Tony Posawatz is the corporate QB looking to deliver GM’s Volt-shaped Hail Mary. In a pre-game chinwag with Reuters, the senior engineering executive sheds some light on GM’s playbook. Production will be ramped up slowly “to make sure everything [the battery pack] is bulletproof.” Meanwhile, GM will be lobbying utilities to offer rebates or cheaper off-rate charging rates, and other forms of tax relief. GM is also planning on selling used battery packs to utilities as power storage systems. Posawatz acknowledges that financial losses are inevitable: “to make this thing a sustainable business, we have to drive it to volume.” So, a low price then? “The nature of this technology is that it’s going to be expensive, and we will not underprice this vehicle.” Ah, BUT– GM is may build a 20-mile range version as “part of an effort to cut the cost of such vehicles by half or more.” Translation: the 40 mile-range Volt will be an expensive ($45k and up) low-volume “halo” vehicle for GM’s bragging rights. It will take several more years of cost (and range) cutting before something resembling an actual Prius competitor hits the streets. The loyal cheerleaders at Volt-nation are apoplectic, calling for Posawatz’s head. Their hopes for GM’s populist electric Model T are fading as fast as GM’s cash reserves.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
The GM Bolt … now you see it, now you don’t.
Waddaya mean, Stein?! We haven’t even seen it yet! Unless of course, for folks down in the tubes at Generous Messup – whoops I mean General Motors.
OK now, what I want to know, is why GM (and Ford and Chrysler) didn’t produce their “Supercars” from the “Supercar initiative” under Clinton’s administration.
You know, the mid-sized vaporware – I mean hybrid “cars” developed for 80 mpg on OUR dime. That is, the taxpayers.
And if they did develop these hybrids, where are the engineering drawings and plans? Why re-invent the wheel with the Volt?
It’s crystal clear to me that GM, Ford and Chrysler simply took some money, showed a few fakey-do cars and laughed all the way to the bank.
In the meanwhile, we have automotive news headlines a few weeks ago shrilling that “the Japanese Government paid to (help) develop the Prius”.
Well, gee, even if they did – at least Toyota MADE THE DANG THINGS AND SOLD THEM! But of course, the truth is even more embarrassing for Detroit Inc, and that is that Toyota (and Honda) actually spent money they earned selling good cars at a profit, in developing their respective hybrid systems.
Wow, what a novel idea! Make a profit?! Sell decent cars?! Put money into R&D!!!?!
What’s next? Developing robots to help people, then having one of them conduct the orchestra in Detroit? (deep sarcasm alert)
Tesla #2 anyone??
Recharging the Volt’s battery every 20-miles will raise hell with a run to the coast.
The GM Volt was a joke-car that GM slapped together for the car show, in order to demonstrate that they were forward thinking and with it. It was supposed to fade from view after having delivered some PR buzz – unfortunately, it caught on beyond their imaginings, and they find themselves in the awkward position of actually having to deliver something that looks like the braggadocio spec sheet they slapped together.
This will be amusing. Just ticking off the discrepancies between initial concept and launch vehicle should keep us entertained for quite a while.
It’s just nice to see a Senior Engineering Executive working on a vehicle for sale in the United States that is an American. Maybe Americans can still engineer something of value even in this day and age.
I was beginning to think the only things us Americans can do is wreck credit and energy markets, and buy foreign manufactured or engineered products.
Oh yeah, and get fat.
Exactly what is this joke going to compete with. A 20 mile range is a pathetic joke, electrics did that back in 1900, and you get to pay the same price as a Prius for that range with GM reliability to boot. I ask again who is going to buy this turd when the competition is better and cheaper. When does Honda’s slick new hybrid come out, isn’t 2010 the magic date for everyones release.
Like I said a long time ago this 40 mile range Volt is going to cost $50,000+ if it ever sees the light of day.
This is my favorite Production will be ramped up slowly “to make sure everything [the battery pack] is bulletproof.” Who exactly are these sucker beta testers going to be, knowing they are getting an unfinished product. Shouldn’t they be working out the production bugs IN HOUSE, and then release the car when it’s ready, oh yeah I forgot GM doesn’t have enough time or money for that before they will be out of business.
