Warren Buffett's Electric Car Hits Chinese Market

SHANGHAI, China — Battery maker turned car company BYD Co. has launched China's first homegrown hybrid vehicle for the retail market, seeking an edge over its crisis-stricken international rivals.

BYD presented the vehicle, known as the F3DM, in a ceremony in the southern city of Shenzhen, where local officials have pledged to buy some of the cars in support of the project.

The vehicle can run up to 100 kilometers (62 miles) on its electric engine, and when it runs low on power shifts to a back up gasoline engine. Its battery can fully charge in nine hours from a regular electrical outlet, or much faster at BYD's own charging stations, the company said in a statement.

The car will sell for 149,800 yuan ($22,000), about the same as many Chinese-made mid-sized cars, it said.

Although the car is just now hitting the market, BYD claims to have leapfrogged larger automakers to be the first company to commercialize plug-in hybrid technology, which allows the batteries of the F3DM _ DM stands for duel mode _ to be recharged without any special infrastructure.

General Motors Corp.'s own plug-in electric car, the Chevrolet Volt, is due to roll out in late 2010. Toyota Motor Corp. also is pushing to get a plug-in electric vehicle to market in 2010, while Ford Motor Co., says it is five years away from producing them in significant numbers.

Still, developing a safe plug-in has been a major challenge for automakers, and it was unclear what sort of standards the BYD vehicle had met.

BYD, a private company based in Shenzhen, started out as a maker of rechargeable batteries. Its foray into electric car manufacturing drew broader attention recently when MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co., a unit of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc., invested in a 9.9 percent stake in the company.

Story continues below

advertisement

Encouraged by government support for alternative fuel technologies, BYD _ whose name stands for "build your dreams" _ has pressed ahead with developing electric vehicles, despite weakening sales in China and elsewhere.

The company has said it plans to export the cars to the United States, but its vehicles must first meet stringent U.S. safety standards _ a requirement that so far has deterred other, better-known local automakers.

Eager to limit its fast-growing dependence on the crude oil imports needed to fuel its growing legions of autos, and to limit choking emissions, China is pursuing a medley of programs aimed at putting new energy buses and other vehicles on the roads.

Last week, China's Ministry of Science and Technology and the U.S. Department of Energy agreed to collaborate on alternative fuel vehicles, focusing on battery performance, testing and evaluation _ areas bound to dovetail well with BYD's own approach.

___

On the Net:

BYD Co.: http://www.byd.com

Comments

[sampan]

I like to a drives car-bmw verymuch Because it's good!!!!
http://www.car-bmw.fusionthai.net

[Seeker14]

Comment to which jp5472 responded...

Before everyone goes off the deep end gushing about China's presumed progress in the alternative propulsion arena, let's not forget where the funding has come from. China's approach to its dealings with the U.S. is perhaps inarguably a "zero sum" game: Their economic, technological and military gains are directly at the expense of the this country, which they have targeted.

Remember the wisdom of Sun Tzu 2500 years ago as outlined in his military treatise for generals The Art of War: "Economic war" he says in essence, "is always waged first".

You might find this analysis by veteran auto industry correspondent Martha Hindes to be of interest:

http://www.slideshare.net/GHHLLC/automotive-industry-analysis-2008-martha-hindes-e-motion-reportscom3-presentation

[KillTheMessenger]

I suppose you started blaming others for your own failure rather young in life?

[Seeker14]

KTM: I take it you meant to post this elsewhere? I see no relevancy whatsoever in your comments regarding my response to jp...

[Seeker14]

4/4 jp5472

I guess there is a great deal of wisdom in that ancient proverb about one's "throwing pearls to swine"... present company accepted.

Lastly, you might want to review the 2003 analysis "Super-Globalism: Strategies For Maintaining a Robust Industrial Base Through Technological, Policy and Process Improvement" Get a good cup of coffee and sit down with it... send a note when you have.

http://www.slideshare.net/GHHLLC/superglobalism-strategies-for-maintaining-a-robust-industrial-base-through-technological-policy-and-process-improvement-presentation/

[Seeker14]

Contd 3/4 jp5472

was discovered after horsepower was increased mid program and crankshaft production ramped up. The ultimate fix was going to a forged crank produced using ESR (Electro Slag Remelt) steel production processes resulting in a super-clean product of military specification.

Over the years, I have counted as friends and colleagues some of the best and the brightest engineers and designers in the whole of the automotive world, inclusive of Asia and Europe.

