines; believe me, if Ford released a diesel Fiesta today, I’d own it. Any domestic car that I can purchase today takes me a step backwards in fuel efficiency. You’re correct in that fuel price should never be THE factor in purchasing a vehicle, my problem is that fuel price seems to be THE determining factor in Building a certain vehicle. For me, fuel efficiency is THE largest factor in purchasing a vehicle…that’s how I roll: If I have to put money into that vehicle every month so it can do what I want it to do, I want that $ figure to be as small as possible.
All in all, yes, there are fuel efficient vehicles – by American standards – that are available now. I can’t help looking across the pond and wondering why I can’t have one of their cars (oddly enough, some built by Ford and GM). Fuel efficiency apparently can be done…but for some reason, not in the U.S. and not for at least a couple of years.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (12:53 pm)I would like to see a photo of all of them and not separate photos combined to make one. I HOPE THE VOLT IS WIDER THAN THE PRIUS!! Every time I follow a prius I lookl at the back seat width and think of sardines.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (12:54 pm)Sports cars and Muscle cars never have been top sellers, with the possible exception of the Mustang making the top ten once or twice. I think what this list shows most is a switch to sedans from trucks and SUVs and that people really don’t want to buy from bankrupt companies. That, IMO, is why we don’t see the Malibu on this list. There are also a small number of people that don’t want to buy from government bailed out and controlled companies.
Strange thing is, if one was to believe what is commonly posted on this blog, one would think that the Prius and the Insight would be at least in the top five. Where are these wonder wagons? I thought Prius alone had over 100,000 pre-ordered. I thought a Prius was better than a Camry in every way and competitive on price? I think this shows, as much as it might pain some, that when it comes to car sales in this country, gas mileage is not everything.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (12:58 pm)“We cannot afford to have anything but a hit,” said Stephens. “Every launch of every nameplate has to be a home run
————————————————————
I wonder…what is the definition of “hit” and “homerun” for the Volt?
- Will the 1st generation be a “hit” and an “out” (aka. quality built, meets performance specs…or pretty close on hilly roads and extreme climates, sold out inventory but a loss in the accounting books)?
- Will the 2nd generation be a “hit”, “out” and “walk” (still great quality, better performance, and less loss)?
- Will the 3rd generation be a “homerun” but not much credit for “RBIs”?
The Prius has built a reputation by progressive improving performance each generation. While ICE models follow this practice, it usually at the expense of another feature (like mpg). The huge battery pack and other new components for a mass produced vehicle of the Volt offers GM an opportunity to progressively improve with each generation.
Can GM accomplish it without negatively impacting the value of previous models?
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (12:59 pm)Great question. A typical big discount was a $27,000 MSRP truck for $17,000. So if the mark-up was 23%, the cost would be $20,800, and the loss would be 18%.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (1:01 pm)I wish it did, or had the opportunity to, but sadly it will not.
We already know the G8/Caprice is dead (per Lutz a couple days ago), and the ‘next gen’ Impala has already been greenlit on the Epsilon II platform, with a target of February 2013 for the build. (It is now the last surivivor of the W-body), alongside the Regal and Cadillac XTS.
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=1749690
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (1:02 pm)The probably with the Cruze being touted as the replacement, or a superior product to the Cobalt (which is clearly is on a mechancial/aesthetic level) is the price.
Right now you can go down to your Chevy dealer and get a base w/air for $12,990 (w/current rebates), another grand or so gets you automatic and the power junk.
GM is looking to start selling the Cruze in the high teens and build from there. This is not a true apples to apples comparison. Sure the Cruze is better, but it also costs a lot more.
(Quote)
-3
Jul 22nd, 2009 (1:19 pm)What they should vote Republican so their Union gets broke up and their jobs shipped over seas?
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (1:22 pm)Texas, you are right on the money. Peak oil problems have been compounded by the recent oil price drop due to the global economic crisis. Peak oil has fallen off the radar because the economic crisis has reduced demand (and hence price) for oil.
Worse yet, oil companies have mothballed most new well development programs, for two reasons: 1) oil prices are below the cost of extracting the newer, hard-to-get oil (the easy oil is gone); 2) credit contraction is limiting them to working primarily with cash-on-hand. These new projects take at least 5, usually more like 10, years to become productive. Hence, in terms of oil production, we have seen the peak and it’s only downhill from here.
