GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Electric Car Site

Increased motivation for automakers to produce more hybrid and electric vehicles is coalescing in the ongoing discussions over Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.

This past weekend the Detroit News reported that the Obama administration presented auto executives at the White House with the idea of raising the average fleetwide mpg for cars and light trucks from 35.5 mpg set for 2016 to 56.2 mpg for 2017-2025.

Since last year the proposal of a 62 mpg CAFE standard had been bandied about, and this week’s 56.2 was a compromise between 47 mpg automakers suggested and the higher number. If imposed, it would mean automakers have to figure how to increase efficiency by about five percent per year.

This car gets excellent official EPA mileage. Battery electric vehicles get even higher eMPG ratings.

One possible way for automakers to meet the mandate would be by adding more electric and hybrid vehicles into their lineups. If deemed otherwise cost effective, this would reduce the mpg average across a respective maker’s range.

The way the CAFE numbers are calculated is different than the EPA estimates on the Monroney label (window sticker).

Edmunds figures a 56.2-mpg CAFE standard equals an EPA rating of 41 mpg in combined city and highway driving. The 2016 CAFE standard of 35.5 mpg equals about 27 mpg EPA, and a 62 mpg standard would equal a combined 44 mpg.

The 56.2 number is only a proposal yet subject to negotiations for standards that will be announced in September this year. In turn, automakers are continuing to study the issues to justify making any counter proposals.

GM’s Reaction

We have seen a wide disparity of views on the impact that such a number will have from environmentalists, administration officials and auto industry executives.

For his part, Mark Reuss, North American president of General Motors said it will not be easy to jump over a 56.2 mpg bar, but if it becomes law, the company will of course do it.

“It’s our job to take a look at it, digest it, and put together a data set of what it takes to do it. The auto industry does not get easier. It always gets tougher,” Reuss told Ward’s Auto, “That’s the challenge and that’s what our jobs are. If even-stricter guidelines require billions more in investment, so be it. It’s not an either/or thing. It’s how we get there with cars and trucks that consumers really want to buy at a [price] that doesn’t put unreasonable cost on them.”

Good or bad?

Automakers have otherwise argued that what they view as excessively high standards will not have a positive net effect. In contrast, environmentalists and administration officials say the opposite.

When the 62 mpg standard was suggested last year, the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency released a “Notice of Intent to Improve Fuel Economy and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2017-2025.”

In it, they stated:

“The automotive market is becoming increasingly global. The U.S. auto companies produce and sell automobiles around the world, and foreign auto companies produce and sell in the U.S. As a result, the industry has become increasingly competitive. Staying at the cutting edge of automotive technology, while maintaining profitability and consumer acceptance, has become increasingly important for the sustainability of auto companies. Trends in the world automotive market suggest that investments in improved fuel economy and advanced technology vehicles are a necessary component for maintaining competitiveness in coming years.”

Regarding the 56.2 mpg proposal, these same officials estimate price increases for new vehicles in 2025 could range from $2,100 to $2,600 – but these would pay for themselves if consumers kept their cars for three years, resulting in fuel savings of $5,500 to $7,000.

So here we have Uncle Sam saying to automakers – which some government officials have pointed out have received tens of billions in bailout money to improve their effectiveness – that staying at the cutting edge will enhance global competitiveness.

Is this going to happen? Not likely. GM will need to improve it as much as possible, then splice in high-mpg vehicles to improve the average.

In contrast, the auto industry has assembled a host of objections saying this just is not the case.

Industry estimates for what cars would cost in a world of 62 mpg average fuel efficiency have been as high as $10,000 per vehicle, and presumably these same objectors would say it would not be much less for 56.2 mpg.

Other objections were voiced to Edmunds by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturer’s Vice President, Gloria Bergquist.

She threw the safety card into the mix saying manufacturers would be forced to lighten their vehicles, which would mean vehicles across the board would be less safe in crashes.

She also said the industry could be forced to stop making as many SUVs and pickups – many of which meet legitimate needs, and are profitable.

For example, could you see a Ford F-150 pickup averaging 41 mpg? It has been argued the cost to make vehicles of this class and heavier that efficient would be prohibitive.

Bergquist said making manufacturers perform billions in R&D needed to implement advanced tech in its vehicles would have an economic chilling effect because sales would plummet, cascading into layoffs, assembly line shut downs, and other negative effects.

Potential fuel-saving technology for internal combustion vehicles would include lightweight materials, stop-start systems, electronic steering, braking, and climate-control systems to reduce parasitic drag on internal-combustion engines, and more.

