GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Electric Car Site

A Volt that was side-impact tested for the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration and caught fire three weeks later has prompted the same agency to begin investigating lithium-ion batteries from all makers.

If news of the second Volt known to have been involved in a fire in early June after the 20-mph impact did make the press five months ago, it was not noticed here.

NHTSA’s full revelation was reported last week however, and details included that the fire might have been prevented if GM’s post-crash protocols had been followed. In a statement, NHTSA did not raise undue alarm.

NHTSA’s side impact test of Volt into a pole.

“Based on the available data, NHTSA does not believe the Volt or other electric vehicles are at a greater risk of fire than gasoline-powered vehicles,” the agency said. “In fact, all vehicles – both electric and gasoline-powered – have some risk of fire in the event of a serious crash.”

This we said last week when a third Volt was involved in a house fire in North Carolina. Thus far many more internal combustion powered vehicles have burned – 200,000 in the U.S. last year alone. To date no one has been killed by an EV fire which cannot be said of traditional vehicles.

Nonetheless, a higher degree of perceived newsworthiness has emanated from the NHTSA-crashed Volt which spontaneously caught fire while stored in a parking lot, and ignited nearby cars as well.

The news sent GM’s stock as much as 3 percent lower on Friday, and it closed 1 percent down while the market as a whole climbed two percent.

It is the newness of EVs that has people concerned, because unknown is what worse might happen. The mystery has been removed from internal combustion vehicles, but not so with EVs.

NHTSA said it is now working with all automakers on post-crash procedures to better ensure safety for electrified vehicle occupants and emergency personnel who arrive at crash scenes.

GM is cooperating and taking its own steps in kind, said Jim Federico, GM’s chief engineer for electric vehicles on Friday.

“We are working with other vehicle manufacturers, first responders, tow truck operators, and salvage associations with the goal of implementing industrywide protocols,” Federico said.

Chevrolet’s T-shaped battery pack.

While GM is on board with NHTSA’s latest plans, GM spokesman Greg Martin said Friday that the third-party company that conducted the crash tests for NHTSA did not follow a protocol GM’s engineers had already worked out for just such an eventuality.

Specifically, GM has provision to send a team to drain the battery in crashed Volts, said GM Spokesman Rob Peterson. The company did not tell NHTSA about the procedure, however. He said next year GM hopes to have made a battery draining tool more commonly available.

NHTSA is now recommending that damaged EVs be kept in an open area, not an enclosed building or garage, and they should not be left proximal to other vehicles.

It recommends also that tow-truck drivers and salvage-yard workers contact damaged electrified vehicles’ manufacturers rather than attempting to discharge batteries themselves.

Another GM spokesman, Jay Cooney, said subsequent attempts to subject the Volt to crashes and induce another fire have not been able to, so thus far, this crash fire is a one-off event.

The federal standard is actually less severe than the SUV-force side impact testing conducted by the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety, and that organization has had no Volt fires.

But this is now the third fire a Volt has been involved in – and the first where the Volt definitely did cause an electrically induced fire.

Following the Connecticut fire in which a Volt was on location, authorities and GM said the car was not at fault. In the case of the North Carolina fire, it appears likely the Volt will be cleared.

This latest post-crash fire was presumably due to a ruptured battery, but the exact cause is still under investigation.

Volt/Ampera batteries on their way to assembly.

“Apparently, there was some cell activity, latent activity that resulted in the fire,” said a NHTSA official. “That cell activity we don’t know.”

Thus far, no Nissan Leafs have been known to have been involved in a fire. Nor have other brands, so regardless of circumstances, GM has had to face these experiences alone.

As the maker of the most mass market battery electric automobiles on the road, Nissan issued a statement declaring its EV to be safe.

“All of our systems have been thoroughly tested to ensure real-world performance,” Nissan said in a statement. “To date, the more than 8,000 Nissan Leafs driving on the U.S. roads have performed without reported incident.”

GM says its vehicle is safe as well. The Volt’s 400-pound battery is protected deep within the vehicle.

If further precautions – such as government-mandated discharging –or other engineering is deemed necessary for electrified vehicles, it is being said that this incident leading to the NHTSA investigation may bring that out.

