In China they’re running a special deal on the Chevy Volt. For the price of two Volts in the U.S., you can get just one in China.
Any takers for the top Chevy at just shy of $80,000 unsubsidized dollars?
There may be some in China, but if so, this is not the stuff of bragging rights, and GM actually declined to share when recently asked just how many of its plug-in electric cars it has sold since officially launching the Volt for sale in January.
Just unloaded Volts in January at HaiTong Port in Shanghai.
But the Volt has been a halo in the U.S. and it would appear it’s even more OK to make it one in China. In the U.S., politicized attacks, overblown controversy about its battery, and a $40,000 starting price – minus potential subsidies – has thus far prevented the Volt from regularly selling more than 2,000 units per month, though word is spreading, and things are improving.
As a tech halo in China, the General hopes the Volt will create credibility for the world’s largest automaker in the world’s largest auto market all in good time, according to a Reuters’ interview with Ray Bierzynski, head of GM’s electric vehicle strategy in China.
GM also intends to introduce the pending Volt-based Cadillac ELR and is looking into an all-electric version of the Chevy Sail.
“There’s no silver bullet,” Bierzynski said. “All of these may have applicability at any given point in time.”
At this early stage, China is subsidizing electric vehicles heavily, but only if they are domestically produced, and regarding Voltec, GM has chosen for now to pass on that offer which also means sharing profits, technological know-how, manufacturing processes and the like that China so dearly wants in exchange for fair access to its markets.
Not quite matching President Obama’s high hopes of one million EVs and PHEVs on the road by 2015, China has set a target of just half that many, but hopes to go to 10 times this many on the road by just 2020.
The lowest hanging advanced-tech sales fruit for now, as is true also in the U.S., is with bottom-line conscious fleet buyers who – unlike sometimes not-fully informed mainstream consumers – can crunch the numbers and see a positive value proposition for going EV.
As such, the commercial sector accounts for around 84 percent of new energy vehicle sales now in China.
Perhaps they can sell some $79,000 Volts to these folks.
And perhaps after dipping its toes in, and feeling the water cold, GM might eventually decide to manufacture for-now-imported electric vehicles, at which point China will make the waters feel far more accommodating, coaxing already tempted GM to jump right in.
But for now, Bierzynski repeated prior GM statements that there are no plans to build Volts in China, but did divulge GM is developing a local supply base that could one day be used for this, and is testing Chinese-made batteries as well.
Things are just as up in the air as to when the even more pricey ELR would be introduced, or the electric Sail which thus far has been a concept on show only.
“There’s work going on toward it, but we have not made any decision direction on production, volume, timing, any of that,” Bierzynski said.
GM is also keeping its options open for small low-speed EVs, Bierzynski said.
At present the Volt is imported from Detroit, and available through 13 dealers in areas around Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou.
Being partially locked out of a market whose central planners intend to expand to five million total electric vehicles on the road by 2020 must be quite a goad to GM which would otherwise surely want to get a larger piece of such a major pie – as long as the necessary concession of domestic manufacture with a joint venture partner is deemed worth the tradeoff.
Or, GM can keep going as is, and see if it can generate significant volume for the Volt against less expensive alternatives now and coming that that are eligible for subsidization as well.
‘A game changer’
And maybe by the time GM does give in to the carrot on a stick that is China’s growing EV market, it will have an upgraded Volt in the U.S., so it will not be such a sacrificial lamb after all.
Like everything else, it’s anyone’s guess, but GM CEO Dan Akerson said last week GM Ventures is backing battery startup Envia Systems with a $7 million investment in hopes that within 2-4 years an electric GM could have 100-200 miles range.
At that point would a Volt so equipped need a range extender? Or would all this hope for improved li-ion batteries just lead to better EVs, like the Spark and others?
For his part, Akerson only said GM is sure a 100-mile range EV is do-able in a couple years, and with luck, this could become up to 200 miles with batteries made by Newark, Calif.-based Envia.