Not tough enough?

According to Roland Hwang, transportation programs director for the National Resources Defense Council, the government has already weakened its position for what the NRDC sees as an attainable goal.

“We still think 62 mpg is the right number, but if the administration wants 56.2 [mpg], then it has got to hold firm and not negotiate down from there,” Hwang said. “We think, though, that this is a lot more than just a trial balloon. In the last round of CAFE negotiations that resulted in the 35.5-mpg standard for 2016, the administration pulled automakers into talks that were aimed at ‘how to get there, not whether to get there.’”

Path of least resistance

As Reuss said above, GM – and no doubt other manufacturers – will do what they have to in order to meet mandates. Since maximizing profits is always the goal, they will do what it takes to achieve that as well.

One obvious growth area that could help fleetwide average mpg are hybrids and electrics.

Hybrids represent a mere 3 percent of the market today, and electric vehicle sales of several thousand so far barely register compared to yearly internal combustion vehicle sales.

Fortunately for GM it began four years ago on the Voltec platform and already plans to increase models as it also experiments around the globe with battery electric vehicles.

The goal will be designing, pricing and marketing them to where people will buy them. If the manufacturers’ assertions that costs will rise across their respective lines, this will affect advanced-tech vehicles too.

What will it mean for vehicles like this 505-horsepower, Corvette Z06 – or the 638-horsepower ZR1 – in a world mandated to average 56-62 mpg?

Even Bergquist conceded marketing hybrids and electrics could help, but said there are challenges.

“We have the technology to improve overall fuel efficiency,” she said. “What we’ve got to concentrate on now is how to get people to buy them.”

Only the beginning

The clamp is definitely tightening on the old paradigm but of course there are no guarantees for increased EV and hybrid proliferation even if many more are produced.

Inherent in automakers’ fears is that people will buy what they want to buy, without regard for mandates, and the last thing automakers want is to have models they cannot sufficiently sell.

These and many more issues will be debated for the next couple of months – then beyond.

Aside from this weekend’s 56.2 mpg proposal, NHTSA and the EPA are formulating a more definitive CAFE proposal to be issued in September. This will be followed by sufficient time for comment gathering and counter proposals from stakeholders including industry, environmental and safety advocates, as well as the public.

By July 2012, new CAFE regulations for 2017-2025 are due to be in place, giving automakers five years to figure out how they will meet them from 2017 onward.

No one knows how this will shake out, but in any event, the case is becoming stronger for more EVs and hybrids.

Source: Edmunds, Green Autoblog

We interrupt our regularly scheduled program here at GM/EV central to bring some disconcerting news: we just learned the electrification of transportation could be a wasted exercise because America will have all the petroleum it needs, and oil prices will decline because they always do.

Since we believe everything we read, it naturally leads us to wonder: Are environmentalists and people interested in national security therefore barking up the wrong battery-powered tree?

According to one auto industry pundit, the implicit answer could be yes.

The Volt is meant to wean us from dependence on oil and its pollution. This week, the publication that named the Nissan LEAF’s and Chevy Volt’s powerplant one of the “10 best engines” offered an editorial effectively questioning these cars’ raison d’être.

“Before this decade is out, we are going to see vast increases in the amount of oil and natural gas available,” John McElroy concluded in a column on the Wards Auto Web site.

The writer of the editorial titled, “Oil’s Price Always Comes Down” had led up to this by saying for nine decades, ups and downs have been normal, and Americans have strong reason to believe prices will drop.

“Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows the price of a gallon of gasoline over the last 90 years, on an inflation-adjusted basis, always has declined after a spike,” McElroy said, “It may jump during war time or global turmoil, but then it drops.”

After years of following the issues, McElroy said he is no longer concerned with oil supplies.

“Every day, we are bombarded with screaming headlines about soaring oil prices. What we rarely hear is that the price of oil always retreats,” he said. “Five years ago, I believed in the Peak Oil theory. It postulated that global oil production would peak in 2006, and the following shortage would send prices skyrocketing. Sure enough, in 2008 a barrel of oil shot up to $150. But less than 12 months later, oil plummeted to less than $40 a barrel. Yes, the price now is back up to $100, but I no longer believe in Peak Oil.”

For the first time in 40 years, McElroy said, the U.S. Department of Energy is predicting an increase in domestic oil production by two-million barrels per day by decade’s end.

Thanks to hydraulic fracturing for both natural gas and oil, America will have new-found supplies of these natural resources.

