GM's Chevy Volt Will Take Bravery, Government Help And Luck

General Motors can't catch a break with its green car plans. As hybrids steadily gained market share in the first half of this decade, the company stayed out of the game. As late as 2003, Bob Lutz, the company's product chief, said that hybrids don't make "economic or environmental sense." When GM finally stepped forward, it did so with all of the passion of a CPA--producing unconvincing low-cost Saturn pseudo-hybrids or hulking gas-electric systems best suited for undesirable full-size SUVs. These efforts were all numbers and no guts.

Finally, GM executives threw all caution to the wind and conceived the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid--an inspiring vision of what a vehicle could be at the beginning of the post-petroleum age. Unfortunately, GM might have missed the mark again--this time completing tossing out the business planning that it over-applied in the past. It appears that the brave and brilliant design of the Chevrolet Volt might require a price tag of roughly double the cost of its primary hybrid competition, the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid--and at the same time become a big money-loser for the company.

Read the full story here

-OR-

Read more about the Chevy Volt on the Huffington Post:
::"The Barack Obama Of Automobiles"
::GM Claims New Electric Car On Track For 2010

Comments

[Viper]

The purchase price of a Volt was raised from 30K to 35K last month by GM. There is likely to be a ten percent tax credit to offset that cost for such cars.

Thats not twice the cost of a Prius.. Equipped the same runs 28K here. Yes GM will lose money on each one. Toyota as usual loses money on the Prius it sells here, but makes it up by the double the price it sells for in Japan in its protected market (just like always). and the volume contributi­on.. and long term... the development cost will be amortized over a greater number of cars.

The VOLT looks hot but is a 4 seater. I cant get my wife interested in the look of a Prius.

The platform on which the skin rides.. will be used for other more boxing versions.

But yes they are going for the upper middle class suburban commuter as their first target. They can afford second cars and the first buyers will be TESTERS and are also more style conscious .

If they could make 200K the first year, they would sell 200K. But look for a much smaller run... to get the bugs out.

I'm ready to put money down now to help them out and the Amerian Auto Industry. If they will take this big of a risk for a change, I'm willing to take one with them. Prius is great, just not my style.
Regards

[worldsforgottenboy]

How could GM justify a 7000$ tax credit? There would be two reasons, reduced carbon emissions and reduced oil imports. My numbers tell me this is way too expensive.

Let’s say the Volt gets 100 mpg overall, and needs this tax credit to compete with a 40 mpg car. I’m assuming a 3% ROI to calculate the present value of the reductions.

Both cars get driven 200K miles during their 10 year lifetime.
Fuel savings add up to 3000 gallons.
Carbon emission reduction is 5.6 metric tons, after assuming 30% of the Volt’s electricity comes from coal at 34% mine-to-wheel efficiency.

Emission reductions warrant no more than a 500$ subsidy, since the government could pay people to grow biomass and bury it for less money (100$ per ton of carbon).

Import reduction subsidy is then 6500$, or about 2.5$/gallo­n, approx 80$/barrel after refining losses.

Could the government find some other way to cut oil imports and pay people far less than 80$/barrel for doing it? I would think so.

[mamacat]

I wish GM well with this project, especially since we the public and their employees need cars that have the technology advertised for the Volt.

But, what were they thinking with that chasis?

One look at a picture of the Volt, and it is obvious that it is aiming to take market share away fom the Chevrolet Corvette. The Toyota and Honda cars are aimed at the young middle class single driver or young families starting out, not the rich mid-life crisis male. Why should my tax dollars go to subsidise the youthful fantasies of rich old men?

On the other hand, there are plenty examples around of worse ways to spend $12 billion/month.

Suggestion: go ahead and keep the Volt, but adapt the technology to making cars that middle america can afford and wants. Sports cars are fine as far as they go, but is it realistic to expect to sell 100,000/year, at an eventual price of $50k or $60k?

GM has been losing market share and profitability for decades. Maybe what they need to lose are all of the troglodytes in the board room.

[jsarets]

We need to develop HEVs, PHEVs, and E-REVs like the Chevy Volt as a necessary bridge toward an electric transportation infrastructure. However, these emerging electric drive platforms will largely depend on the upscale professional class to shoulder the burden of early adoption. What the working class needs right now is a compact hatchback/crossover that makes 110 bhp, goes 0-60 in 10 seconds, tops out at 85 mph, gets 60 mpg, and costs $12-15K. Less power, less weight, more fuel economy.

Atkinson cycle engines, such as the one in the Toyota Prius, should dominate the economy car market. Since the expansion stroke is longer than the compression stroke, the exhaust gases leave the engine cooler than in a comparable Otto cycle engine, and therefore the thermodynamic efficiency is increased at the expense of power. Or even better, check out this ingenious asymmetrical rotary engine that uses the same principles as the Atkinson cycle in a rotary form to produce 30% more power with 10% less fuel compared to an Otto cycle reciprocating engine twice its size and weight:

http://white-smoke.wetpaint.com/page/Rotary+Engine

[sgeorge]

I am part of a campaign aimed at General Motors to become Green Motors and become a hybrid/electric car manufacturer. Check it out here: http://tinyurl.com/59hd6o

General Motors is falling apart, losing billions, and in jeopardy of going out of business. If we can convince them that there is a viable market for them taking drastic action to convert their cars and trucks to being the most environmentally efficient in the world, they have nothing to lose by unconditionally embracing the green movement.