“I think we’ve got better than a 50-50 chance to develop a car that will go to 200 miles on a charge,” he said. “That would be a game changer.”
GM Ventures placed a bet on this pony because it has reason to believe statements by Envia earlier this year saying its next-generation lithium-ion cell has already achieved record energy density. Envia said the new battery could slash EV prices by cutting the battery cost in half.
“These little companies come out of nowhere, and they surprise you,” Akerson said in response to a question about GM’s strategy on gas-electric hybrid vehicles.
But just to add more kinks in the future road, Akerson said GM is not only considering hybrids and EVs, but hydrogen fuel cells, natural gas, and simply more efficient petroleum-powered engines are all on the table – and which will rise in ascendancy in coming years, GM cannot say.
“We can’t put all of our chips on one bet,” said GM’s CEO. “We’ve got to look at them all.”
This entry was posted on Monday, August 13th, 2012 at 5:55 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+21
Aug 13th, 2012 (6:40 am)“At that point would a Volt so equipped need a range extender?”
I will keep my dual powertrain thank you; the Volt has spoiled me forever. For me to consider a simple BEV as my primary car, it would need to have an 800 mile range.
Envia’s nanotechnology-based breakthrough is super exciting because it could reduce the cost of EREVs and BEVs with double their current battery only range.
I am encouraged when Dan Akerson says “We can’t put all of our chips on one bet. We’ve got to look at them all.” With more fuel choices than ever before, an individual never need be subjected to price shocks and market manipulation.
I saw a link to Exxon at the Wall Street Journal the other day which was masquerading as a news item. It led to a paid advertisement page where Exxon was arguing that gasoline will be predominant forever due to its energy density. It proceeded to heap derision on electric, CNG, etc. Of course, once you have been price gouged, you don’t want to ever do business with these people again, and the energy density of their stinking product does not matter.
+8
Aug 13th, 2012 (7:18 am)All the best to you GM in CHina, however:
I am not at all surprised by China’s lack of response to the Volt. I have been saying since day 1 it will not sell in China –demographic are not going to accept the car, and the price will price almost everyone interested out of contention.
There is extremely limited infrastructure in China for electric cars. Most people live in apartment buildings. If you live on the bottom floor, it’s mainly because you could not afford to buy higher up. I would not be surprised if 99% of large city dweller will be in an apart. Government fleets may be possible, but there is the price – 80k for an electric car you cannot plug in. 80k will get you a Mercedes which will have much more bragging rights and room to move whilst you are being chauffeurs around (if you can by a car for 80k in China, you will be able to be chauffeured around). The volt may be a great electric car to drive, but not as a passenger in the back seat compared to well know status symbol luxury cars.
Address the fact MOST people could not charge even if they wanted to, only elites could buy the cars due to massive price, and fleets try to buy locally build car, and you’re on a good start. Until then, it’s not even a halo as GM is not going to spend millions on advertising a Volt that simply won’t sell enough to cover that bill alone.
Aug 13th, 2012 (8:25 am)“At present the Volt is imported from Detroit”
Just like the Chrylser commercial “imported from Detroit” except this time its for real.
So is the Chevy Sail the EV that GM & SAIC are working on?
I would like to know the latest on BYD. They have been around almost as long as the Volt. They are a Chinese company with lots of financial backing (even Warren Buffet invested millions). As I recall, they had terrible sales at the start, but with all of the incentives, maybe they are selling a few now??
+7
Aug 13th, 2012 (8:30 am)“I think we’ve got better than a 50-50 chance to develop a car that will go to 200 miles on a charge,” he said. “That would be a game changer.”
————-
I don’t understand this thinking. Instead of a 200 miles EREV, just cut the price/weight/size of the current battery so an EREV-50 is affordable to more people (and give a 5th seat for all those that want it). I wouldn’t’ bother with an EREV-200. Just put more battery in it and make a BEV-300 to compete w/Tesla.
+2
Aug 13th, 2012 (8:33 am)For people with multiple vehicles, there are good reasons to go BEV. I think a 120 mile-per-charge EV (if actually over 100 normalized) would be on my short list.
