The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) published the results of their new study called Electric Vehicles: The Future of Driving in which American adults were surveyed online about their opinion of pure electric cars.
The study revealed a full 40% of US adults planned to test drive an electric vehicle and are open to the idea of purchasing one. Forty-two percent said they are likely to follow news reports about electric cars. Almost one third (32%) said they were familiar or very familiar with hybrid cars, but only 25% said they were familiar with electric cars.
The chief reasons people cited for wanting to own an electric car were positive environmental impact and reduced operating costs. Over three-quarters (78%) said the ability of these cars to drive without gasoline was the major reason for wanting one, while 67% wanted them because they produce less pollution. Lack of need for oil changes and tune-ups was the top reason for 60% of those wanting to purchase an electric car.
“For a new product category, interest in electric vehicles is strong and likely to grow as more vehicles enter the market and consumers become more aware of them,” said Chris Ely, CEA’s manager of industry analysis. “Manufacturers, dealers and other sellers will need to emphasize mileage and battery-related specifications when promoting and selling electric vehicles.”
The study did reveal that people perceived significant disadvantages to owning an electric car. Chief among a them was fear of running out of electricity while driving, cited by 71% of respondents. About two thirds (66%) were concerned about lack of charging stations and/or not being able to recharge, and limited range was a concern for 59%.
Half the respondents (51%) said they would be less likely to purchase an electric car if specialized home charging equipment had to be installed.
“Environmental benefits, coupled with potential cost savings in fuel and tune-ups, will lead to increased interest for electric vehicles and potential floor traffic at dealerships,” said Ely. “But concerns regarding battery life, charging stations and limited mileage may keep some consumers away until a comprehensive infrastructure is in place.”
The study surveyed 950 people from the US between May 27th ad June 3rd 2010. Familiarity with the term plugin in hybrid was not specifically asked, nor was the preference of a 40 mile EREV versus a 100 mile EV determined.
Performing calculations on information on the Volt’s information screen appearing in an AOL test drive video led to to speculation that the Volt could get less than 30 MPG in charge sustaining mode, after the battery is depleted. GM has refuted that speculation as “completely out of context and irrelevant,” noting the car was test-driven in an extremely harsh way, and had sat “running” for a considerable time waiting for video equipment to be set up.
This would mean the Volt should get considerably better fuel economy when tested under the stringent conditions of the EPA test cycle. This number has not been publicly disclosed or officially determined.
GM communications isn’t too happy with this site’s and others reports calling them in one case “lazy journalism.”
To wit Phil Colley of GM communications responding to Nick Chambers of Plugin Cars wrote:
Yours and the other stories yesterday and today show a complete lack of understanding of the process and are quite frankly, lazy reporting. We haven’t announced the extended-range MPG because the EPA is still working with us and other plug-in automakers on a methodology to measure it. It’s that simple. They are trying to pull together the best real-world, comparative numbers on these types of vehicles in a way that is fair and equitable for everyone.
We took a lot of heat for discussing the city MPG in August 2008 (sic) based on a draft methodology and were criticized by many reporters and pundits for it. Now, those same critics are advocating for us to reveal a number using draft methodology once again. You can’t have it both ways.
What I will tell you, and what we would have told you yesterday if you had contacted us, is the MPG we’re seeing in development testing during extended-range mode is much better than what was being reported yesterday. Plus, if any of you had called us to ask, we would have told you the driver’s information center wasn’t even reset before this test drive – so the electric only range on the display wasn’t accurate either. The numbers you, Lyle and others based your “calculations” on were completely and totally irrelevant.
As we always have, we’re more than happy to work with you and others as much as we can to help you understand how the Volt works, but when you report erroneous numbers as fact, that does no one any good.
Another GM communications staffer by the name of Doug Wernert wrote a bit more tempered elsewhere:
Lots of good information in this video, but let me clarify a few things on the range numbers:
First, the AOL Translogic team ran a lot of aggressive tests with the vehicle, including extensive use of mountain mode, time trials (0-60) and aggressive driving maneuvers, all far beyond what a normal driver would do. Also, the extended-range MPG “calculation” didn’t include the significant time the vehicle spent running while the AOL Translogic film crew was setting, nor did it take into account the driver’s info center wasn’t reset before the shoot started.