[lvogt]

They don't have to reinvent the car. They could use an existing body, drop in a stock electric motor and gas engine to charge the batteries and they face the same battery issues the rest of the world does and is moving forward with. Do like Think City electric cars, out of Norway, and lease the batteries so they can be replaced as they improve. 50 grand is just too much.

[KillTheMessenger]

It does not work that way. For one thing, fuel consumption of a car is nearly proportional to its mass. At high speeds aerodynamics matter and traction and tire resistance have to be balanced.

An electric engine and a reasonably sized battery in a 6000lbs SUV tank body will perform like a desert turtle on a cold day. An electric and even a hybrid vehicle requires a complete redesign of the car. Toyota is the only manufacturer to get it right with the Prius and everybody else just made a lame hybrid wannabe.

GM missed this train and now they are scrambling to get on at the next station...

[Viper]

As an example .. I looked at the Toyota min van equvalent hybrid.. for get the name. it cost several thousand dollars more than the non hybrid version. Actual test results by buyers showed really no mileage improvements worth mentioning over a gas engine.

Much of the economy out of Hybreds is size, aerodynamic and weight related and very little else. Take hybred technology and move it to a larger platofrms and no real gains over similiar performing straight gas versions and no match for diesel.

Regards

[TumaraBaap]

Government help? How endearing. The Government has been helping GM all along. GM successfully lobbied to have the Federal Government turn its guns towards the California Air Resources Board. They have relentlessly sued CARB every step of the way to stem safety, efficiency, and zero emissions mandates. They were so intoxicated with malice against CARB, they went to spectacular lengths to cannibalize the impressive EV1. "Who Killed the Elecrtric Car" is one of the most compelling documentaries I've seen (thanks to Swoopy at Skepticality podcast for spreading word on excellent off-the-be­aten-track productions). A lot of good info too at www.ev1.org
The only time I'll ever buy a GM car is if a new hybrid/electric pays homage to the first model by having EV1 in its moniker, exceeds the old EV1 in efficiency and performance parameters, matches the Prius in price and utility, is the color titanium silver, looks better than a Maserati, and enlists Giselle Bundchen for marketing. Otherwise, GM singularly deserves to rot to death. Government help my foot!

[Viper]

Note that if you watched the movie, Honda and Toyota also had electric cars in Calfornia and were also part of the lawsuit against CARB and on their side was the BUSH Justice department.

They also stopped making their electric cars after the CARB requirments for an electric car was over turned...

So I take it you also will not buy a Honda or a Toyota. They all acted badly!

Regards

[MajorKong]

My impression of GM was that they've always had very good engineers and designers. Then the corporate bean counters get involved and start cutting corners.

By the time they got done you'd end up with a car with a lot of cheap plastic bits that looked great in the showroom but after three years of ownership was a mess of squeaks and rattles.

That being said, I just had a new Malibu as a rental car and I think they've come a long way in the last few years. Not perfect, but a lot closer to the mark.

[Mildmannered]

solar thermal technology -- check it out -- http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=209100185

[Badbone]

When the big automakers were selling gas guzzling behemoths faster than they could produce them, not a peep from them about needing help from the government. In fact, government intervention was the last thing on their minds. “The system works!” they cried, “Keep government out of out pocketbooks!”

But now that the good times are over, suddenly they need “Bravery, luck, and government help”. Well I certainly agree on the first two. Sadly, that’s just what they lack.

Let them fall.

[Viper]

If they fall, then we all fall... how many more US industries do you want over seas .. dont you think a 600 billion budget deficit and a 750 billion trade deficit and a 62% devaluation of the dollar is bad enough?...


Yeah they did it to themselves­... but that does not mean letting them drown does not take them under. And if you think Toyota has not been subsidized by Japan with their internal protectionist policies..­. then you need to rethink. A Toyota here sells for half what it does in Japan.

Regards

[noneIn2008]

And the cost to operate is higher than petrol based cars. Factor in the inefficiency of generating the electricity, it uses much more power. Since the majority of power is coal based, there will be more CO2 from an electric car.
It would be more believable if they simply attached "Mr. Fusion" to a Delorian.

[KillTheMessenger]

An electric car is, even after all losses, is still less polluting and more efficient than a gasoline powered car. A typical ICE gets less than 20% efficiency, a power plant somewhere around 60%. If we add in 5% power grid losses and another 20% in battery chemistry, we are still in the 45% range for the electric car, more than double the ICE model. Electric cars will be designed lighter and can achieve a factor of three in efficiency over a typical US car model. It would be much harder to beat a European car, but that's a different matter.

And nobody says we need to keep those coal fired power plants. That's our decision to make. We can go with solar any time we like.

[TimmySlagle]

" If we add in 5% power grid losses"

Where did you get that number?

I'd really appreciate a link. Because it is my understanding, that grid losses are around 70%.