+3
Aug 13th, 2012 (8:34 am)Yeah, what xioaweil said. +1
The Volt would not benefit from a longer range battery, but making the battery smaller and cheaper while keeping a 40 mile range is highly desirable. I don’t think Ackerson means a 200 mile range Volt, but a 200 mile range BEV.
+4
Aug 13th, 2012 (9:16 am)Perhaps a smaller battery with similar range to get the Volt to a 5-seater? I think once you approach 100 mile battery range or so it’s hard to justify more battery for an EREV.
+2
Aug 13th, 2012 (9:46 am)Market parameters vary drastically around the globe.
These drastic variations in market should never be ascribed to be anything in common to
the America’s (North and South) markets.
This is one of the risks of globalization, where there is excessive generalization of these
distinctions for one society to another.
kdawg asked me the other day about the logic of letting the engineers have a freer set of operational parameters for the “hold” mode.
Excuse the OT, but here are the reasons that I recommended that all OEM’s open up 5 new files in all processors regarding contiguous peak, average, low temperature readings of latent heat.
For hold mode, it would help train these processors.
ONE. To expect at certain places in the traffic where traffic has slowed to a crawl in the hot PM.
TWO. The benefit to saving the ER for this point in the afternoon is for;
….. A. Ozone action days, where it is the worst in the afternoon,
….. B. Expelling of the latent heat in the block and transmission before arriving into a closed hot garage,
….. C. Having far less of a peak heat load that all systems will have to contend with in that hot garage,
THREE. Getting power back into the battery pack just as soon as it had been used, which can greatly reduce the time that it may sit without being at the 50 percent SOC storage state.
FOUR. There could be cases for this when V2G is needed by utilities between the hours of 3pm and 9pm, so that the grid can be helped along on these high demand days. (In some cases, there may not be sufficient wall insulation between an attached hot garage, and the residence, when the garage might get up to over 120 degrees F. which the grid essentially must work harder to pump that out of the residence. So, letting the engineers have a freer say with the HOLD mode is a very synergistic way of thinking progressively.)
These datum are courtesy of my company, http://www.petit-tech.com.
+1
Aug 13th, 2012 (10:16 am)Meanwhile, I saw a sign on top of one of their gas pumps touting the benefits of Lithium Ion (EV) batteries. It had the Exxon/Mobile logo, so, I don’t think it was a fake.
Aug 13th, 2012 (11:10 am)Probably so gassers can feel green while they fill their tanks. They think their $ is going towards something good.
Aug 13th, 2012 (11:27 am)A 100 mile EREV with a charge time of 6 hours on 120VAC should satisfy 100% of the driving public .
+8
Aug 13th, 2012 (11:58 am)A tough sell at $79K? Gee, why am I not surprised. It sure seems like a good reason to return the favor when BYDs or whatever finally start to show up here.
+2
Aug 13th, 2012 (12:02 pm)GM….
#4! Build a cheap 20mile all electric and put it in Every Car. Sheesh even 10 mile all electric.
Replace the battery and the starter…
Doesn’t GM want to sell millions of these? … odd idea of “game changer”
+2
Aug 13th, 2012 (12:29 pm)The term “game changer” has become the new “awesome”. I hate it. I tend to distrust any businessman using this phrase lately. And, it is not a game changer – Tesla already markets a 200+ mile EV. But what Dan A should be saying is “the energy density appears to have gotten better and this could allow more miles out of the same physically-sized batteries in today’s EVs”. He could/should say something like “we could build a Volt with 80 miles of electric range”.
THis won’t happen. The miles comes from kWh consumed. That is a base-unit. You won’t do much better than 4 miles per kWh, more like 3 if in the winter.
100 miles would be 25 loss-less kWh “best case” or about 30 with charging losses. Divide 30,000 Wh by 6 and then by 120V and you get an Amp rating of 41A. Very few 120V lines will support that kind of amperage without bursting into flames
What we may say a consumer wants is perhaps “They would like to charge 100 miles worth of EV in 6 hours in any way possible”. That would be 20A at 240V. Give or take. That is possible with today’s home circuits and would be in spec for most of North America.