When we do drive opportunities, we also don’t always start with a fully charged vehicle before a lot of these drive opportunities because many drivers want to experience the switch from battery-only to extended range. We will discuss what the Volt’s extended-range MPG is when the EPA labels our vehicle.
The key information from these staffers then is the Volt’s true CS MPG is “much better” than 27 and that GM will discuss that number when the EPA produces a final label for the Volt.
The EPA is considering applying a newly devised testing methodology standard called the SAE J1711, to determine the fuel economy of range extended electric vehicles and other PHEVs. We have heard previously the Volt may launch prior to getting this official label, which is why GM has said early drivers and buyers may have to figure it out for themselves. The moral of this story is we shouldn’t have based or publicized any conclusions on the values on the screen in the video. But who could resist?
You can view creator Mike Duoba of Argonne National Laboratory’s presentation on the J1711 here. The method involves testing the cars first in charge depleting mode, then in charge sustaining mode, and taking a utility factor of how much people are likely to drive in each mode and to charge over time into account.
Dan Akerson will step into his role as CEO of General Motors on September 1st. He replaces Ed Whitacre who held the position for about ten months.
Whitacre apparently never planned to keep the job long. Uncertainty about his plans led to his stepping down. In preparation for its upcoming IPO financial institutions needed some assurance Whitacre would hold the job long enough to keep investors comfortable. GM’s board asked him to either stay for several years or step down. He chose to leave, giving the job to Mr. Akerson who was already on the board having been placed there by the US government’s auto task force.
Reports suggest that Akerson is in it for the long haul. He has considerable experience and expertise in running large companies, and managing money. Though he isn’t known to have particular experience in the automotive industry, he is described as a very fast learner and a very driven competitor. Moreover, the halls of GM are filled with endless numbers of car guys and gals, what the company needs is a leader, not another engineer.
Former GM vice chairman Bob Lutz in a recent interview called Akerson “a very astute businessman, a brilliant financier, a great-dealmaker and a fabulous CEO to take GM through the IPO.”
We have also learned from anonymous sources Mr. Akerson played a significant role in pushing for increased Volt production capacity, even though some skeptics point out his current company the Carlyle group has links to the oil industry.
In what’s becoming a tradition here at GM-Volt, I reached out to Mr Akerson via email to see what his position is on the Volt and electrification of the automobile.
In a great sign of appreciation and respect for our work here, he responded.
“I am a STRONG advocate of the Volt and the erev technology,” he wrote. “I think it is fair to say that this will be a top priority at GM.”
We heard last week that GM decided to increase the 2012 calendar year Chevrolet Volt production volume by 50%. The company initially announced they were going to produce 30,000 Volts that year. Three days after the Volt pricing announcement, the number was revised upward to 45,000.
Some skeptics believe this was nothing more than a publicity stunt. After all, long ago then GM vice chairman Bob Lutz had said the company planned on producing 50,000 to 60,000 Volts in 2012. It was as though the 30,000 number was just a decoy intended to be followed by the increased number for a positive publicity effect.
I had the chance to speak to Volt spokesperson Rob Peterson who denied that was the case.
Peterson explained that GM increased the planned production number because they believed the consumer interest generated by the pricing announcement was greater than anticipated and indicated there was sufficient demand for the higher volume.
“The response to the pricing,” said Peterson showed the car was right “for quite a few people,” and “reinforced the need to increase production.”
“On the first day of the pricing announcement over 70,000 people visited GetMyVolt.com,” he said. ”Over 25,000 people added their names to the Volt enthusiast list,” he added.
Though there was some negative press and opinion about the $41,000 ($33,500 net) MSRP, the strikingly affordable $350 lease payement and the ability to for dealers to order the car induced a surge of interest and action. On GM-Volt.com over 30,000 people visited the site that day, and regular traffic volume has remained elevated since then.