New York Times

———————————————————————————————————————————————————
Dear GM-Volt Readers: We value everyone’s feedback on our daily stories, but – please – don’t post breaking news or other stories that we could be working on as a post here. Doing this will help ensure fresh daily discussions, and will be better for everyone. If you would instead, please e-mail story ideas to jcobb@verticalscope.com Thank you!
———————————————————————————————————————————————————

Leading up to and since beginning sales last month of the extended-range Fisker Karma, the company has maintained an optimistic tone in the face of public relations ups and downs.

After initially making bold sales projections, company representatives quietly ceased saying that 3,000 Karmas would be delivered worldwide in the last two months of the year, and are saying only things are hopping without being quite as specific.

This decision came after the Karma received less-than-projected U.S. efficiency ratings and the EPA made itself the brunt of automotive journalists’ jokes by officially designating Fisker’s $100k, 16.5-foot-long, 5,300 pound luxury hi-po machine a humble “subcompact.”

Henrik Fisker stands by what is likely his current favorite car – one with his name on it, intended to prove itself a first for a new American car company.

Early adopters who know better, and already prepared to shell out $96,000-and up for the first Karmas are not expected to be dissuaded by the government’s classification and estimate of just 32 miles of all-electric range, 52 MPGe, and 20 mpg with generator running.

They might even be impressed by the German government’s recent vindication of Henrik Fisker’s consistent statements that the Karma is well-capable of 50 miles of AER.

This week Fisker announced the Technischer Ueberwachungs-Verein (TÜV) determined the Karma is indeed certifiable at 51.6 miles AER.

Yes, 52 miles AER is more like it. And Fisker was quick to praise the Euro agency for pinning a more impressive number on the car.

“The TÜV have carried out the most thorough tests yet of the Karma’s real-world urban performance,” Fisker said in a statement. “This is an independent process that measures every element of the Fisker Karma luxury plug-in hybrid’s performance.”

Of the German tests, the founder of the company said he too was gratified.

“We are delighted that the TÜV has confirmed that most owners will achieve a 50 mile range running purely on electric during their daily commute,” Henrik Fisker said.

You can be sure also that Karma salesmen will be mentioning this TÜV rating, and giving anecdotes as needed to qualify the whole situation, despite the depressing EPA label showing less impressive numbers.

The EPA did award the Karma the highest possible score of 10 out of 10 for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions on its label.

Some of the meaningful praise garnered amidst dubious criticism includes the Karma having just been awarded “2012 Design of the Year” by Automobile Magazine.

But Uncle Sam’s measuring stick is still in question considering the EPA says the Karma is now officially in the same classification as a Chevy Sonic. Unlike the automotive industry which takes into consideration weight and dimensions, the federal agency looked only at the Karma’s sub-100-cubic feet interior dimensions and declared forthwith it shall be known as a subcompact.

Government designations notwithstanding, unless someone wants to pull a sophomoric spoof, don’t expect to see any automotive shootouts between the 403-horsepower luxury sports car and a feisty 138-horsepower Sonic, even if the street-smart Chevy can parachute out of an airplane.

But if this is not enough PR confusion to combat by the aspiring American automaker, the Irvine, Calif.-based company has also had to defend itself against accusations that it was siphoning off U.S. taxpayer funded loans and diverting them overseas.

By now, most readers here have heard reports that were presented as investigative pieces, but really were inconclusive. Allegations on brief TV news spots delivered in grave and concerned tones were that foreign transplant Fisker gladly took $529 million in low-interest money and did not uphold its obligations under the good-faith gesture endorsed by the Obama administration.

Is this proof of a “taxpayer boondoggle?” Not really, but “the people want some answers,” ABC says with all due sincerity …

In response, Fisker issued a press release denying allegations. Here is what it said:

• Not a single dollar of the DoE loans has been, or will be, spent outside of America. All expenditures are reviewed by PwC (PriceWaterhouseCoopers) on behalf of the DoE.
• After receiving the DoE loan, Fisker made it a priority to create U.S. jobs which led to the purchase its own assembly plant in Delaware where we plan to establish production of our second, higher volume, line of vehicles (Project Nina).
• There are currently over 100 workers reconfiguring the Delaware plant so that Fisker will be ready to begin hiring a skilled hourly workforce to producing its Nina platform vehicles in the U.S. for sale around the world. Many of these Delaware costs are covered by the DoE loans.
• For the Karma program, the DoE loan money was used solely in the U.S. to fund design, engineering, and integration work.
• Only private equity financing, of which we have raised over $600 million so far, has been used for costs not covered by the DoE loans, of which only a small part is production costs in Finland.
• The majority of our private funding has been used to create jobs, including 650 people at Fisker’s headquarters in California, over 100 at the Delaware plant and many more at various suppliers throughout the U.S.
• At the inception of the company, Fisker explored the possibility of producing the Karma in the U.S. However, there are no contract manufacturers like Valmet in the U.S., and none of the established domestic automakers were willing to partner with Fisker to provide a manufacturing option in the U.S. that would work for the Karma program. Our assembly arrangement for the Karma was in place before the DoE loans were approved, and has been widely reported on since 2009.
• There is no link between Fisker Automotive and any political party. We are politically neutral – our focus is on building luxury electric vehicles.
• More than 45% of the components of the Fisker Karma sedan are manufactured by approximately 40 suppliers located in the U.S. Some of our biggest suppliers in the U.S. include A123 Systems (Li-ion battery), General Motors Springhill Engine Plant (gasoline engine), Goodyear (tires) and TRW (regenerative braking system).
• The Fisker Karma is the world’s first environmentally-responsible luxury sedan with a unique hybrid electric powertrain developed by a highly-skilled team of engineers and designers in America.
• With the help of DoE loans, Fisker has already created hundreds of U.S. jobs, with thousands more in the near future. Ultimately Fisker is a high-tech American car company that we’re confident will be an American success story to be celebrated.

We reported previously some of these facts a few weeks ago just a day or two before the Big Story blew. We’ll update it now given that last week Bloomberg reported Fisker did cut its orders of A123 Systems lithium-ion batteries, and the Massachusetts battery company’s stock took a 10-percent further dive.

A123 now says full year sales will be $165-180 million, down from previous forecasts of $210-225 million. Fisker also supplies GM and Daimler AG, among others, and CEO David Vieau said only that Fisker is balancing inventories from all suppliers, and offered no further details aside from a general statement.

“Our relationship with Fisker remains strong, and we expect that this reduction in volume is temporary,” Vieau said. “We are executing a plan that we believe will manage costs in the near term while allowing us to maintain the manufacturing and operational capabilities required to quickly ramp up production.”

What does it all mean?

Nothing definitive at this point, but it does show the road to launching your own whole new American auto company can be rocky, especially in this contentious politicized atmosphere. To its credit, Fisker is displaying all the chutzpah one would expect of a company taking the risks it is. It has defended its claims, and has been at least partially vindicated on all of them.

The Karma does not pretend to be a Volt competitor. Fisker’s first car is a high-end entry into the green American automotive space exactly following Tesla’s example which began with its six- figure Roadster, then went down-market to its pending S-model, after proving what it could do.

Make no mistake: It’s a bold strategy to start closer to the top, rather than the low end. If Fisker succeeds, it will show itself to have the technical and design credentials to make selling $40-50k Project Nina vehicles built in Delaware much less of a struggle, or so one would think.

Right now everything looks murky with all the smoke screens being deployed, but if Fisker pulls it off, it will come out from the morass using a former GM plant to take on an apparently timid GM and its limited-till-later Voltec platform with three home-grown EVers. In three year’s time, Fisker could be viewed as more “American” than Fiat-owned Chrysler, but we shall see.

Ultimately, proof of the Karma will be in sales not just in the short term after the eager first buyers snap up their beautiful green cars, but going forward. No doubt also, the sooner Project Nina can get up and running, and prove itself in the face of similar hurdles and critics, the better we will know whether Fisker will be all that it says it intends to be.

General Motors may have shelved its Voltec-based crossover for a few years, but that is not stopping other companies from coming up with their own innovative versions sooner.

One case in point could be the the Mitsubishi Concept PX-MiEV II, the latest version of a high-tech CUV said to be almost ready for production, and to be displayed at the end of this month at the Tokyo Motor Show.

The all-wheel-drive vehicle makes use of two electric motors and a 2.0-liter four-cylinder gasoline engine. It is said to offer the power of a 3.0-liter V6, and is capable of operating as either a series or parallel hybrid.

The first PX-MiEV was shown at the 2009 Tokyo Motor Show, and you can read about that one here, and here is a press release for this nearly ready for production version.

According to Mitsubishi Product Communications Specialist Christine Jew, the vehicle will see production maybe as soon as a couple years.