For me, I would like an 80 mile CD-mode range with 12-hour recharge time (overnight after a commute). However, topping off for 20-miles in 2 hours would be a great option on weekends but it’s very optional. Where the 6-hour recharge may come into value is a taxi service or very active delivery truck fleet such as the Frito-Lay Smith Electric trucks. And those can charge faster – if the charger is capable and the wires are setup to the spec they need – they could do a full charge in an hour if the charging circuits allowed for it. Since they use A123 cells, they could charge in 20 minutes if they had enough Wattage throughput.
+2
Aug 13th, 2012 (12:40 pm)I’m holding out for the Volt with EESTOR!!!
BLAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!
+1
Aug 13th, 2012 (12:46 pm)100 AER, is, I think more than one needs.
If they can get a chemistry with the same density as the 15AH pouch cells they have now up to 18-20AH, then maybe AER could be 60 miles.
Keep the same size batt pack but get more capacity, keep the ICE either the same or smaller.
But that’s just me.
+2
Aug 13th, 2012 (2:04 pm)GM should evaluate and develop a stronger version of “eAssist” such that the motor can actually move the vehicle at low speeds, maybe up to 20 MPH for traffic jams and for a few minutes. Then add a larger battery. It will still be a light hybrid, but if ever GM vehicle had something like this, then moving up to a stronger hybrid or a EREV is easier.
The belt drive (the only part that can wear down) eliminates the heavy solenoid-driven starter, replaces the alternator, lightens the flywheel (no ring teeth), and eliminates the need for a special transmission to allow the ICE and electric motor to work in parallel. And as such, the electric motor can add its torque and HP to the ICE when needed on demand, as an “electric assist”.
“eAssist” has an immediate benefit. Since the electric motor/starter/generator is belt driven, there is no gear-bashing and no traditional staring sounds. That alone allows for almost silent startups, and a new blessing for those who get to work early but don’t want to wake up their neighbors. I bet GM would love to advertise that their ICE vehicles eliminated the century-old cranking sounds and are thus quieter than any other ICE vehicle.
Go for it, GM!
Raymond
+2
Aug 13th, 2012 (2:11 pm)24 – 30Kwh of charge is about what can be reasonably expected overnight in a typical garage. I think that the pack should be sized on the basis of kilowatt-hours; not on some arbitrary range number. This defines a major philosophical difference between EREV and BEV; one makes the most of what infrastructure exists, the other waits in hope of public recharging infrastructure which may or may not be quick in coming.
The cost and performance of the batteries is a major factor for the EREV100, but perhaps not as great as an engine which is smaller yet reliable, which can wait longer between uses, with fuel which doesn’t go bad as quickly: so it may be awhile before we begin to see it.
Aug 13th, 2012 (2:30 pm)Whatever the advertised range, I’d like 80 actual miles in the winter. And keep the ICE backup.
If the Volts current battery had twice the density in the same size, then this would seem doable.
+1
Aug 13th, 2012 (3:52 pm)If the battery pack size was configurable, and you could buy in 1 mile increments for $200/mile, what range would you buy?
(I think I would buy a 50 mile range battery for $10K)
Aug 13th, 2012 (4:00 pm)Unless a newer, high density cell could have the exact physical dimensions/requirements of the original lower density one, I don’t think that such one-mile increments will be possible. Even at this, I believe it would be far too expensive to create and program software for custom packs based on individual purchasers. However, larger increments may be offered sometime in the future … from aftermarket vendors.
I’m not trying to detract from your thought-experiment, but I think in practice, I think most buyers will be comfortable only to purchase at the lowest-possible price; making incremental sales even more of a losing proposition for the car builder for the relatively few exceptions.
I believe that the main business of aftermarket providers will be dismantling old packs, grading the cells individually, then reassembling reduced-price packs with prorated warranties (if any). We might have to wait for dedicated EV performance shops for incremental range/power options with higher-density cells.