[ccpostman]

You must be thinking of hydrogen and ethanol run cars. Electric cars are pretty efficient.

[Viper]

The cost of generating electric is about 1/20 the cost of fueling your car. You are right that about half of electric is coal generated. But easier to control pollution at a single point and still 20 times more efficeint.­. Its not GMs problem to change coal generating plants over to NUKe, solar and wind.

They have their hands full.

Regards

[ErnestineBass]

GOVERNMENT HELP??? B U L L S H I T.

That bunch of myopic Neanderthals doesn't deserve one red cent of my tax money.

GM has suckled the gubmint teet long enough. Let them go bankrupt.

[HumeSkeptic]

I agree.

[NoCorporatePersonhood]

yes let the "free" market" speak. Oh I forgot, the free market only counts when we are getting ripped off by mortgage brokers, oil companies, chemical companies like Monsanto who want to take over the world's food supply.

When it is time to bail out Bear Stearns, and coming soon the airlines, maybe we as tax payers need to do it but any managers should fined and any great wealth accumulated should be taken back. These people who ran these companies F'd up and if they need to be bailed out as they should not be able to live like kings off their mistakes!

[ErnestineBass]

O Lawdy...DO NOT get me started on Monsanto. Hate 'em!

[totalliberal]

Why is it that American corporations "always" want government help yet support, so-called, free-market capitalism. Odd isn't it.

[KillTheMessenger]

Well, they are drinking their own "whine".

:-)

[RememberTheAlamo]

Hi KillTheMessenger,

You seem up on this hybrid trend . . . What is happening to the HHV - Hydraulic Hybrid Vehicle?

Heard of anybody commercializing one? T

he energy density of the Eaton systems are huge compared to chemical batteries. The parts are realtively off-the-shelf. They would need some braking electronics. Paired with small gas engines or a small fuel cell motor they could pull a boat up a boat ramp and still get impressive mileage. Would change driver habits a little. Would imagine one would need to hit the truck stop for a 10 minute charge-up before one could hit the road across Tennessee

The vehicles they have produced seem to have worked well.

Just curious as to your thoughts (see EPA - HHV)

[MajorKong]

It's called "privatizing profits and socializing losses".

[Viper]

Of course we then buy from Communist China which is totally subsidized and even our companies there are 50% owned by China. . This is true all over the world. Their market is protected with a 22.5% tarrif and ares is not.

Japan subsidizes by having a protected market where the car they sell here for 25K cost 50K there.

Agreed the rip off management should not be rewarded. Air Bus is subsidized.

They screwed up not the workers. The workers are the ones that are being killed. We certianly subsidize every defense contractor.

I would rather help GM out by a tax credit to consummers than a bail out to Wallstreet.

Regards

[HumeSkeptic]

If I have a choice, I would never by an American car. The last one I bought was in 1979, brand new, and had to get rid of it within about a year.

[KPinSEA]

I wouldn't say that, my 2000 F-150 runs great, has always been a very useful vehicle ... but then I put less than 7500 miles a year on it and I do all the preventive maintenance necessary to get value out of it.

[KillTheMessenger]

F-150 gets 15mpg, right? So if you drive 7500 miles, that's 500 gallons a year, i.e. $2250 annually. And every mile will cost you on the order of 30 cents... it's like having a car where you have to put a quarter in every minute to keep it running... clonk... clonk.... clonk... clonk...

With my Prius it's only a dime... bling...bl­ing...blin­g... bling...

I wonder how many people would continue driving their inefficient cars if they would have to pay the gas bill in nickels, dimes and quarters as the car moves?

[KPinSEA]

Fifty thousand?

Get serious boys, I might as well stick with my F-150, because it's paid for and I don't drive enough miles to recover that $50K in the lifetime of the vehicle.

If that's what it costs, and mostly because of batteries, then Honda and Toyota were right: this wasn't the generation of battery technology to base this gamble on.

That's capitalism GM ... bad decisions = you lose. You love it when it works for you, and plead for socialism when it doesn't? Isn't going to happen.

[KillTheMessenger]

The batteries in current generation hybrids only have to store the energy for a few minutes of vehicle operation. All they do is to allow for a much smaller gasoline engine while still giving the car enough acceleration to have mass appeal. At the same time the gas engines can be made to operate more efficiently in a smaller range of load and rpm ranges. The Prius engine seems to get over 30% efficiency at 13.5hp output. That's enough to drive at close to 55mph on the highway. The parallel hybrid technology is de-facto a battery saver because it requires less frequent and less violent charge/discharge cycles than the battery of a true series hybrid would have to endure. Incidentally the electric engines and electronic control systems also have to be built for a much smaller peak load.

The Chevy Volt breaks with both design advantages of a parallel hybrid and goes for the full series hybrid approach. It's a great way to save even more energy because the gasoline engine can not operate at its ideal operating point all the time. But now we need a full scale electrical drive, a 100kW electronic control system and... VERY durable batteries. Until GM can make those cheaply they will be in big time trouble.

[coyote4]

The Th!nk solution is to charge a monthly fee which covers warranty/m­aintenance to deal with less-than-perfect electric/battery technology and expectations.