“Mitusbishi is still planning to sell this type of technology, mainly in countries working actively on environmental issues where charging infrastructure and subsidies are in place on some level like Japan, Europe, and the U.S.,” she said. “Therefore, it’s still planned to introduce a PHEV to the North American market most likely in FY13 but exact timing has not been decided since several market and economic factors will likely affect the timing of this launch.”

Among detail given in the concept’s press release are that one of the plug-in vehicle’s electric motors drives the front wheels, the other drives the rear.

The PX-MiEV II uses a lithium-ion battery similar to the battery pack in the pending i city car and this works in conjunction with the engine.

Its all-electric range is said to be 31 miles – much less than the lighter all-electric i which the EPA says goes 62 miles on a full charge. Since it has gasoline back-up however, the CUV’s total driving range is said to be as high as 500 miles.

On the optimistic Japanese test cycle, the PX-MiEV II could get as high as 140 miles per gallon. Keep in mind the Japanese cycle is easily 20-25-percent more generous than the U.S. EPA.

Automotive News reports that its series hybrid mode works at lower speeds or when the battery is low on charge. Under such conditions, the engine acts as a generator to sustain charge to the battery, but does not drive the wheels.

Alternately, at higher speeds, or when the battery is fully charged, the vehicle morphs into a parallel hybrid providing motive force to the wheels, and recharging the battery simultaneously.

AutoGuide reports the five-seater Mitsu will use the company’s S-AWC (Super-All Wheel Control) setup. A version of this electric system is also expected to be featured in the anticipated Evo XI sports car, which Popular Mechanics said is one car “worth waiting for.”

In addition to the usual advantages in snow-belt regions, the automaker says this AWD system provides excellent vehicle control and dynamics.

Automotive News observes the PX-MiEV strongly hints at the hybrid version of the Outlander crossover planned for launch in the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013. The Outlander is part of Mitsu’s transformation of its lineup which includes an assortment of electrified drivetrains.

More will be known soon, there will be other innovative electrified vehicles of various makes and models featured at Tokyo as well, and we may report on some of them in coming weeks.

As has already been apparent, this green car and electrification phenomenon is taking off, and while the total market share is in question, everyone wants a piece of the pie.

GM will have its 2013 Spark EV in a couple years, and unknown is the high-end Cadillac ELR’s launch date, though we have no indication that it will be before 2015.

Meanwhile so many other potential segments could be filled with electrified vehicles, but GM has not said it is willing any time too soon.

Does anyone think GM should reconsider its decision to postpone Voltec spinoffs including the the MPV5 crossover until 2015 or later?

Automotive News, AutoGuide

By now GM-Volt forum readers know about the Volt that was caught in a Mooresville, N.C., fire last week and controversy surrounding it.

If you’ve not heard, both the Volt and the Siemens level II charger it was plugged into have been called into question as possible culprits.

In the fire, a house and garage sustained an estimated $800,000 damage. Besides the Volt and charger, a whole slew of other potential ways for a fire to start were also reported present.

Not least of the critics to suspect the Volt was the National Legal Policy Center. With characteristically questionable ethics, the self-appointed watchdog said GM might be guilty until proven innocent, just as it did when a Volt caught fire and was later cleared in Connecticut.

Where things actually stand is the investigation is ongoing. The media is nonetheless looking at the nascent electric vehicle industry under a microscope while many more fires happen regularly that arouse much less public scrutiny.

Yesterday we contacted the Iredell County Fire Marshal’s office, and learned only that the fire marshal was at the scene investigating. Also there were GM, as well as Duke Energy, insurance company investigators, Siemens, U.S. Department of Transportation and others with a stake in the outcome.

The PR damage began for the electric Chevy when Duke Energy issued a press release immediately after the fire, warning its customers of potential hazards from home charging. About 125 customers were asked to stop charging until Duke “out of an abundance of caution” could be sure of the risks.

While we are waiting like everyone else, our suspicion is the Volt will be cleared. In an interview yesterday, GM Spokesman Rob Peterson said that he could not go on record with any kind of definitive position.

He said only that the fire marshal is doing his job, and he asked for people to exercise patience and suspend judgment until the facts come out.

Reality check

Putting things into perspective would also help. According to a cursory analysis by greentechmedia.com, the odds of a fire occurring at a gasoline station were one in 23, whereas the odds of an EV fire at this point have been one in 3,750.