If gasoline prices are low in the future, that can only mean that global economic collapse has occurred. In which case there’s no vitality in the automobile market anyway. In short, GM should plan on high oil prices ($4/gallon gas, or higher) or bust.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (1:30 pm)The Volt is the wall paper on my PC
Mine also the Black Volt in the driveway – I also have it on my home PC and my I-phone.
The Volt does not look like a prius – it took high res photo and a dark color to see the lines that differentiate the Volt
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (1:34 pm)I vote G8 – great car for the $$
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (1:36 pm)Some how I think statik may one day get that pink tie.
“Jon Lauckner: Hi Statik, still working on getting Bob’s pink tie. “
(Quote)
-1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (1:40 pm)That’s really too bad, they should have killed off the W-Body when the Impala was last refreshed. 3-4 more years is way too long for that car.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (1:45 pm)Right on!
Now get Mr. Lutz to say those exact words in the next GM VOLT TV ads and then we’ll be getting somewhere!
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (1:47 pm)The “All-Electric” version of the Orlando should be renamed to “Chevy Nomad”… Just a thought.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (1:49 pm)I’ve got my ‘benjamin’ ready, a deal is a deal. I’m pulling for a personalized derogatory comment on it from Bob as well. (=
/oh, to dream
http://forums.timesdaily.com/eve/forums/a/ga/ul/1821015848/inlineimg/Y/100_dollar_bill.jpg
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (1:49 pm)Great idea, I think it would need a design rework from the existing orlando, but I think it could be a winner.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (1:52 pm)Good job Bryan Laviolette and Bill Moore! I asked the same questions, basically reworded.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (1:57 pm)Not necessarily. Long term, I agree with you. We are going to face peak oil sooner rather than later.
But oil prices were bid up beyond their natural demand. It’s going to take some time to use up some of that inventory. And Iraq is now starting to tap their oil. That’s a fairly large amount to add to world oil supplies. Speculation also added to the price of oil last year, IMHO.
Also, demand may have shifted downwards–at least in the US market. More investment in public transportation. More people trying out public transportation and finding out they like it. More people buying hybrids, etc.
I agree that the fluctations are bad, which is why it’s the government’s job to tax gasoline. And raise the margin requirements for oil traders. But GM has to plan for every contingency. They don’t have a choice in the matter.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (2:02 pm)[Comment From Dennis ]
The leading hybrid has a robust community of modders…
The leading hybrid (cough* vile Prius *cough) has a robust community of modders.
(Quote)
+3
Jul 22nd, 2009 (2:05 pm)As per the chat, re:10 years/150,000 mile warranty.
I always thought the regulations were a little loose on what exactly triggered mandated work, and that it would be difficult to exact service and/or replacement from GM…but according to Lauckner, it will get FULL spec on day 1 to day 3,653 (give or take one for leap years).
I’m not really sure logistically how you take your Volt into Mr. Goodwrnch and say, this is only getting 30 miles in the city and I want a new pack…but I think GM’s stated committment to the original benchmarks throughout the 10/150,000 is actually pretty exceptional, if that is the way it plays out. It is impressive they are so definitive at this moment, early in the Volt’s history.
===========================
From the chat:
[Comment From statik ]
Obviously the Volt is being planned/engineered to reach the mandated 10year/150,000 mile standard set out by California (and adopting states). However, what is unclear is what benchmark, would trigger pack replacement/repair under this system. Obviously, you must have clarity on this issue before even starting to building the Volt, or attempting to set a reasonable interal control on costs over the lifespan. Is it merely inability of the vehicle to perform at its published specification, or when it does not achieve a percentage of this original metric…or only in a case of complete failure in the Volt’s case because it has a built in redundant system (ICE)
Jon Lauckner:
Hi Statik, still working on getting Bob’s pink tie. Yes, the Volt is being designed for 10 years and 150,000 miles. That means the battery pack will continue to deliver 40 miles of pure electric range (EPA city or highway cycles) and will be fully functional (free from defects). So, both of these conditions have to be met for us to meet this requirement. Btw, even after 10 years or 150,000 miles, the battery pack will still have enough energy storage capability for non-automotive, stationary applications.
[Comment From statik ]
Just to clarify, the battery pack will maintain full original specs through the entire 10years/150,000miles or GM will repair or replace it? If so, that sounds fairly admirable and a lofty ambition, points to you. (Sidenote: I’m available to pick up Bob’s pink tie anytime the Tiger’s play at home…I pay extra for personalized messages too, lol)
Jon Lauckner:
You’re absolutely correct, and it’s been awhile since I’ve been called admirable. This is why the warranty requirement is so critical in the development of the battery pack.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (2:09 pm)I agree, but I imagine if you were one of those owners and went into the GM dealership with that complaint they would run the vehicle through the EPA cycle and that is how they would determine warranty compliance.