A poll on the non-green oriented Autoblog.com also revealed there is significant more consumer interest in the Volt that the pure EV Nissan LEAF among the greater population. In this poll of 20,915 readers, 44.1% said the Volt was a better buy, 27.2% said the LEAF was, and 28.7% said nether was and they would stick with a gas car.
Previously we reported that the LEAF was outstripping the Volt in popularity as gauged by the number of Google searches. However, the pricing announcement surged Volt searches beyond those for the LEAF, and so far continue to be greater as seen in the image above.
Indeed automotive analyst Aaron Bragman of IHS Global Insight predicts Volt will prove more popular than LEAF. “It may be more expensive initially,” he said of the Volt compared to the LEAF. ”But I think the greater utility of the Volt and its ability to be used by a greater sampling of consumers will make it the more popular choice long-term.”
At the time the Volt concept was first unveiled GM was experiencing a lot of bad publicity with respect to their cancellation of the EV-1 program. Over these years and post bankrputcy, they seemed to have obtained a bit more positive media treatment. However, since Nissan began its LEAF PR, the anti-GM rhetoric seems to have stepped up a notch again.
Case in point. A new opinion piece written and published by recognized automotive writer Michael Kanellos and Sam Jaffe, who is an energy reaserch manager with IDC Energy Insights.
The authors explain what a halo car is, and give the Prius credit for first birthing the term; an eco-friendly vehicle that lifts the company’s image in the public eyes. Many have called the Volt GM’s halo car, but Kanellos and Jaffe don’t believe that’s the case, instead calling it a helium car.
They say GM is building the Volt not to help get the world off of oil, or to lift their image, but specifically for the purpose of inflating GM’s total average fuel economy (CAFE) so that they can be in compliance with new legislation and still be able to sell high volumes of gas-guzzling SUVs.
They argue GM’s known plans to build only up to 50,000 to 60,000 Volts annually and possibly selling them at a high price support their helium hypothesis.
GM wouldn’t have to build the Volt on the mass market scale of hundreds of thousands, as Nissan is the LEAF, to obtain a favorable total CAFE rating, they write. If GM sold only a few thousand Volts and each were certified over 100 MPG then for each Volt they sold they could sell “a half dozen Silverados.” They say Nissan’s plan to sell hundreds of thousands of LEAFs is in contrast because they are selling the car at an exceptionally low price point. This low pricing favors mass market acceptance.
The authors acknowledge GM hasn’t yet priced the Volt and promise to eat their “radiator hose” if GM prices it $1000 more than the LEAF, or $33,500, but don’t believe they will.
The Volt, they argue, if sold at a high premium would simply be “a way to build more SUVs and con a few thousand eco-conscious buyers out of their money by charging a premium.”
They consider this possibility to be ” a tremendous shame” becaue in 2007 GM had the chance to reinvent the automobile and the company and may now turn that “golden apple” into a trick that plays on the sensiblities of the “gullable treehuggers” forcing them to feed their eco-smugness while at the same time subsidizing those vehicles they hate the most, SUVs. And in the end, GM would still be the same old seller of gas guzzlers after all.
The EV-1 was GM’s first electric car, which was leased for a limited time beginning in the late 90s in California. The cars were recalled and the program was ended when California law requiring automakers to produce emissions-free cars was rescinded.
This created a significant PR backlash against GM which came to a head with the release of the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car.
Chelsea Sexton was the former GM EV-1 marketer who was prominently featured in the film. She has become a lighting rod for the cause of the electrification of the automobile.
I recently had the chance to speak with Chelsea, and have included the interview below. Also, if you are interested, Chelsea will be available to take your questions in the Chat Box below today at 2 PM Eastern Time.
Explain what your role is in the world of electric vehicles?
I play with cars. I’ve been doing it for a while. I started working with GM when I was 17, and stayed there for 9 years. Did Saturn, did EV-1.
What did you do with GM?
Marketing. Although I hung out enough with the engineers that I sometimes get confused with them.
I married an EV-1 technician along the way and eventually found my inner geek on the project.
So you were very excited about the EV-1 when it was in development?
I was. I was there from before start to finish. And truly I did’nt care about cars then I took the job just to pay for college. I worked in California.
This was in the mid to late 90s?