A 20 mile range (think about it, a 10 mile return trip) is useless. A great many people I know who take public transit for the run into Toronto still have to travel further than that to get to the station. My octogenarian parents couldn’t get by on a car with that range. I would like to see GM pull this off, but they aren’t going to with that.
NickR: A 20 mile range (think about it, a 10 mile return trip) is useless. I assume everyone here knows this is the initial EV range. After the 20 mile battery power is kaput, the Volt's gas engine kicks-in. Of course, as Mr. Niedermeyer has pointed out, your EV range may vary (i.e. hills will hurt).
I like their ode to the Tesla, ‘Production will be ramped up slowly “to make sure everything [the battery pack] is bulletproof.” ‘ ie, we’re gonna sell prototypes to the first batch of customers.
Hey, speaking of Tesla, I just checked Marin Eberhard’s blog and saw no mention of him receiving his car. Have there been any more deliveries since the mysterious #4?
Oil edging close to $140 today, at 139,85 now… GM will need something, but the Volt ain’t it as presently conceived.
I assume everyone here knows this is the initial EV range. After the 20 mile battery power is kaput, the Volt’s gas engine kicks-in. Of course, as Mr. Niedermeyer has pointed out, your EV range may vary (i.e. hills will hurt).
Understood, but with a 20 mile EV range, you are on the verge of driving a conventional gas powered vehicle.
Average daily car use in the US is under 30 miles. Reduce the size of the Volt and meet that target.
20-mile EV range works for me, most days.
But if I am willing to buy electric range and want to go electric, why would I buy a $40K 20-mile ER-EV 2011 Volt from GM when it’s likely I can get a 50-60 mile EV from someone else in that timeframe, very likely for less?
I’ll still have a vehicle that refuels on gas for long trips, the EV is just my second (or third…) car.
—
GM-Volt.com (a/k/a Volt Nation) is just a laughable site. A few sensible types post there but mostly it’s cheerleading loons or people who want the US off foreign oil TODAY (but without any compromise in vehicle capability) and zero understanding of what it takes to build a car, let alone an advanced tech car.
@KixStart
GM-Volt.com (a/k/a Volt Nation) is just a laughable site. A few sensible types post there but mostly it’s cheerleading loons or people who want the US off foreign oil TODAY (but without any compromise in vehicle capability) and zero understanding of what it takes to build a car, let alone an advanced tech car.
Just let me know when I’m beginning to sound like a broken record – but:
Energy has to come from somewhere. Even Lutz has failed to grasp this.
The amount of work required to move an object from A to B is the same, whether the energy is delivered by gasoline, hydrogen, hydroelectric power, or pure flatulence.
The power you “feed” into your battery pack comes from somewhere, and does not create itself, neither partially nor whole. Therefore, there’s no way of moving the US OFF foreign oil with EVs or plug-ins unless you create a way of delivering the energy required that is independent of foreign oil.
Gasoline and diesel are inordinately efficient ways of storing motive energy to be used for transportation, in the vehicle doing the transporting. Batteries can substitute up to a point, but not if what you want to do is create a sportscar (Tesla) or a big V8 styled car that has electric hamsters instead of a pure gas engine onboard (The Bolt).
Lighter cars, lower speeds and some serious work on the energy infrastructure and sourcing, including developing alternative sources is required.
If not, all you’re doing is sending the petroleum to the electrical plant, and then sending the electricity generated to the batteries in your car.
Again – the work required is the same, and can only be changed through modification of the platform (weight, aerodynamic coefficient, friction) and behavior (speed, driving pattern and frequency).
If you want to cover the same distance, with the same number of occupants, in a vehicle that is similar in size and weight and handling to your gasoline powered present vehicle, then you are consuming the same amount of energy to do so.
Lutz still hasn’t gotten this. This was his thinking in January of this year!