Supply also will come, he said, from new Brazilian offshore reserves that rival those in Saudi Arabia, and due to be tapped in coming years.

And in Iraq, McElroy said, infrastructure is on its way to multiply output by six or seven times, possibly making that nation the world’s largest oil producer.

“And this will have enormous implications for the auto industry and policy planners,” MacElroy said confidently.

Yes, because of the new-found energy deposits and a 100-year supply of natural gas, he ends his piece suggesting it will affect policy for auto industry and government decision makers.

In fact, his message flies in the face of what the Obama administration, other government and auto industry decision makers are planning for.

And if he is right, it seriously erodes one of the primary arguments in support of electrification of transportation.

Although McElroy never says this about EVs explicitly, his editorial leads one to wonder what is the concern over gasoline prices and supply?

This is the trailer for “Gasland” a movie that exposes “fracking.” McElroy calls fracking the “mother of all game changers,” and dismisses the film as nonobjective, non journalism, over a non-issue.

McElroy also poo-poohs concerns over one of America’s supposed saving technologies intended to deliver all this new fossil fuel. He said dangers of hydraulic fracturing, called “fracking,” have been overblown and sensationalized, and something easily controlled through regulation.

“Some environmentalists have seized on it as the next great danger to the planet. A documentary called ‘Gasland’ probably will win an Academy Award for hysterically pointing out the dangers of fracking,” McElroy said, “Of course, ‘Gasland’ approaches its topic with the impartiality and evenhandedness of pseudo-documentaries such as ‘Roger and Me’ and ‘Who Killed The Electric Car?’

Oops. There at least he said something kind of snotty about a topic and perspective held dear by some EV proponents.

Pick your pundit

So what do we make of this? Is Green Peace all wrong? Al Gore? Or if not them how about the U.S military? European Union? The Obama Administration? General Motors? The rest of the auto industry? Are all the private, corporate and government entities around the world that are pursuing a whole new battery powered industry basing it on bad data?

Given also biofuels, fuel formulations made from natural gas, synfuels, and others under development, will we have plenty of fuel to burn?

Is the fight for electric transportation no longer as worthwhile an endeavor toward a clean and sustainable future?

McElroy says nothing about hydrocarbon emissions, but perhaps that omission was one he has worked out also.

All we can say for sure is that in today’s information age, anyone can stand on a cyber stump and call to like-minded souls with soothing words that play to pre-existing biases in their minds and hearts; there is always someone willing to convince you of what you want to hear.

While we prize the First Amendment, aspects of the free-for-all are nonetheless what are really disconcerting.

To be fair, one could turn this assertion back around on us, and say we are just a fan club on a misbegotten adventure.

If so, we are not alone in believing energy independence is a worthy goal, and we have yet to be convinced oil is not problematic for many reasons.

The troublesome thing is not everyone has the ability to discern truth from fiction. In fact there are a lot of intelligent people on all sides of the argument – in environmental and energy issues, and for that matter, most issues facing society in this divided/united world.

Who do you believe? In this clip Greenpeace alleges VW is standing in the way of EU legislation that would further limit new vehicle CO2 emissions. If you want to see part two, you have to sign up, and Greenpeace will email VW a protest on your behalf.

McElroy’s tagline says: “John McElroy is editorial director of Blue Sky Productions and producer of ‘Autoline’ for WTVS-Channel 56, Detroit, and ‘Autoline Daily’ the online video newscast.”

In his opinion piece, he makes a defiant presentation that effectively muddies the outlook, which of course is his right.

He presents his case with some facts, and we credit him for having the guts to express opinions that are tantamount to saying millions of people are wasting their time, and he knows better. Is he arrogant, over confident, a bold visionary, or something else?

We won’t call it, but will ask: what do you make of this? Do you have facts that counter McElroy’s convictions?

A while back we reported an opposite-minded pundit from HSBC bank who said the world would be out of oil by 2060, and now here is someone who won’t call the end because he says it is nowhere in sight.

It is getting confusing here. Who has the story right?

McElroy does not say it, but others before him have made accusations that ideological blinders drive the EV movement.

Are his assertions nothing but a smearing of one old guard ideology vs. the new other?

What is the truth? Do you know?

Source: Wards Auto

It may be unfortunate for some that recent plans were sidelined for a Voltec-based Cadillac, but according to one General Motors plant manager, the Chevrolet Volt practically is one.

This was the view recently expressed by Bay City Powertrain Plant Manager Joe Mazzeo, who described the Volt as a “luxury” car.