You offend me and all of the extraordinary people with whom I've have the pleasure of working in industry who were part of, and continue to be part of, problem solving initiatives that have virtually eliminated TGW and contributed to a closure of the "quality" gap with the offshores. You sound like the "Middle Kingdom" at Ford who were warned by then CEO Sir Alex Trotman at a meeting of engineering middle managers at Cobo Hall in Detroit in 1995 that "if he went down because of evidence emerging that next generation Taurus and Sable were being sabotaged at the design for manufacturability level, they would go down with them"

"Fluff"? "Saccharin report"? Anyone who could come to these conclusions subsequent to consideration of the MH analysis clearly have no command of the King's English, and worse, are completely myopic in viewpoint even when presented with evidence to the contrary. Did you bother to review the reference page attached to that document?

[Seeker14]

Cont'd 2/4
These, among others including mid line production stoppage for the 1978 Cadillac Deville after it was determined that defective Cold Rolled Drawing Quality Class 1 steel was being utilized after our metallurgists expressly forbade its use by plant managers not wanting to shut down the line. Unfortunately, too many vehicles went to market with the defective steel for that model year, despite best efforts.

As far as your being an "engineering insider", then I suppose that we must have met at the multitude of real world engineering evaluation programs conducted in the summertime heat of Arizona, or in the bone chilling cold of Canada's frozen north; i.e., Winnipeg. Or was it GM Black Lake? or Ford Romeo? Or Chrysler Chelsea? Maybe you were there on that November day in 1986 when one of Chevy's top engineers and I took a twin turbo Corvette beyond 162 Mph in the wet at Milford? Or maybe you were part of the Roush Team at the 1989 12 Hours of Sebring running telemetrics as I was for the two V-8 Mercury Cougars that captured first and second in the GT category?

Perhaps you worked with Ford engineer Marlon Stroven relative to long term fixes for the Duracast Austempered Ductile Iron Crankshaft (designed to have near forged performance attributes) for the 1989 supercharged 3.8L V-6 Thunderbird SuperCoupe and Cougar XR-7 when a problem with porosity (subsurface inclusions owing to gas bubble entrapment during the production process)

[Seeker14]

Response to jp5472

Sorry my friend, you haven't a clue as to whom you're talking to. Your position as an "engineering insider" is the military equivalent of a grunt in a fox hole on the field of battle. You may have an excellent view of your immediate surroundings, but that's it.

In no way, shape or form can your position on the battlefield be considered as holistic or systemic; you just do not have the access to the rest of the field, no knowledge of the comprehensive battle plan.

You sir, are NOT an insider.

I've worked within industry for over 30 years, being involved in both the steel industry as a supplier to the auto sector, and part of an elite team that functioned as a liaison between the industries. Our purpose at the time was to provide materials for prototype development of reduced weight bumpers and other components utilizing HSLA (High Strength Low Alloy) steel. We were also at the forefront of the bringing metals of superior corrosion resistance to more common use in the industry leading to the use of 2 sided galvanized for the '80 Toyota Tercel and the '86 Olds Toronado, Buick Riviera and Cadillac Seville.

We're the ones who "fixed" Ford's corrosion problems with 1978 Crown Victorias in the Maritimes of Canada following actions by the Canadian government responding to consumer complaints.

Continued next post; 1 0f 4

[loki]

even at 22k, who can or really would want to afford them except those who want to be seen driving one. What I mean is for the majority of the working world, buying a 20,000 dollar car is just not feasible. The payments are bad, but then you add insurance, and in some states annual property taxes, your talking a large payment every month. If your just maintaining, why would you be foolish enough to take on another 3 to 5oo dollars a month in payments, and save maybe 100 a month in gas? Its cheaper to get a $150 on a scangauge 2 and adjust your driving habits , keep your car tuned and in decent shape and you can save more than $100 on gas every month. You dont have to be an idiot hyper driver, just use common sense and watch the mileage , rpm, and speed. I can get 31mph with a honda odyssey , and thats mostly city driving, and it didnt take a huge change in my driving style and I dont have to drive below the speed limit. Often I can drive above it. For instance, I can cruise at 1750rpm, at 41mph, and get 37.3 mpg. The problem is the 4 mile stretch I can do that on, is a 35 mph zone!

[apeweek]

Well, assuming gasoline will get expensive again, you will easily save enough for a larger car payment in fuel cost savings. The cost of electricity for an EV is just 1 to 2 cents per mile. Even cheap gas costs several times this.

[KillTheMessenger]

You wouldn't replace a perfectly good new car with one of these. But that's not how fleet turnover works. Instead you are replacing an old vehicle that has significant repair expenses with a new vehicle that is virtually free of problems. And then you get the savings on repairs in addition to the lower cost for fuel. And that works just fine.

You also have to keep in mind that to many people $22k is an almost trivial amount of money and they will obviously be among the first to buy a vehicle based on a new technology. Not necessarily this Chinese model but the next Prius or plug-in Prius if Toyota makes good on its promise.