Lutz—the man who brought us the Dodge Viper muscle car and the 1,000-horsepower Cadillac Sixteen—has become the unlikely champion of the Chevy Volt, a 150mpg plug-in electric car that GM is fast-tracking for production in 2010. GM’s car czar now admits he was wrong to dismiss the popular Toyota Prius hybrid as a PR ploy. Though he still loves fast cars (and fast fighter jets, which the ex-Marine flyboy pilots on weekends), Lutz, 75, is undergoing a green conversion in the twilight of his career. “I believe strongly that this country has to get off oil,” he says, sitting beside a massive V-16 engine on display in his office. “The electrification of the automobile is inevitable.”
http://www.newsweek.com/id/81580
As expected, this “big idea” keeps getting watered down. 5 mile range Volt anyone? Give it up GM.
Another example of doing the economics of an idea after the emotional rants.
I like when the environmental wackos phrase the debate with ” you want a cleaner planet, don’t you?” without adding ” and you are willing to pay through the nose for it, right?”
the Volt makes no economic sense now or ever
I think Stein nailed it. It was never supposed to go past the show. Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuut…Duh General needs positive PR desperately soooooooooooo…go figure.
2010-Bu’ or Vue hybrid with a socket, 5-7 mile pure electric range (claimed 15 miles). $30-35k.
Prius plug-10-15 miles electric $27-30k.
“real” Volt- 1013-5. If there is still a GM.
Toyota and honda plugin sales closing on 500k per year.
Bunter
Well one thing I can see, GM is going to have extreme difficultly getting the public at large to understand what a plug-in hybrid is, and that it won’t conk out and stop dead after 20 or 40 miles. If TTAC fans can’t even grasp the concept after all this time…
The Volt exists purely to keep people from defecting to Toyota, not to get people to buy into GM’s product lineup.
GM has a big fat hole in their lineup, one that they’re not going to fill anytime soon, and their only hope to prevent people going to Toyota (and being lost forever) is to dangle the Volt in front of their customer base to staunch the bleeding. If a GM customer switches, they’re not coming back, no matter how good the Volt is. By hyping the Volt, they’re saying “No, wait, don’t spend your hard-earned dollars on a Prius now because, just wait, we’ll have something better Real Soon Now!”.
Poisoning the well, pure and simple.
Toyota’s statements downplaying the effectiveness of series drivetrains and plugin hybrids is similar, but their message is “Why take a chance on hype? Just by a Prius today: you _know_ how well it works.”.
It sounds like they will offer a 20-mile Volt at a Prius-like price ($20-25K) and a 40-mile Volt at some insane price ($40K?). Of course the new Prius will probably have a 20-mile range on all electric as well.
I guess that’s a tie will the mainstream model, and is better than not offering the 20-mile version at all but just the $40K version, but not by much (although you do have the option to get the longer range version, a plus for GM). However, if the GM and Toyota versions have the same range, a lot of people will pick Toyota. Plus, I believe the Prius is significantly larger than the Volt, so it wins on practicality. But I’m sure you can “trade up” and get the bigger battery pack later if you buy the 20-mile Volt now, so that’s a plus for it.
@Kevin
I think the TTAC crowd gets the plug-in concept just fine. What we are criticizing is the GM spin that “in many instances, you will never even use your gasoline back-up engine – you will be doing most off your motoring off the plug-in rechargeable battery pack, because of its high capacity.”
As that capacity goes down, so does whatever it was that was supposed to differentiate the Volt from any other car.
And Toyota have announced a plug-in hybrid coming down the pike …
Stein X Leikanger :
June 16th, 2008 at 11:09 am
The power you “feed” into your battery pack comes from somewhere, and does not create itself, neither partially nor whole. Therefore, there’s no way of moving the US OFF foreign oil with EVs or plug-ins unless you create a way of delivering the energy required that is independent of foreign oil.
Plug in hybrids or pure electric vehicles very much do help us move off foreign oil. Oil is not used for electricity generation in the continental United States!!!!! Power plants in the US run off of natural gas, coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind, and biomass. All of these are mostly or exclusively sourced from domestic sources. As far as I can tell, there is only one power plant in the entire continental US that only runs off of oil (a few others can use oil, but as a practical matter always use natural gas because it’s cheaper). Oil is simply not a factor in electrical generation in the US.