This roughly calculated determination was based on 5,020 fires per year at gasoline stations reported between 2004-2008 by the National Fire Protection Association. These were divided into 117,000 stations reported by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2007.

This perspective highlights the extreme vigilance taking place until the public can become comfortable with plug-in cars.

The subjective nature of the general public’s comfort zone was shown in stark relief considering that gasoline stations have had decades to get safety protocols under control, and their percentage of fires is still relatively high.

In contrast, EVs are brand new, and there are comparatively few. Greentechmedia.com estimated out of 15,000 EVs on the road, there have been four fires reported.

Of these four, one was rock star Neil Young’s custom-made LincVolt that burned a warehouse of memorabilia and that appeared to be the car’s fault. Another was a converted 2008 Prius plug-in which had its upholstery ignite after a loose wire contacted it. Another was the Volt in Connecticut about which the fire marshal told me it wasn’t the car’s fault.

And the fourth was this latest fire which the NLPC’s Mark Modica dutifully wrote about being that this involved another Volt, and he said it was becoming a suspicious trend.

Despite the Connecticut fire marshal having cleared the previous Volt, in his latest piece, Modica said that investigation was not done properly, and suggested the second one was starting to look like a cover up among other conspiracies:

The question arises, just how far will GM, the Obama Administration and green ideologues go to prove that the Chevy Volt (as well as electric cars in general) is the future of the American auto industry? Fluffing up the perception of huge demand for the Volt is one thing, but there should be no compromises when it comes to the safety of Americans who buy into the hype of the Chevy Volt and purchase the vehicles. All taxpayers are paying to subsidize purchases of the Volt and plug-in charging stations; it would be a shame to see that the money usurped is putting people at risk.

Are Modica’s insinuations nothing more than one ideologue falsely accusing an alleged other? According to Jalopnik’s Justin Hyde, in his article, “Haters to the Right” earlier this year about the alleged dealer tax rebate gaming scandal, it sure looks like it.

“National Legal and Policy Center is one of a number of groups which criticizes the Obama administration for a living,” Hyde wrote. “Funded in part by right-wing activist Richard Mellon Scaife, nearly all of its stories target Democrats in some fashion, and the Volt piece was part of the site’s ‘union corruption update’ series.”

In any case, the NLPC’s motives and tactics are transparent, so without giving it any more thought, a more realistic consideration would be that if EVs and charging stations are going to be problematic we’d be seeing more issues in the beginning, not fewer.

It is also pretty obvious that EVs are receiving inordinate scrutiny while society tolerates the collateral damage that is proven to be far worse to date from internal combustion vehicles.

Examining only some auto fires, of the 5,020 annual gasoline station fires cited above, around 61-percent were started by internal combustion vehicles on site.

Of these, costs were two lives on average, 48 fire injuries and $20 million in direct property damage per year, according the the National Fire Protection Association. To date plug-in cars have not seen such a death toll or costs.

One could go on looking at fire dangers from things like lint-filled clothes dryer traps, barbeque grilles, or other everyday close encounters with combustible materials.

Human society long ago dove into playing with fire, and when convenient, has deemed the risk and loss of life and property through inevitable accidents as part of acceptable chances taken.

As for flammable chemicals, many casualties, burns and losses later, we have learned things like not to look for a gas leak with a match and not to transfer gasoline from one container to another with a lighted cigarette dangling from one’s mouth.

It is possible that a 240-volt electric car charger if not done to code or otherwise compromised could overload an electrical system. If set up correctly, the actual current draw is on par with an electric dryer.

Shall we yank out dryers too since they could be as dangerous as chargers?

Or will we live and learn?

When we learn the cause of the North Carolina fire, we’ll let you know.

greentechmedia.com, NLPC, Jalopnik, WSOCTV.

Effective today, GM is allowing its Chevrolet dealers around the country to discretionarily sell their Volt demos, thus more than doubling the company’s inventory of Volts available for sale

In a phone interview today, GM Spokesman Rob Peterson said GM’s decision is in response to strong customer demand and it is an attempt to put more people in Volts sooner who are already waiting to get one.

“Our exit surveys at dealerships indicate that the number-one reason for serious intenders of the Chevrolet Volt to not purchase the vehicle is availability,” Peterson said. “As of Nov. 1 we had about 1,800 vehicles on the ground and 2,300 dealer demos.”