Yes. Then I became so enamored with the technology that even after I left GM I never left this field. I worked at X-Prize for a while, I created Autoprize.
Why did you leave GM?
They laid everybody off when they killed the EV-1 program, or should I say when they ended the EV-1 program.
Was that 2001?
End of 2001.
I never really left the industry. For the last several years I’ve been advocating EVs as an independent for a non-profit. I helped start Plug-in America and ran that organization for awhile. I left them last year but am still an advisor. I started another little non-profit as a mechanism to do what I do.
Then a few years ago a few EV-1 drivers decide to get together and make a movie that originally I wasn’t supposed to be in at all. I was rather shocked when I saw it at Sundance. It’s been a bit of a ride since.
That really catapulted you to celebrity status?
I don’t know about celebrity status.
Don’t people recognize you on the street?
One time ever.
They called you ahead for the Volt reveal?
Yes.
How do the former Ev1 people feel now that the Volt is becoming a reality?
We’re still going to have a group of skeptics.
Have they disappeared by now?
They have absolutely not disappeared. There are a few people that will never come around again, that will never come around again on the technology or the company. Its not just GM. Recall that all of the big six manufacturers took their cars away from people and destroyed them and all of that. GM is the iconic example, but it was really an industry behavior. Some did it more elegantly than other.
There’s another group of people that are skeptical but will come around as they see evidence. And that’s starting to happen.
Some have new EVs like the MINI-E and the Tesla.
What did you think of driving the Volt?
I liked it, and you know I drove the Cruze mule too. The agreed with gist of all the reviews about range extending being underwhelming. Yes, the engine went on. Not a big deal, not loud or disorderly. Its what we all thought it would be.
GM is more than a little bit brave in letting people drive these cars ahead. They set the bar for transparency, and they get it. They have some ground to recover and this is the only way to do it.
The other automakers seemed to have fallen behind here.
Yes I agree. Now there’s an expectation of transparency. It didn’t exist before. Its all GM’s fault.
They do more than any other of the car companies, their solution has been to humanize themselves. The downside if there is one is that we’re in a point of tension. People are very excited. All these cars are coming whether its GM or Nissan or whoever. We’re still nearly a year away from cars.
California gets all the EV attention. Why are you so far ahead of the country in terms of interest in electric cars, is it just the smog of the 70s?
Candidly I don’t know that California is that far ahead. Market wise we do have a very progressive set of constituents, environmentally and otherwise.
Why is that?
We’ve always been a center of environmentalism.
Is that from the smog of the 70s?
Im a native of California, I grew up in the smog and drought. There was always a focus of environmental awareness. Twenty years ago it was more about air quality than anything else. Climate change wasn’t on anybody’s list. It started in that way. The CARB mandate was very aggressive.
When was that?
Is was passed in 1990 and went into effect in 1998.
That was the statement that automakers had to produce zero emission vehicles?
Right if you wanted to keep selling cars in this state and your above a certain sized manufacturer you have to do X number of zero emissions cars and you have to sell them here.
How did they know in 1990 that they could make a zero emission car?
Actualy ironically GM is responsible for the CARB mandate. Because at the auto show of 1990 they showed the Impact. In April of 1990 Roger Smith announced, pretty much off the cuff like a Bob Lutz remark, “I think we’re going to build this thing,” much to the chagrin of his company. September of 1990 CARB passed the mandate. They looked at GM and said you say you can do this, well if you can so can everyone else.
The minute the mandate was passed, GM began to fight it because they did’nt want to be told what to do.
Isn’t it hard for the company to make cars special for just one state though?
Well all the states have the option to copy what CARB does. So between California and the other CARB states that covers about half the buying public of the US. Its like 16 or 17 states.
Wasn’t it repealed?
It was watered down and watered down and watered down. Technically the program is still intact.
Why do you think the automakers didn’t want to do it?
Part of it was a mandate thing like CAFE. Also to be part of an EV program, how can you reconcile selling an EV1 when you also sell big Suburbans where you make all your money?
The transformation of the whole industry from the day the Volt concept was revealed to now has been breathtaking?
I agree. I’ve been watching to for 17 years now, its incredible.