@Geotpf
You fail to take into account the fact that you, in addition to feeding the electrical grid as it stands today, with existing demand, will have to deliver enough power to move substantial numbers of vehicles in different categories, as you transition to new drivetrains.
And the canard about cars being charged at night, when the grids are at low capacity, falls flat.
As power generation capacity is being projected for this increase in demand, oil fueled plants are part of the equation. However, we should worry a lot more about the potential shortfall — though the nuclear lobby likes this tune just fine!
Just in case anyone cares, I actually found something online about the Supercar Initiative, GM, Ford and Chrysler.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28_2/text/tra.htm
See? I’m not a doddering old fogey with an overactive imagination – it really was real.
Well, okay, it was real taxpayer money that was thrown down the toilet, in any case.
Stein, there is indeed additional capacity available at night – especially wind and nuclear – which is actually kind of expensive/difficult to turn off (which is why schemes like pumped storage exist).
The tricky part is making sure that incentives exist to charge off-peak before plug-ins become more than a trivial fraction of the vehicle fleet.
@ Geotpf:
Yeah but we use oil to get the coal/uranium/natural gas out of the ground and to the power plant.
Stein: “As power generation capacity is being projected for this increase in demand, oil fueled plants are part of the equation.”
Stein, this time you’ve backed yourself into a corner. New oil-fired power plants in the US?! No way. New plants have all been natural gas, which is still (relatively) abundant in the US and from Canada. No utility in their right mind could get their investors or ratepayers to pony up for a new oil-fired power plant.
guyincognito: gas comes via pipelines. The drilling is totally insignificant compared to what comes out for years or decades afterwards.
Sorry guys, but EV’s, which will be charged at night using smart meters, is probably one of the single best technologies to reduce oil use in the transportation sector. We’re not quite there yet, but it will happen, Volt or no Volt.
While the pre-product PR could and should be handled better than it is by GM, I’m not sure why commentary here on the Volt is vituperative, both from Robert and the peanut gallery. At the moment, it’s irrelevant what anyone says about its eventual cost. I’d rather they just stop talking about that. We’ll know pricing close to launch. Just like the initial parallel hybrids from Japan, the initial serial hybrid will likely involve some compromises. So what? There will be early adopters, just the same.
20 miles of battery-sourced EV range will be a significant benefit when combined with the ability to run the serial hybrid’s gasoline engine at a constant RPM at or close to maximum efficiency. A serial hybrid is an electric vehicle *all the time*, with only the source of the electricity varying between batteries or gasoline-powered generator. If that gasoline ICE powering a generator is reasonably efficient, even the American average 38 mile daily drive will benefit from half that being EV operation from a plug-in-topped-off battery.
Paying more to get 40+ miles of battery-sourced range is a perfectly acceptable way to field the more fully-realized capabilities of the technology while offering a more accessible version until the economics of mass production and field experience eliminate the need.
What is the problem here? And why should the GM-bashers be reluctant to bet on the Volt’s reliability? Ford has already proven that an American company can build and sell a reliable parallel hybrid car and field it in significant numbers. The Volt is simpler! A parallel hybrid has to adjudicate the power delivery from two wildly dissimilar systems, with separate motors variously driving a single chassis. If you’re going to move to the engineering inelegance of running two power sources in one vehicle, using a single motive technology and a single power stream (electricity) is far more elegant and intrinsically reliable. The parallel system’s inelegance only pays back redundancy to mitigate risk in a new technology. Complete failure of the electric side is covered by ability to get home on the ICE alone.
OK. But serial hybrid motive architecture has been proven for decades in locomotives. GM makes what even critics here regard as mostly robust IC engines. There’s less technical complexity in a Volt than in a parallel hybrid, but the battery requirements are more ambitious. Could they produce the Volt or its drivetrain sooner using NiMH chemistry? Sure, at more weight and less range. But given the many payoffs of a serial hybrid architecture, getting the battery technology right seems acceptable. GM is developing only a first instance car for a drivetrain type that can be widely applied throughout their vehicle lines after 2010.
In the meantime, the 2.0L Ecotec Turbo and a naturally-aspirated counterpart could be moved into a lot more vehicles to boost GM’s near-term fleet efficiency. And they could lead the industry in mass adoption of weight reduction techniques through both design and materials. An engineering war on the entire industry’s addiction to bloat is more important than any single powertrain innovation. Even the Volt’s battery range would benefit from that.