[KillTheMessenger]

Reality check. An EV saves about 1.5 gallons of gasoline a day in comparison with a typical vehicle. The US has reduced its oil consumption by 1.8 million barrels per day due to the high price of oil. Since a barrel of oil is the equivalent of 20 gallons of gas, that's 36 million gallons of gas a day. If we want to offset an equal amount of oil with EVs, we need 20 million of them.

In comparison Toyota sold some 1+ million Prius so far. Does this tell you something?

[Viper]

It only took a 2% drop to end oil speculation and send prices down 60%. All journeys start with but one small step.

With the Volt I will not be using any oil And in phase 2 , the gen and batteries are replaced with a Hydrogen Feul cell in a second model. Home refueling stations however will be needed.

However their is no single ,majic bullet... I dont see that your calculation .. going from 24 MPG on average to 75 MPG on Average. does not have a more signifcant impact at 20-40 million units.

It also means that its a time when you want to be in the car business making cars when their will be a massive reason for buying a new car. Over 100 milllion cars will become obsolete in the next 4-5 years.

Regards


Regards

[KillTheMessenger]

That wasn't my point. My point was that the biggest gains come for free by changing lifestyle.

You won't be using any oil with the Volt? Not even engine oil? I am afraid it won't last very long that way.

"Over 100 milllion cars will become obsolete in the next 4-5 years."

And most of them will be replaced with rather conventional ICE cars. Keep in mind that it took Toyota 10 years to sell 1 million units of the Prius. Why would GM do a hundred times better with a much more expensive car?

[vagabondstory]

I can't wait to see what kind of stuff is on the market in ten years.
http://www.vagabondstory.com

[Viper]

The average price of a new car is around 29-30K by the way. And that is lower than it s/b due to the last few difficult years.

So people are buying cars over 30K. Given the inflation that we will see coming out of this recession given the trillions of new Government dollars... and the need to re inflat housing prices... 30K will be the good all days.

Regards

[jerrypl]

Warren Buffet's car is a joke. We already have the Prius. There is a better electric called the Th!nk Ox. The Prius is unveiling the plug-in hybrid, which is what Buffet's car really is, and the new Prius will have a longer electric range. And of course, the destroyed GM EV-1 was a full electric, which would be worldwide by now had it lived on.

http://eye-on-washington.blogspot.com

[Viper]

THE EV1 sat 2 and cost 80K. Batteries lasted 3-4 years. There are at least ten better all electrcic cars for that price you buy today.. have at it!


Nissan and Toyota also had pure electric cars and also joined the suit to kill them and pulled theirs off the market also.

By the way in 2011-2012, THe VOLT will have the Hydrogen Fuel Cell option.. which eliminated the batteries and the Generator. Of course there are barely any hyrdogen Feuling stations.

Regards


Regards

[apeweek]

The $80k price on the EV1 is bogus. No selling price was ever set (lease only.) Your battery-life stat is bogus, too - second gen EV1 cars had NIMH batteries, which have a battery lifetime of about 150,000 miles.

Hydrogen fuel-cell cars do not eliminate batteries. These cars require batteries as well (to store fuel cell energy and level the electric load, the car can't accelerate without them.) So take a perfectly good electric car, and add a big heavy fuel cell and H2 tank on top. This is what's wrong with fuel cell cars. They will always be heavier and more expensive than a plain battery electric car, and more expensive to fuel as well.

Electric cars with gas or H2 are sold to us as necessary because of historically limited battery ranges - but this ignores new battery tech like 10-minute recharge capability (see http://phoenixmotorcars.com for an example)

[wonderful]

batteries? pfft. nuclear powered cars!

[choada777]

If you shoot them they blow up.

[hark]

Just the name - the "Volt" reveals what contempt GM has for the concept. Kind of like IBM's first PC. More of a defensive move, to get the environmentalists off their backs.

What we need is a massive, government investment in the fully electric car. The key is the battery, and we ought to launch an Apollo-like program to develop one that will power passenger cars 400 miles between charges. I'm sure science is up to it,if we would just do it instead of waiting around for somebody tinkering in a garage to come up with something.

But we won't. We absolutely will not use our government for any useful purpose, because that would strip some fat cat from the profits he is entitled to. And it would upset the oil, gas, coal and American auto companies.

And we ought to be getting the trucks off the highways and carrying freight by rails, where electric power has been fully feasible for decades. This was the mistake Eisenhower made. The interstate highway system was a marvelous achievement, but all the trucks have torn the highways and bridges to pieces. There needed to be a comparable rail system for freight, and there wasn't.

Now, of course, there's no vision left in America, except empty "Yes we can" slogans that quickly turn into "No we won'ts."