Here’s a 2012 for sale in Concord, N.C.

There are around 2,600 Chevrolet dealers participating in the Volt program. If there was any doubt as to the Volt’s supply to demand ratio, this is the latest word from the source: 1,800 Volts have been thinly spread among these dealers, and GM wants more availability now.

“What we’ve started to do is actually allow the dealers to put their dealer demos into inventory, so if they want to sell – they don’t have to sell – if they want to sell they can sell their dealer demo,” Peterson said. “By taking this maneuver and allowing them if they choose to sell them, this basically allows us to go from 1,800 units in 2,300 dealerships to 4,100 in inventory.”

He said the stop-gap measure will ameliorate a supply constraint now being felt by Volt buyers who may be second or third in line, or otherwise being told they will have to wait.

Despite naysayers, this latest move is an indicator that supply is limited in some regions – and we will add – it will also help GM meet its dash to the calendar year finish line. The company has said all year it intends to deliver 10,000 Volts in North America by year’s end.

As of the end of October, GM had delivered 5,003 Volts, and its allocation process has yet to be fine-tuned. If it is to hit the target, GM needs to sell another 4,997 in November and December alone. Peterson has effectively said GM is not sweating it, but it is certain that freeing up more Volts can only help it achieve the goal.

This said, the decision whether or not to sell a Volt demo will be up to individual franchises.
If a dealer chooses not to sell its demo because it feels it is a better business decision to keep it and be able to show it, that is out of GM’s control.

Peterson gave no indication whether GM is encouraging its dealers to sell, and said it was strictly voluntary.

So, would it be a good decision? For GM’s dealers to give up their demos would also mean some effect on their general marketing plan, which includes nationwide roll-out by year’s end.

Peterson said demos sold would be replaced, but was not definitive as to how long the time lag would be if a dealer figured that a proverbial bird in the hand was worth two in the bush.

“That’s yet to be determined,” Peterson said of the time between a dealer selling off its only Volt and getting a replacement, “but you’d imagine that as soon as we can get production up to fulfill the nationwide roll-out and get at least a unit to every single dealer that’s available for sale, then we’ll put the dealer demo back into place.”

Peterson made sure to clarify the dealer demo program is not being canceled, and GM still views it as a value for its dealerships’ efforts.

“We’re not moving away from the dealer demo program,” he said, “we still believe its extremely important for the educational process for the vehicle.”

2011 demos.

All Volt demos have Volt graphics, which Peterson said would ordinarily be removed – unless, perhaps, if someone wants to do some extra unpaid advertising, and leave the decals on.

As for demo pricing, as has been covered before, this decision is also left up to the dealer.

“We’re steadfast in communicating to our dealers that they should be selling the Volt at the manufacturer’s suggested retail price,” Peterson said. “You know, they’re independent franchises and that gives them the flexibility to do what they need to do.”

Observations

It has been an interesting ride all along, but the next couple of months will have a lot of eyes on Chevrolet to see how it finishes up the Volt’s first calendar year.

Critics will observe what they will, but in pulling out the stops and willingly sacrificing its demos, GM is indicating it really has had supply constraints, just as it has said all along.

GM has said a few things about future Volts, but really it amounts to very little. We know the company is working to cut costs, is using the Volt as a development platform, and it’s believed no Voltec derivatives will come before 2015, but what opportunities exist now or near term?

That’s anyone’s guess, but last week two educated guesses were offered by both a writer who’s penned pieces for Popular Mechanics, and his interview subject, a former GM tech director who has since formed his own company.

According to auto writer Gary Witzenburg’s AutoblogGreen interview with, Jon Bereisa, GM’s former director of Advanced Engineering & Technology Strategy, cutting the Volt’s costs and reducing petroleum consumption are presently doable.

Bereisa’s opinion comes after having had his hands in developing the EV1, two-mode hybrid system, and other GM electric vehicles including the Voltec project.

In 2009 he founded Auto Lectrification LLC, and his views are now from the supply side of the industry. As president and CEO, his company stands to gain from the Volt’s advances, but his observations and speculations on cost cutting and efficiency are informative nonetheless.

“The mission was to build the car as fast as we could, which meant using existing parts as much as possible,” Bereisa told Witzenburg. “When you use available components, you’re probably carrying a little more cost and mass than you need, since every component had to do something else, probably in a larger vehicle. So I think literally thousands of dollars can come out of that car, and by the time they get to Gen II, it’ll be a very cost-effective proposition.”