Phil
@Paul
Sorry guys, but EV’s, which will be charged at night using smart meters, is probably one of the single best technologies to reduce oil use in the transportation sector.
This I agree with totally, and I believe that the grid can keep pace with rising demands as more cars go electrical. (I’m not getting into the looming shortages when it comes into the materials we want for all those batteries …)
Heavy oil burners are used in all coal-fired plants to start up the towers and to assist in burning, by the way.
As to oil/coal/gas fired plants, expact whatever is required to be approved, whatever it takes to keep the traffic flowing. Properly operated plants with what’s required to keep their emissions down is a great way of getting the exhaust out of the cities.
BTW – it’s worth it to look at what’s happening to projected as supply and prices. There are those who believe oil plants will be part of the equation. And the US does import quite a bit of gas, right? Not just from Canada.
Phil: While the pre-product PR could and should be handled better than it is by GM,
The understatement of the decade. It’s precisely because it (the pre-production PR) has been handled so atrociously that I collude with Robert. In every way, its been mis-managed. When Toyota introduced the original Prius to the world in 1997, the first announcement was the final production ready car. During the five years of its development, we knew and heard absolutely NOTHING.
GM insults anyone with reasonable intelligence with their endless inability to control their collective and un-coordinated mouths. The Volt concept barely ran under its own power, and was originally proclaimed to be a $30k vehicle. Ads showing the Volts were spewn endlessly across the tube. The whole history has been well documented here and elsewhere; no need to for me to repeat it.
The argument about the Volt’s simple and elegant serial hybrid technology being so fool-proof is essentially irrelevant. Yes, the motor and ICE gen set are a piece of cake. The battery is the problem, and not everyone (engineers in the business) even today believe that it’s going to perform as expected. There’s an excellent article in Wired about it.
GM is taking a gamble on the battery. The odds are probably in its favor. But if there are any glitches or shortcomings at all, given GM’s terrible track record in introducing new technology (Corvair, Vega aluminum engine, DOA Wankel engine, V8-6-4, Olds diesle, etc. etc.) it will be the ultimate kiss of death the gamble goes against GM.
Locomotives have nothing really to do with the Volt; diesel gensets and giant electric motors have been around since the 1920’s and earlier. But over-the-road locomotives DON’T use batteries, especially untried ones.
Geotpf-“It sounds like they will offer a 20-mile Volt at a Prius-like price ($20-25K) and a 40-mile Volt at some insane price ($40K?).”
Here’s the way I see it.
$20-24k is the range they are in with their BAS Whybrids. Won’t be near that.
Look for the first “Volt” with a 20 mile (GM proving ground) all electric range to be well above that, $30k is unlikely, even the smaller battery pack will push it into that range.
The looooooong ramp up comments will allow them to have a Teslaesque “start of production”.
Thus they will have “met their projections”.
1. In production(ish) in 2010. Try to get one at a dealer, oops.
2. 30K(ish, maybe 5k of ish) price. OK, for the 20 miler. oops.
3. 40 mile range (GM proving ground) for 50K. oops.
IMO.
Best regards,
Bunter
Paul: It’s precisely because it (the pre-production PR) has been handled so atrociously that I collude with Robert. In every way, its been mis-managed.
No argument about that from me. GM could sell more of what it has right now if it just fixed its marketing function. The Volt marketing fumble is just more evidence of GM’s critical weakness there.
The argument about the Volt’s simple and elegant serial hybrid technology being so fool-proof is essentially irrelevant. Yes, the motor and ICE gen set are a piece of cake. The battery is the problem, and not everyone (including engineers in the business) even today believe that it’s going to perform as expected.
The battery is much less of a problem if less is expected of it at launch. More on this momentarily.
Locomotives have nothing really to do with the Volt; diesel gensets and giant electric motors have been around since the 1920’s and earlier. But over-the-road locomotives DON’T use batteries, especially untried ones.