“When you look at the Volt, there are a couple of things that really stand out,” he said to MLive.com. “Versus other electric cars, such as the Prius, its form, function and features are all in a higher class. When it was designed, it was modeled after the Audi A4 – we aimed to have a very nice mid-size vehicle. It absolutely is a luxury vehicle.”

Tax breaks and other potential incentives cut the sticker price, but GM’s new commitment to EVs is positioned like a pretty fine car.

Mazzeo said customizable features including leather seats, various color options, and sophisticated instrument interface all imbue the panache of a vehicle that is a cut above.

The Volt’s quiet ride also contributes to a high-end feel – and it comes not only because of its electric powertrain, but also because GM made the effort to build the unibody especially rigid. The Volt has extra spot welds to reinforce the structure and prevent squeaks one might not otherwise hear on an internal combustion-powered vehicle.

Further, the Volt has excellent road manners, and hides its 3,700-pound plus bulk well.

“It might not be a true luxury vehicle, but it drives like one,” Mazzeo said. “People say it doesn’t seem to feel any different from a gas car.”

Mazzeo’s comments are coming from someone directly involved in building some of the components used in the internal combustion side of the Volt. Further, he is clearly a knowledgeable GM manager with comprehensive understanding of cars, and said he sees the Volt positioned as at least medium-to-high end.

We find this instructive as while the Volt was in development there was talk initially of its price being lower. There has been talk also of it being a sort of every persons’ solution.

While no doubt it is, the fact that it came in at around $42,000 its first year means its price is easily double that of an entry level vehicle.

Was this unavoidable? Doubtful. It was GM’s brass that chose how to spec and position its latest foray into EVs, this time intended to be the first of a range.

In time, we hope to see the price drop lower than what was done for the 2012 announcement, or other spin-off Voltec models priced in the 20s and 30s – and expect we will, just as higher-end iterations may still come along like the for-now sidelined Cadillac SRX version.

Tesla says the Roadster was the first of a line of EVs which will include more affordable models. As a company, it started with this. Kind of like having dessert before dinner.

As it is, GM is not alone in positioning its new-generation electric car kind of up the ladder. An even more extreme example of this has been Tesla. It began with the over $100,000 Roadster as its first foray into EVs, and recently announced the more affordable Model S, and has said it will build more everyday cars in time as well.

A similar example could be the range-extended Fisker Karma, which as that company’s inaugural model, is supposed to be around $97,000.

Various marketers and planners choose how best to put their best, uh, face forward in presenting their inaugural EV technology.

In contrast, the canceled $36,495 Think City EV had attempted to start at the other end of the spectrum – as humble, practical transportation, but the company could not get the price humble enough, among other issues.

Nissan has also priced the $32,780 LEAF as low as it said it could, and it has been said to be a veritable loss leader – although others still complain it is too pricey.

The pending Mitsubishi iMiEV may be one of the lower priced American market EVs yet, estimated for somewhere in the 20s.

The i MiEV is an electric vehicle based on the gasoline-driven 660cc “i” minicar. It is in the same vein as the G-Wiz, but almost certainly better engineered.

And perhaps one of the most low-end EVs anywhere in the western world was London’s REVA G-Wiz city priced in the mid teens – that Indian company did have aspirations to go up the ladder by partnering with GM, but those plans were canceled.

In any event, it is a pretty simple concept we are observing: Where EV/EREV manufacturers decide to start can be anywhere – whether high-end, and then going lower. Or as low as possible, maybe with intentions to go higher. Or somewhere in the middle like Chevrolet did.

Where automakers decide to jump in on the demographic spectrum says something about their decision makers’ strategic mentalities – what exactly, we are not entirely sure. It at least seems certain there can be diametrically opposite views on how to launch EVs, from tree-hugger-pleasing bare bones, to power-broker-pleasing Ferrari beater, to anywhere in between.

In London, $17,600 USD was cheap, but then so was the ride quality of the Indian-made car with range of about 50 miles. A Li-ion version could cost $25,000. In February it was announced the car was no longer being imported to the UK.

Given its present status, perhaps the Volt had to be a certain minimum, as it has become the standard bearer for the New GM.

The Volt is used as a backdrop for GM’s corporate events and marketing statements, and it is definitely not a $21,000 stripped model. In fact it has nothing to be bashful about in the company of mid-range Acuras, BMWs, Audis, Mercedes, Cadillacs or Lincolns. GM even tells the press that these are the marques being traded in for the Volt.