I think that the winning strategy for the automakers will be to offer different ranges as different models or levels within a model (even though we as purchasers would likely to prefer the incremental-by-mile approach). These are not likely to be less than 10-mile increments for manufacturing volume efficiencies and inventory reasons.
+1
Aug 13th, 2012 (4:43 pm)Chevy already has LS, LT, LTZ (and SS!!!) trim levels (which also have incremental performance levels). I always wondered why they wouldn’t do this with Volt.
Maybe they can’t vary the performance and/or trim that much for some cost reason? They do it for Corvette which has a lower volume.
Aug 13th, 2012 (5:02 pm)It was a hypothetical question, one you might see on a GM research survey. GM would then use the data to size the pack accordingly (or possibly offer 2 sizes).
By putting a dollar figure on range, it covers more information than just what distance typical drivers cover in 1 day.
Aug 13th, 2012 (5:16 pm)Agreed. Just prognosticatin’
Yes, that’s the kind of thing I’m thinking.
I don’t think they’ll be able to do any choice by range, except by model, for some years to come. Voltec saturation and quantity pricing for components have to reach a certain level, first.
+3
Aug 13th, 2012 (5:57 pm)OT: Do the 2011/2012 Volts have the kW meter on the display above the steering wheel? I thought it was very cool/useful information and took some pics.
Sitting still with only the fan on (5% of climate control)
Sitting still with comfort mode and heat on (42% of climate control)
Accelerating
Decelerating
Steady State 75mph on the expressway
Aug 13th, 2012 (6:09 pm)Here’s the screen I have to use each time to choose 12A charging.
Aug 13th, 2012 (6:09 pm)Sorry, meant to say:
“I think that the pack size should be determined on the basis of available kilowatt-hours in a ‘typical’ garage overnight; not on a ‘typical’ commute.”
… is a half hour edit time really enough?
Aug 13th, 2012 (7:29 pm)xioawei1,
True, but if any country in the world needed to get that infrastructure, it’s China. As they prowl for oil, with pockets filled with American unfree, unfair trade imbalance dollars, War is going to come, whether directly with us, or Soviet Union 2 style. China, and America have two futures, and OIL again, is the horror on the horizon.
Aug 13th, 2012 (9:56 pm)CaptJackSparrow,
Dang it, Jack, you can’t do that. Go from raving loon in post #15, to relatively rational in #16. You’re gonna give us all whiplash!!
(+1′ed your #15, BTW
)
+2
Aug 13th, 2012 (10:00 pm)kdawg,
No Kdawg, we don’t have that meter. I wish it were on the ’12s, I’m sure it’s very informative. Thanks for posting the pics, by the way!
+1
Aug 13th, 2012 (10:43 pm)Mike-o-Matic,
OK, then that that must have been the “new” kW display they talked about for the 13′s. I thought maybe it was the kW display at the end of a trip where it would say how many kW’s you used on the trip.
I find myself watching the speedometer, the kW meter, and the floating ball all at the same time while driving. (Yes, I can still easily watch the road too.) The kW meter seems to be more responsive to changes than the ball is, and I try to keep it under a certain amount if I can. So far the highest value I’ve seen going back into the battery was around 35kW. I wonder what the max is? Maybe I’ll have to do some experimenting.
+2
Aug 13th, 2012 (11:39 pm)Regarding an increase in the Volt’s EV range, it seems to me the Tesla Model S precedent of using relatively thin cells sandwiched between the car’s floorboard and a protective, aerodynamic under-
body “pan” (instead of down the car’s console/spine) would be well worth considering for the next
Volt redesign.
Potential benefits are: 1) use of existing Li-Ion cell chemistry; 2) a significant increase in EV range;
3) 5 seats; 4) lowered CG; 5) reduced aerodynamic drag.*
*Tesla claims the Model S drag coefficient is 0.24 vs the Volt’s 0.28
Aug 14th, 2012 (5:43 am)Finally.