But locomotives do run reliably on fossil fuel engines driving generators to feed electricity to drive motors. And that is what the Volt will do. The initial version should be sold on the strength of efficiency and emissions gains available from this motive architecture, plus the more flexible packaging it offers. The battery aspect is first a buffer, and as it is proven, can be developed and sold for expanding ICE-less range. My guess is that particularly for secondary cars (one “city” car in a family fleet), a serial hybrid with only enough battery power to allow ICE shut-down in stops, initial shove to get moving, and buffered power for peak demands, will deliver efficiency and emissions gains that can win sales. The packaging advantage of being able to locate the ICE without regard to mechanical connection for power transmission can lead to some re-imagining of auto configuration and space utilization. In other words, at the outset, whatever ICE-less range you get is gravy.
Point is, the benefits of the basic innovation of the architecture apart from any gains in ICE-less range are sufficient existential argument for the Volt and its development. Get the architecture on the market at a price people can buy, even if it only has 5 miles of ICE-less range at launch, so long as its ICE efficiency is competitive with other high-mileage small-displacement ICE cars. If the architecture is otherwise optimized, then ICE-less range can be extended painlessly through upgrades as the battery chemistry and production mature.
As for GM’s risk with new technology given the track record you list, I think you’re piling on. The Corvair was not technically underdeveloped for its time. It did adopt a suspension architecture that was accepted and in-use by multiple automakers before and after. GM further improved the car until a more primitive platform type won out in the market. A 1965 – 69 Corvair was a fine compact car in its time. The engine was the least of the Vega’s problems and the Ecotec 2.0L turbo atones for that sin. The Wankel wasn’t released by GM, nor anyone else mainstream for that matter. Mazda made the Wankel their poster child in engine technology so today we have RX8s that can’t even match the fuel economy of my supercharged Cadillac V8. The V8-4-6 was a fiasco, tried too soon. But does anyone doubt that cylinder de-activation works in GM V8s today? No.
I’m sure some kind of Volt-architecture car could have been on the market by now. Certainly a NiMH serial hybrid could have met a 2010 deadline. But GM chose to swing for a breakthrough. That may or may not prove to have been wise. We won’t know for awhile. But I’m glad GM is looking beyond the parallel hybrid with real R&D and a production goal. If they wanted to put a stop-gap in the line, they could license Ford’s hybrid blueprint. They already share a transmission project. They’ve already put Honda engines in Saturn vehicles. GM has perfectly acceptable 4 cylinder engines to which Ford’s parallel hybrid system could be applied in GM’s own vehicles. Many roads could have been taken to not be caught flat-footed amidst another fuel price escalation. But I’m not going to disparage the Volt initiative either because of all the other mitigations GM could have had in place now, nor because their marketing function is inept at the Volt’s pre-product messaging and promotion.
Phil
Phil Wrassler: “At the moment, it’s irrelevant what anyone says about its eventual cost. I’d rather they just stop talking about that.”
Tell GM. They DO talk cost – and the messages are mixed but unmistakeable… the Volt will be expensive.
And that leaves the rest of us wondering what GM could possibly be thinking… or even if they’re thinking at all…
High costs are dogging GM’s high-tech (and low-to-medium-tech) adventures. The two-mode hybrids are outrageously expensive. GM makes them available in limited quantities and then they do not sell (the local dealer has three and one has been there almost two months).
People are careful with their money and they don’t spend over $10K on hybrid tech upgrades just for fun. They expect it to pay them back. Most people who want to cut fuel cost see that they can get a better payback for a lot less with a less expensive vehicle (i.e., Lambda).
The Volt faces the same struggle in the market. With 40-mile EV range, you could, conceivably, burn no gas, ever. However, the ‘sweet spot’ for payback is driving EXACTLY 40 miles per day. EVERY DAY. Yeah, including weekends. More than 40/day and you’re back to buying gas (and I think we can expect the Volt to get lower fuel economy than the Prius when it must go without a charge). Less than 40/day and you’re not maxing your savings from EV-only range.
There’s a very narrow band in which a $40K ($42K? $48K? $35K with tax credits?) Volt may yield a payback over a $22K Prius and there’s a very natural aversion to tying up an extra $18K ($20K? $26K?) in a car looking for a payback in gas savings ten years down the road.