If you were only getting 30 miles due to driving with your foot constantly to the floor I doubt they would do any sort of replacement.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 22nd, 2009 (2:11 pm)What has really disturbed me over the years about American car company attitudes is what do they do when they find some problem? It’s not such a big deal to me if the company makes an engineering mistake and the press-fit on pulley on our ‘84 de Ville fell off (true story – I’m totally willing to overlook that, too because that really was an excellent car). Do you then redesign the part so that it doesn’t fall off or do you just calculate the failure rate and the cost associated with the few repairs and weigh that against the cost of actually fixing the source of the problem. Too many times in the past the American car companies did that calculation and determined the cost of actually correcting the root of a problem was more expensive than just fixing the problem whenever it failed.
(Various exploding gas tank problems come to mind, here
That kind of customer perception problem just haunts a company nearly forever. It’s much harder to overcome than just making a mistake and fessing up and fixing it.
That’s why Intel recalled all those very expensive pentiums all those years ago for a floating point math error that literally had billions to 1 chances of occurring. It would have been cheaper to just replace the ones of customers that complained and hush it up, but once the news broke they replaced them all because it would have destroyed their reputation to not to have done it… And then everybody just forgot about it and went right on back to thinking of the processor quality as excellent.
The alternative is the issue gains a life of its own and lives on through rumor and innuendo and you can almost never, ever redeem your reputation because the specific issues were never really acknowledged and put to rest.
Or in other words vague feelings of unease are much harder to reverse than specific issues that are addressed.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 22nd, 2009 (2:13 pm)Tag, your too much, lol.
[Comment From Tagamet ]
Is there even the most remote chance that the Volt will be released for Independence Day of 2010?
Jon Lauckner:
“I thought someone filtered out the crazies in here” (paraphrase)
—————–
Ok, he really said:
–If “released” means start of production, the answer is no. However, there will be many Volts on the road driven by employees and maybe a few others at that time. Stay tuned.
Which I’m sure that reply will know spawn rampant conjecture and shameless posturing to qualify as one of the “few others”
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (2:16 pm)Get on it Bob!
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (2:21 pm)Consumer report’s evaluation method for cars is statistically flawed (because it’s a self-selected group.) However, in practice what this means is that it takes their ratings some time to catch up to reality.
Detroit’s improvements have already shown up in consumer reports. I think they’re right in recommending GM and Ford over Chrysler. As long as GM and Ford continue to make great cars, then I believe that the consumer reports ratings will follow–eventually.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (2:31 pm)Jon Lauckner: …We’re the leaders in it (Vehicle electrification) today and we expect to be the leaders in the future.
——————————————————————–
Just not in vehicles sold…yet anyways.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (2:31 pm)Their top-rated pick-up full-sized trucks are the Chevrolet Avalanche, the Chevrolet Silverado, and the GMC Sierra–in that order. Then the Tundra. Then the Ford F-150. All the above are recommended.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/pickup-trucks/ratings-reliability/ratings-overview.htm
So, you really can’t accuse them of anti-detriot bias based on their full pickup trucks reviews. That doesn’t mean their ratings aren’t flawed, of course. But they usually test things out in a variety of situations. Are you sure they never put a load in them? They talk about handling with a load in the road test section of their review.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/models/new/chevrolet/avalanche/road-test.htm
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (2:37 pm)There are a lot of people who don’t let politics affect their choice of automobiles. Do you know how many “green” liberals I know who have SUVs?
It’s very unfortunate, IMHO. We have much more influence when we buy things than when we vote. (I still recommend voting, but I’m talking relative impact.)
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (2:40 pm)Electricity is the future . . .it is just a matter of time. We’ve burned through most of the oil in the USA. And we are busy burning through the rest of the oil on the planet. And although there is still a massive amount of oil still out there, demand is ever increasing and the cost of extracting the oil in far-flung places continues to rise.
It is only a matter of time before the high-demand for oil and the high-price of extracting oil pushes the oil price up past the amount where EVs become a real viable alternative. We are pretty much at that point right now.
Actually, we may have actually passed it already. Since cars are durable goods, they last for many years. And if the price of oil rises like it did last summer in future years, an expensive EV purchased today will end up having a lower total cost of ownerhsip than a lower priced gas car that will be completely reliant upon expensive gas for its entire lifetime.