The face the the New GM is the Chevrolet Vot, as shown here in the recent shareholders meeting presided over by CEO Dan Akerson.

In all, positioning the Volt as an upper end car was probably not a bad move on GM’s part – it is not stratospherically priced, but quite appealing, something to be proud of, with options left open.

It may have come in higher priced than some had previously hoped, but it is yet a fair value all things considered.

Mazzeo said as much when he observed the Volt is still an upper-level Chevrolet packed with luxury features, but still not branded with an upper-echelon nameplate.

“Chevrolet is clearly not viewed as a luxury brand,” he said. “All of these features don’t come at a higher price – you just get more value.”

Source: MLive

To speed widespread acceptance of battery electric vehicles, it is believed a few objections will have to be overcome, including the relatively lengthy time required to recharge them.

Other objections like “range anxiety” are met with the Chevrolet Volt, but as GM-Volt’s founder Lyle Dennis once described it, the car is an excellent “bridge” technology toward electric vehicles with no petrol-power assistance.

Another objection to BEVs is high perceived prices. Reducing battery production costs to help enable lower pricing is currently the highest priority for the industry, according to a spokesman for Proterra, the electric city bus company in which GM Ventures just invested $6 million.

The original case for the Volt was a majority of people drive under 40 miles per day and it can slowly recharge overnight using unspent capacity. It is a conservative approach do-able with existing tech.

As it is, we have heard several accounts of fast charging innovation, and – no – none of them are about anything named EEstor.

Credible examples of ultra-fast charging development include efforts by Opel in Europe, existing technology in Proterra’s buses, rumblings out of Germany from Kolibri, and a process in Japan that can recharge a Nissan LEAF in five minutes.

The challenge

At the rate technology is improving, there may be hope yet to induce 57 percent of Americans do what they said they never would: Buy an electric vehicle – or at least this is what a recent USA Today/Gallup Poll said.

While we tend to consider such surveys as only so good an indicator of anything in these rapidly changing times, we will say it at least shows some people still need to be convinced.

Sure, painfully expensive gasoline would help, but rather than beat them into submission, how about winning more flies with honey? For today, our definition of “honey” for seemingly recalcitrant, late-to-never EV adopters will be “fast charging.”

Rumblings

Last year Opel said it was able to recharge a lithium-ion battery the same size as found in the Volt – not overnight, not in four hours, but in under one hour.

Opel Meriva EV1, September 2010.

“We are testing charging at high currents in less than one hour, as well as the communication protocols between the vehicle and charging station,” said Opel Vice President of Engineering Rita Forst last September of its converted Meriva EV1.

At the time, GM was using 400 volts to charge it, as well as testing vehicle-to-grid capabilities. We have not heard much about this German project since.

However, another ultra-fast charging demonstration in Germany has happened more recently with DBM Energy. A couple months ago we were told it could charge a battery with six times the capacity of the Volt’s (or Opel Meriva’s) battery inside a scalding-quick six minutes.

DBM Energy’s battery was put through German government tests this year. Examples of it are already being used by forklifts in busy logistics centers.

This statement, and intentions to push toward commercial viability, came unequivocally from the company’s Chief Operating Officer, Markus Röser. This was not long after its battery had been shown by the German government to be able to deliver 300-plus mile all-electric range, and indications were it would be cost effective, safe, and was almost ready for EV production.

Here now

Promises aside, the electric bus company in which GM Ventures just invested is in production, and able to drive 300 miles per day thanks to a fast charging station that zaps it back to life in a few minutes between 30-40 mile trips.

Proterra’s FastFill™ system is comprised of software and hardware to rapidly charge the TerraVolt™ Energy Storage System from 0 percent to 95 percent with over 92 percent energy charge efficiency in as little as 6 minutes.

Proterra EcoRide™ BE35.

The way it works is massive current is fed through the roof via heavy cables supplying a robotically controlled apparatus to recharge the battery. Not only is it nearly fast as lightning, the batteries presently ranging as high as 72 kWh are estimated to have a life of 8,000 to 25,000 recharge cycles – substantially higher than automotive EVs.

The Altairnano lithium-titanate batteries in the bus are based on lithium-ion technology and have a titanium-oxide, nano-based coating on their anodes, said Proterra spokesman and engineer, Joshua Goldman. This enables reliable fast charging with less heat generation.

Goldman expressed doubt for the likelihood of this battery technology being adapted to automotive use anytime soon however.