In fact, I’ve cranked a lot of scenarios through a spreadsheet and, if one considers the time value of money, the Volt doesn’t pay unless gas is so expensive that the US will collapse. And then it’s irrelevant.
Wrassler, again, “Just like the initial parallel hybrids from Japan, the initial serial hybrid will likely involve some compromises. So what? There will be early adopters, just the same.”
Except… that gas-electric hybrids are here already and have been for 8 years. The Volt isn’t getting any early adopters, those people bought in years ago, in 1999 (Insight) or late 2000 (Prius I). The Volt arrives in 2011 (uh, maybe). The Prius III will be on the roads in ’09, along with Honda’s offering (and, ominously for GM, Honda seems determined to field a better vehicle than the Prius). We’re beyond compromise and on to more traditional purchase decisions (range, comfort, operating cost, convenience, features, price, price, price and umm… oh, yeah, price).
And the Volt’s projected appeal, which is highly dependent on cost, is certainly not irrelevant for those trying to decide whether or not to invest in GM. Will GM have a killer product in early 2011? Is the Volt part of GM’s salvation or another nail in the coffin?
By the way, as regards the technology itself, and this will apply similarly to the eventual Prius plug-in, once you’ve exceeded the EV range, you’re dragging around what is essentially a very large dead battery.
http://www.oemtek.com/pdf/phev_feasibility_analysis_combined.pdf
I figure the Volt = greenwash b/c GM = big oil.
Toyota or Honda or somebody will beat them to market and that will be that. I hope they prove me wrong.
And this will enable car makers to delay the return to pure EVs until 2020 or so. Another decade of ICEs.
KixStart: I only want to poke one hole in your statements which I otherwise agree with:
People are careful with their money and they don’t spend over $10K on hybrid tech upgrades just for fun. They expect it to pay them back. Most people who want to cut fuel cost see that they can get a better payback for a lot less with a less expensive vehicle (i.e., Lambda).
I have witnessed a couple people replace vehicles “before their time” over fuel economy excuses. They both argued that the smaller car was cheaper b/c it was cheaper to buy gas for. In one case the owner went from a Taurus to a Focus. The owner is a “lifetime” car payment buyer. In this case she kept the Taurus and bought the Focus to “save money”.
The other case was a Suburban owner I talked to last week who bought a S-10 Blazer to save money at the pump. Note he did not sell the Suburban but just parked it. Replacement vehicle cost $5K+ and his mileage went from 19 to 21 mpg.
There are people who buy shiny things instead of considering the real cost. I think they are likely feeling the credit crunch here lately too.
People are careful with their money and they don’t spend over $10K on hybrid tech upgrades just for fun. They expect it to pay them back.
Hard to generalize. SOME people are careful with their money. A holistic review of most people’s spending in America will undermine that claim. While $10K for hybrid tech in a large SUV is a large premium, the payback aspect of your claim is dubious. The majority of people who paid a Prius premium did so despite adverse economics to the savings side of the equation. Same is true for people incurring huge depreciation losses to suddenly migrate out of a truck. Incidentally, 2Mode Hybrid SUVs are beginning to show up here in Los Angeles, and anecdotally, owners seem to be satisfied with the value of that premium, and the trucks deliver the city mileage claimed for them.
There’s a very narrow band in which a $40K ($42K? $48K? $35K with tax credits?) Volt may yield a payback over a $22K Prius
Perhaps, if you view the financial analysis on fuel savings the only reason either car is bought, and if you assume Prius is the only car Volt will be shopped against. Both are dubious assumptions. We’ll know the price later. Frankly, we don’t know today what a Volt will retail for when it’s launched.
Except… that gas-electric hybrids are here already and have been for 8 years. The Volt isn’t getting any early adopters, those people bought in years ago, in 1999 (Insight) or late 2000 (Prius I).
They were early adopters for stop-gap, dead-end parallel hybrids. Serial hybrids will not initially be well-understood by the market. This technology too will gain traction from early adopters. Parallel and Serial hybrids will not be well comprehended if both are simply tagged with the “gas-electric hybrids.” I’ll also note that I’ve driven the Prius. That car remains seriously compromised by its handling.