Then again, the economy may continue to struggle for years allowing oil prices to remain stagnant such that EVs remain impractical for a few more years. EVs are the future . . . it is just not easy to know exactly when. They failed in the 70s and late 90s. But the will be back.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (2:42 pm)I imagine these commitments will become easier to uphold as tech progresses. After 5 years of that 10-year warranty, the terms and practical results of battery use may already be different than what we have today.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (2:43 pm)There are plenty of qualified engineers in the South. Every hear of … NASA, for example?
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (2:43 pm)I know it’s a long shot but I really hope demos will be available next summer instead of in 2011, and that they do some sort of nationwide tour to build up awareness and desire.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (2:43 pm)matt_b,
Hybrid ships are already in wide usage. They are called sailboats.
Be well,
Tagamet
/and yes, they are experimenting with wind assisted tankers, too
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (2:44 pm)http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html#autosalesC
What WSJ gets by slopping all truck series together.
Since electric drive is inevitable, according to GM, this one is the important one:
http://www.hybridcars.com/hybrid-sales-dashboard/june-2009-dashboard.html
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (2:44 pm)The origional (here in Canada) diesel smart might have been what you were looking for.
Sadly somebody decided to stuff a gas engine into it and the numbers just don’t support the smart any longer.
Its definately a WTF were they thinking…
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (2:46 pm)Yeah. If Jon thinks people won’t be tinkering with their Volts’ guts, trying to improve on the baseline, he needs to think again. There will be modding, reprogramming, and experimentation a-plenty.
“Void My Warranty” is a regular motto among lots of brave (if not necessarily wise) folks!
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (2:48 pm)At first, I didn’t read who that was from, I just started reading the comment. Then my brain went “Tagamet!” and sure enough it was from him. Good for a hearty chuckle
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (2:49 pm)GM can afford to take a hit on the Volt for awhile– after all, they just built their new battery facility and they have yet to start assembling the production line for the Volt.
They also are now missing a very large debt sheet that required huge regular payments, so the 60 billion or so in cash they have can keep them going for awhile, even if they’re losing some money here and there.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (2:53 pm)If he spends all day every day thinking about the Volt, his perspective may be more limited. Low oil prices mean less demand for the Volt, and higher prices mean more demand. So, if he wants to be prepared for whatever the future will bring for his product, then he has to figure out how to deal with low prices — ’cause high prices probably mean it’s party-time at Volt HQ, no matter what.
Anyway, I’d like to hear him answer the question you pose as much as everyone else, and I really have no idea what he’s thinking. But nobody had mentioned the “hedging his bets” interpretation, so I figured it might add something to the discussion.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 22nd, 2009 (2:55 pm)Cruise ships are already diesel-electric. They are virtually floating power stations. Even the propellers are turned by AC motors. Most have two enormous diesels that run when the ship is moving, and two smaller ones that are used to run everything else when the ship is stopped.
I do imagine that there might be savings realized by using a bank of batteries to power the elevators, kitchens, lights, giant outdoor TV leaning against a funnel etc, so that the smaller “in port” generators could be eliminated. You’d charge up the batteries only when the ship is underway on it’s main engines, and run on the batteries when the ship is stopped. I guess you could call that a “hybrid,” though not in the way we normally think of one.
(Quote)
Jul 22nd, 2009 (2:55 pm)We may be in violent agreement — not sure. The critical factor is that, regardless of what caused the price spike, global oil production was flat f-l-a-t. At those high prices, anyone who could produce more oil, would have done so. This proved the lack of excess capacity and proved that the entire world’s existing fields were producing flat-out.
Demand for gasoline has dropped slightly in the US (most drop was for diesel, not gas), but demand is still on the rise in developing nations, especially China. Automobile purchases are skyrocketing in China.
Existing fields are depleting at a rate of 5% per year. Even if world oil demand remains flat (and IEA projections predict rising demand), we need to add one new Saudi Arabia about every 2 years just to compensate for the depletion. Iraq won’t be even one Saudi Arabia, and will take time to ramp up. And that depletion figure ignores the fact that oil producing nations are now starting to use up their own oil, as their standard of living is rising fast. So oil produced does not mean oil available for export.
So I stand by my prediction that, in any scenario other than economic collapse, we will have gasoline at $4/gallon or higher by the time that the Volt is widely available.
(Quote)