For one, it is comparatively expensive for consumer applications, although part of this is only due to present low volumes. Secondly, it has half the energy density of the battery in the Volt – the Proterra’s water-proof, water-cooled battery pack occupies half the physical volume of a Volt, and weighs upwards of 5,000 pounds. The third downside is it is just too durable.

Yes, in this world of planned obsolescence, it would be undesirable if a battery were developed for an EV that could outlast the car by two-three decades, which is what you could wind up with if a battery is good for up to 25,000 charge cycles.

Thanks to Joshua Goldman who scrambled to post this personally produced video for GM-Volt readers to better understand Proterra’s system.

While we are not as impressed with the too-durable objection, we understand it, as we do the heavy, bulky and expensive impediments.

Goldman said the chief driver these days in EV battery development is cost. We have heard this priority several times from GM, and others.

Driving down costs is predicted to cure sticker shock presently causing some would-be consumers to shake like a leaf at the prospect of an EV that might go 80-100 miles on a charge, requiring hours to recharge, and costing as much as a nice Acura.

On the other hand, while the talk on these shores particularly is cutting costs, some engineers in Japan apparently did not get the memo that fast charging EVs was not a priority.

What if instead of this, charging could be done in five minutes? Would it change GM’s strategy as well?

This month it was reported a Japanese system was patented and will soon go on sale that can recharge the 24-kWh Nissan LEAF battery to 90-percent full in five minutes.

We have not learned of any downside, such as decreased battery life, although we have not heard battery life will not be adversely affected either.

As it is, Kanno Tomio and his team of engineers in Tochigi, Japan demonstrated a system using capacitors that dump current into the LEAF’s battery.

It is similar in concept to Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems (KERS) used in Formula One racing.

The system can still take advantage of off-peak grid rates by charging the capacitors overnight, answering one possible objection to daytime fast charging.

Tomio and company expect to install its systems in homes and businesses in Japan by 2012, and not long after, offer them to Europe and North America.

We have not learned of proposed price or other specs as of yet.

More than one way to skin a cat

Reducing production costs and MSRP are indeed priorities, but also important is increasing all-electric range and (ultra-) fast charging – at least this is what some EV fence sitters say.

It takes economies of scale to enable any or all of these. Which one will come first?

Price is an obvious metric to try to improve, but it implicitly says a car’s performance, options or durability might be sacrificed for the sake of lower price.

Proterra battery electric bus.

We believe the USA Today/Gallup survey and other empirical evidence suggests most consumers want no cost or performance downside compared to ICE vehicles, if possible. Many would want clean electric cars and no perceived sacrifices.

And if so, this would mean it is not just price that is important. What if an EV could be recharged in five minutes? Or what if an EV could provide double, triple the AER of current designs? More people would pay current prices or higher for that, we believe.

As for today’s subject, ability to recharge as fast as a petrol vehicle could be one route to larger acceptance – and in turn could draw more innovative companies into the EV wading pool.

Ultra-fast charging also potentially means larger batteries could then be used without them needing 16-24 hours to recharge as would be the case now, which could solve the range anxiety problem at the same time.

Although we have not heard from DBM Energy lately, we suspect it knows this. It is already stuffing 60-100 kWh batteries in subcompacts, aiming to fix the range, charge time and cost objection in one shot.

At this point, the accounts of ultra-fast charging are noteworthy as they are a cut above mere urban legend status – and at least one prospect looks ready to go in Japan.

Time will tell what it will take to inspire 57 percent of Americans to change their mind about never buying an EV.

Reuters, Proterra, Gas 2.0.

Yesterday General Motors began displaying and testing a Volt-related, all-electric version of its Chevrolet Beat minicar in New Delhi.

The EV is not being proposed for sale anytime soon, but India was chosen as a demanding environment – as well as growing market – to demonstrate the car.

The potential world market EV is actually the latest battery electric conversion by GM, which has previously announced electric vehicle demonstration programs in Germany, Korea, and China.

Chevrolet Beat Electric launch. From Left: GM Vice Prsident, Corporate Affairs, P. Balendran, GM India President and Managing Director, Karl Slym, Vice President of Marketing and Sales, Sumit Sawhney. (Photo credit: Indian Autos Blog).

The Beat Electric is powered by a 300-cell, 20-kWh, liquid-cooled, lithium-ion battery similar to what is in the Volt, but larger for the smaller, but non-range-extended car.

It is said to be good for about 130 km (81 miles) of normal driving. Recharge time with 240-volt power is under eight hours.