[apeweek]

The battery technology already exists - example, "Altairnano" batteries in the Phoenix EV:

http://phoenixmotorcars.com

Can charge in just 10 minutes, and will last the lifetime of the car. Somewhat similar battery technology is owned by A123 (will probably be used in the Volt EV.) Other exciting battery tech to Google: Firefly, ThunderSky, EESTOR.

Even NIMH batteries are exciting - they are very long lived, and would be cheap to produce if the patents hadn't been bought by an oil company.

The press should have been all over these exciting emerging battery technologies. Instead, we keep hearing about how the "batteries don't exist yet."

[Viper]

They were all over it and you should do more research also. Lots o exposure just 2 years ago.

www.autobloggreen.com/2008/02/15/phoenix-motorcars-ready-to-start-taking-a-few-retail-orders-sti/ -

Nothing has every really been shipped yet. They have cash problems. They have been redesigned twice in the last 18 months. We are really dealing with Prototypes.

They cost over $50K out the door.

Regards

Regards

[KillTheMessenger]

Sadly, NiMH batteries are not long lived. They just happen to be able to do hundreds of thousands of 5% charge swings, which is enough to build a parallel hybrid like a Prius but not good enough to build a serial plug-in hybrid with significant range.

You really need to read the data sheets of these products instead of relying on hearsay about how great they are.

[mathme]

We won't... but we can. At least that will get us some self-satisfaction.

[Viper]

How can VOLT be a contemptuos name. VOLT was a nice guy. I think its a great name!


And by the way the Government is funding battery reseacrh. 1.4 Billion under Clinton alone.

Regards

[jake1492]

It seems that the purist fascination with "electric only" vehicles has quite a few "true believers". But if the question "why" is asked.... there's never a good answer. On the surface it appears that "because it gets rid of oil use altogether" might be a good answer... but it isn't. A well designed gas/plugin electric hybrid would reduce fuel consumption for a typical driving pattern by at least 2/3. Were that a broadly implemented design... it would eliminate ALL imported oil.... and drive world oil price into the basement for a very very long time.

The reason all-electric is a bad idea is that it has insurmountable range and rechargeability technical obstacles.

In the long run, alternative chemical fuels (rather than gasoline) will provide for the necessary range extension. There is a broad range of practical ways to make those fuels from non-oil sources. Like with so many other things.... doing so is not a matter of being able to understand how.... but being willing to understand.

[apeweek]

Personally, I like 'electric-only' cars because:

1-Cheapest to fuel. Only 1 to 2 cents/mile from the grid, free from solar panels.

2-Cleanest. Even considering coal plants, far less overall pollution. No pollution at all if charged from solar panel.

3-Simplest and most durable technology around. Electric motors have just one moving part, and require no regular maintenance at all. I personally drive a 30-year-old electric car with all the original motor parts. It has never needed service. This is what probably scares automakers the most.

4-No petroleum at all, potentially disentangling us from all the messy political wrangling over oil. And the solar panel option removes the ability to manipulate fuel prices.

[rkimball]

if this don't kill the big three, i don't know what will. so why bail out the big three?

[Viper]

Its 3 - 5 years away! If it like most of the stuff coming out of china it will break out of the box. Batteries will last only 4 years.. so given the cost of the battieries .. thats its useful life

Regards

[KillTheMessenger]

None of the stuff I buy from China breaks out of the box. My IBM notebook is now on it's fifth year despite heavy daily use and shows no signs of breaking.

If you happen to shop at Walmart, of course...

:-)

[cloudmaker]

Hey wouldn't it be great if we had an electric car years ago? Think how
much better off this poor old earth would be. Wait a second. We did. And
everyone who drove it loved it. But General Motors saw profits going out
the window, so they killed the electric car. After all, they were interested
in making huge profits and becoming a powerful auto company. And
who can argue with success? They knew what they were doing. Not.

[Viper]

Toyota and Nissan also had electric cars and also were on the lawsuit to kill the electric car as was our own Justice Department.

It cost 80K to build and they leased it at a cost of 40K, plus did all maint for free, so they lost over 40K per car. It was just a 2 seater and the abtteries which cost a ton only lasted 3-4 years.

Ther are at least 10 Battery only models of cars out there on the market now! Go buy one!

Regards

[apeweek]

The EV1 did not cost $80k to build. This "price" amortizes in development cost, but no other new car from a big car company is priced this way.

All new cars cost hundreds of millions or billions to develop. The Ford Mondeo is a standout here, it had a development cost of $6 billion. Yet nobody cites this figure to make the car seem impossible to build.

Development costs are typically recouped over decades. It's a fixed cost, it's water under the bridge. Car prices are normally set according to market demand.

Small car companies (like Tesla) can't afford to amortize these costs over long time periods. That's why little-company cars always cost too much. (It has nothing to do with electric versus gas. It's big versus small car company.)