GM has said the battery costs can come down, and Bereisa confirmed this from what he knows.

“About 70 percent of that is cell cost,” he said of the Volt’s battery pack. “I think we’ll see that down to maybe $200 per kwh in two to three years, even without major innovations. And I foresee at least twice the energy density in five to seven years.”

Nor is Bereisa any less optimistic with regards to the Volt’s gasoline generator.

“When we modeled the Volt’s engine, theoretically we could have gotten to high 40s or low 50s mpg in gasoline mode. But we would have had to run it continuously at 3500-3800 rpm and just switch it on and off, and the noise and pleasability wouldn’t work,” Bereisa said. “We had to drop it down, which got us to 37-38 mpg. But I think a lot of fuel economy still can be gained without major expenditures in tooling or engineering.”

Gasoline consumption could be radically cut also, he said, by switching fuels – something GM has said it has no current plans to do.

“You can take it to Brazil, up its compression and have a pure alcohol E100 engine. The rest of the vehicle stays the same,” Bereisa said.”Europeans are in love with biodiesel, so you can use a small direct-injected diesel running on biodiesel fuel. [Eventually] you can take out the engine, generator and battery pack and put a hydrogen fuel cell in front and two hydrogen tanks in back, while the rest stays the same.”

Or less radically, GM could convert the engine to run on E85 – 85-percent ethanol, 15-percent gasoline.

“Today, the average Volt drive is a little over 1,000 miles before refueling. And when the owners refuel, they add back about eight gallons, so that computes to approximately 125 mpg,” he said. “But with E85, only 15 percent of that gallon of fuel is petroleum-based gasoline, so on a gasoline-usage basis, that’s 125 mpg times roughly six, or about 750 mpg … a HUGE improvement! E85 applied to the Voltec architecture would do a phenomenal job of reducing the amount of petroleum being burned.”

The Volt could also stand to lose a few pounds, he said.

“The Volt came in at 1,600-plus kilos. My target was 1,500, with the battery. We borrowed components from other places, and it adds up,” he said.”So a lot can be done just in lightening, which will increase gasoline fuel economy as well as electric range.”

For his part, writer Gary Witzenburg, who has been covering autos, people and technology for 21 years, said his Volt outlook is more bearish.

Witzenburg said he could foresee the Volt getting the typical aero and styling update in three to four years after having also benefited from year-over-year incremental changes just as the 2012 was a minor update over 2011.

And forget about 2015 being the next big year. Witzenburg said the Volt would get “probably a complete makeover by 2017,” and that would be Gen II.

By 2017, Witzenburg says he believes the Gen II Volt will have somewhat improved energy density, and be better, less expensive, with a new appearance.

“The result will be a slightly smaller, much lighter, more fuel efficient and more affordable Volt that can run 35-50 miles on battery power, achieve mid-40s-mpg gasoline economy and sell in the low- to mid-$30Ks,” Witzenburg said. “I also foresee evolving Voltec technology proliferating to other GM vehicles, including larger cars, crossovers, even trucks. And other makers offering EREVs, beginning with Fisker.”

If what Witzenburg says is all that happens, it almost sounds like the initial design target for Gen I. Should he be more bullish?

What do you think?

Bereisa said the technology is here now to make the Volt better, but Witzenburg was not infected by his enthusiasm, even after interviewing him, and writing about some of his ideas.

Is Witzenburg’s relative pessimism justified?

GM’s Chairman and CEO Dan Akerson has said the company foresees a flat 2012 automotive selling year for its entire line-up, which it is prepared to ride out. GM has resisted even spending the money to buy its own stock back at a sub-IPO discount, and is building a “fortress balance sheet,” having been stung by a humbling near-death experience in just the past couple years.

Imbued with a new resolve and conservatism, selling new ICE models in large numbers, having shed legacy costs, and recently cutting a decent deal with the UAW, GM has said it is using the Volt as a showroom draw, even as it prepared to sell 60,000 Volts next year.

In other words, it is not talking about taking any big Voltec chances.

So, is it only pie-in-the-sky to talk about what could be? Or are some of the suggestions Bereisa mentions – or ones you could think of – worth doing?

Will GM surprise us and take chances it has said it is avoiding? Or not?

Autoblog