A single-speed drive unit and an electric motor producing about 45-kW (60 horsepower) turn the front wheels.

No top speed or other tech specs were listed for the latest EV being shown by its North American-based maker in several markets other than its home market.

GM’s Kevin M. Kelly, manager, electric vehicle and hybrid communications, told us a bit about the German and Korean EVs of which readers of GM-Volt may already be familiar as they may also of GM’s Chinese ventures.

In Germany, the electric GM/Opel Meriva, announced September 2010, has a 60-kW (82-horsepower) electric motor with torque output of 215 Nm (159 foot-pounds). Its 16 kWh battery delivers range of 64 km (40 miles), and top speed of 130 kph (81 mph).

Opel Meriva EV1.

GM said Opel’s engineers integrated the electric drive without making concessions on luggage capacity or comfort.

“The electric Meriva may look like the production car, but is a pure research-vehicle. We are testing charging at high currents in less than one hour, as well as the communication protocols between the vehicle and charging station,” said Opel Vice President of Engineering Rita Forst.

In Korea, on October 2010, it was announced that three Cruzes and seven GM Daewoo Lacetti Premieres were converted to all-electric spec.

The 10 Cruze/Lacetti EVs are equipped with a 31-kWh battery and generates maximum power of 150 kW (201 horsepower). The products in the demonstration fleet have been monitored closely to determine the amount of real-world range achievable by vehicles of their size.

GM Daewoo Lacetti Premiere EV and Chevrolet Cruze EV.

On specific test schedules conducted by LG Chem, the demonstration vehicles may achieve a range of up to 160 km (100 miles). The vehicles can go from 0 to 100 kph (60 mph) in 8.2 seconds with a maximum speed of 165 kph (102.5 miles per hour).

In China, GM said in April this year it would showcase none other than the Volt as well as the Electric Networked-Vehicle (EN-V) concept. We have not heard of any EV conversions there yet.

The Chinese Volt and EN-V were part of a test drive involving officials from the Shanghai Municipal Government, China’s Ministry of Science and Technology, and the International Energy Agency, along with representatives from Electric Vehicle Initiatives (EVI) member countries and pilot cities.

Gives a new meaning to being green with EN-V. We were not able to confirm whether this one gets five NHTSA stars for frontal impact protection, but kind of doubt it.

GM said it would help promote the demonstration and commercialization of electric vehicles in China by sharing its latest advanced technology achievements and expertise, contributing to the development of electric vehicle infrastructure and standards, facilitating international exchanges and promoting electric vehicles.

“No company has made greater advances in vehicle electrification than GM,” said Kevin Wale, president and managing director of the GM China Group. “We are pleased to be sharing our achievements and expanding our cooperation to ensure a cleaner, greener future for China and its people.”

While the China, Korea, and Germany stories may be old(er) news for some of you, the big news this week is in India regarding GM’s latest Chevrolet EV presumably made with trickle-down-tech from the Volt.

When we last reported on the India Beat, the rumors were it would be shown in April, but plans were stalled.

Initially, GM and REVA had intended to bring a Spark EV to market, but those ties were severed, and GM built its own Beat EV instead – as a show car for now.

Side view of a standard ICE Beat.

While a price of around $7,771 had been estimated for the GM/REVA e-Spark, Indian Autos Blog observed even if the Beat Electric was offered to the public, it would be a tough sell, as its “L-Ion batteries are way too expensive for the cost-conscious Indian buyer who experiences frequent power cuts at home and work.”

Instead, a Beat diesel is expected to be the new workhorse of the line due later in July.

Tailored for India

As it is, GM said it timed the Beat EV to join its fellow GM EVs in honor of the recent World Environment Day (June 5), and its engineers would evaluate it as a world environmentally sensitive car.

“General Motors is committed to providing customers around the world with electrification technologies that will reduce their fuel consumption, helping them save money. GM India will lead in this ‘tailored for India’ demo program for battery electric technology, with Chevrolet Beat chosen as the best way to evaluate the technology, said Karl Slym, president and managing director, General Motors India. “We are delighted that Chevrolet selected India as an important market to test battery electric technology, while recognizing the capabilities of our engineering team to help identify ways to make this technology more affordable.”

Chevrolet Beat EV. (Photo credit: Indian Autos Blog)

Aside from Beat EV, GM India is already offering a range of alternate fuel vehicles including Chevrolet Beat LPG, Chevrolet Spark LPG and Chevrolet Aveo CNG.

The Beat EV could lead to a viable city car in many markets, and surely there would be buyers for a version of it in the U.S. as well.

Coincidentally, automaker Think Global of Norway declared bankruptcy a couple days ago, and will not be launching its similar purpose $36,495 City minicar in North America.

We know of no plans to bring the Chevrolet Beat EV to North America, but if it could one day be offered in India for around one-quarter to one-third the sidelined U.S. Think’s price, we dare say it could be a seller even at two-to-three times the Indian price in the U.S.

Unfortunately, Kelly was not at liberty to divulge any North American advanced-tech plans, but he did say GM is looking at all kinds of options for the North American market, including EVs.

He did say GM is figuring out how best to tailor a car for the U.S. but there is “no firm timing” for when GM’s home market will see even an experimental EV like they already have had particularly in Germany, Korea, and now India.

What do you think GM-Volt readers? Aside from the Volt and what ever Voltec model is next, is America ready for a General Motors battery electric vehicle of its own?

Sources: Indian Autos Blog, GM India, Korea demonstration fleet, Opel MeRegioMobil Demonstration, Shanghai EV International Pilot City Partnership

While today we have a handful of production electric vehicles, most notably the Chevrolet Volt, Nissan LEAF and Tesla Roadster, in three years we could have as many as ten times the number of models in production.

One thing this means is none of the various organizations coming together to make it happen can easily afford to be listening solely to the beat of its own drummer; standardization and collaboration will be most expedient for a smoother roll out.

This is both the opinion of Automotive News looking at the broad picture of the accelerating EV industry, and what stakeholders in the United States and Europe are discussing in Washington.

The Volt, shown at the ongoing Buenos Aires Auto Show (June 17-26), already adheres to some EV industry standards. No word when the Volt will go on sale there, but GM did announce it was investing $146 million in Argentina for other production vehicles.

Specifically, this week representatives from the world’s two largest economies were reportedly close to establishing joint standards pertaining to EVs.

“The EU and the U.S. are about to agree to an ambitious work plan aiming at aligning regulatory issues, standards and research” for those vehicles, EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht said in a speech in Washington, Tuesday.

As the EU’s top trade official, De Gucht met with administration officials, industry executives, and U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk.

De Gucht declined to share what they were specifically attempting to iron out, but the goal is to “avoid moving into different directions and risk creating new market barriers,” he said.

As Automotive News commented in a separate opinion piece, foreseeing snags and working to resolve them in advance is in everyone’s best interest – including no doubt, the Japanese, Chinese, and any other EV industry participants.

We have already heard of international regulatory snafus regarding pedestrian alert sound generators that stalled the launch of hybrids.

Automotive News contends issues go much deeper and cooperation on many levels would also include agreement on charging standards, electronics, and much more to better enable proliferation for the new kinds of vehicles.

With regards to electrical systems, they vary from manufacturer to manufacturer and where necessary, they could be standardized. For example, collaboration should be sought among automakers and utilities to solve issues with vehicles that will utilize the power grid.

This in turn will potentially create fewer difficulties for consumers, and could even cut costs. One example of this could be if smart grids allowing secondary uses for EVs’ lithium-ion batteries.

We have previously reported GM has sought collaboration since the Volt’s inception by partnering with the Electric Power Research Institute and others in the utility industry.

The SAE J1772 standard as used for the Volt works for most but not all EVs. Internal combustion cars do not have this problem with fuel filler diameter.

This no doubt has been good, and more of these kinds of partnerships need to be worked out for other manufacturers Automotive News says.

Commenting to Automotive News in light of the talks in Washington, GM Spokesman Rob Peterson agreed the move to establish broader standards is a good idea.

“Anytime you can get things that are common, it helps with the designing, engineering and manufacturing,” he said.

Peterson said the “number one” concern is standardized charging mechanisms. GM also supports standardizing EV pedestrian warning sounds due to be required, he said.

Until now, Automotive News says as difficult as it may have been, introducing the first EVs was relatively easy, but with many more manufacturers and models coming on board, the “hard part” will be avoiding snafus where possible.

In working together core competencies and weaknesses must be identified by stakeholders, “then opportunities for near-term collaboration must be found,” Automotive News said.

“The early adopters have turned the EV movement into more than just a spark,” Automotive News said, “If EVs are going to be a viable and long-term option for the second wave of consumers, partnerships must be in place to take the EV market to the next level.”

We agree and are curious about what you see: Aside from the few issues mentioned, can you think of other areas where standardization in the budding EV industry would be most helpful, if not vital?

Automotive News, Again.