By the way, as regards the technology itself, and this will apply similarly to the eventual Prius plug-in, once you’ve exceeded the EV range, you’re dragging around what is essentially a very large dead battery.
Yes. Lithium-ion makes it a lot lighter. In a serial hybrid, ICE-less range may be considerably less important to its overall cost of ownership.
BTW, KixStart: You post here hiding behind a moniker. I post straightforwardly as myself. Anyone can find me. I know you have an allergic reaction to some of what I write, but it’s gauche to willfully represent my name incorrectly, isn’t it?
Phil
Phil Ressler,
You should view it as a compliment. I know you’ll go to the mat for your ideas and you’ll grapple tenaciously to defend them.
However, if you’re going to be a fussbudget about it, I’ll refrain.
Phill Ressler: “They were early adopters for stop-gap, dead-end parallel hybrids.”
Bwahahaha. I see that Phil can recite The Volt Fanboy Party Line. Toyota, a very large, very profitable company just bursting with top-quality engineers, thinks otherwise. Certainly, they can build and retail HSD for as little as $21,100.
By the way, that stop-gap, dead end parallel hybrid is in its 10th year. How’s the SSR doing? The GTO?
Phil Ressler: “Serial hybrids will not initially be well-understood by the market.”
What is this? Marketing-Exec code for “Serial hybrids will not sell well but it’s not GM’s fault, it’s that darned consumer who refuses to understand GM’s purity of purpose?”
As for my other contention, price vs capability vs everything else…
At $22K, when you remove the powertrain from the equation, the Prius is well within range of normal, mainstream mid-size vehicle purchases. It’s just beyond the upper limit of really-well-equipped compact car territory.
At $40K (or more), when you remove the powertrain from the equation, the Volt well outside the range of normal, maintstream, mid-size vehicle purchases. By at least $10K.
The Insight was something of a dud. It supplied 2 seats at a 5-seater price. No go. So goes the Volt.
The economics of the Prius were such that, at $2/gallon gas, it probably didn’t pay but it was fairly pretty close to breaking even. Especially when compared to a compact (silly, since it’s interior is midsize). However, people who thought about fuel prices in the long term (Bob Lutz and Rick Wagoner are not in this group), projecting $3 or $4 gas undoubtedly made a business case.
Lo and behold, today, gas is $4 and the Prius pays off. The problem with the $40K Volt (and I’m not in denial about this, even if you are), is that you can’t assign a gas price to your model that includes “life as we know it” and makes the Volt payoff in a comparison to just about anything.
Phil: several of your arguments have been ably refuted by KixStart, but the one key assertion of yours still needs to be addresses. You are under the false assumption that a serial hybrid is intrinsically more efficient than a parallel hybrid. This is an area that interests me greatly, and I have made a point to educate myself extensively on it. Let me say flat out: it’s difficult to declare an absolute winner, but/and there is a lot of very good indication that it’s not the serial.
We’re talking about when both versions are operating in charge-sustaining mode (not during initial EV mode). The tank-to-wheels efficiency of the Prius drivetrain has been shown to be up to 34% efficient. This is due to the 97% eficiency of the direct mechanical connection from engine to wheels via the HSD transmission tha operates at about a 97% mechanical efficiency. That peak number (34% overall efficiency) will be somewhat less at certain speeds.
The serial hybrid’s electric motor whill operate at about 90-93% efficiency. The heat losses in the battery and the conversion/inversion from the generator to batterry voltage and inversion back to AC drive voltage is not insignificant: over 10%. The generator operates at about 90% efficiency. So before you get to the ICE’e efficiency, the serial hybrid has already lost a good 30%. Whether a fixed speed gasoline ICE can do much better than the Prius’s Atkinson cycle engine is questionable, perhaps a bit, maybe up to 40% efficiency if we’re feeling generous. But the losses in the generator, battery and electric motor more than make up for it.
The stark reality is this: If you want to put the power of an ICE engine to the wheels, the most efficient way is through a direct mechanical transmission. There’s a lot more brilliance (and life) in Toyota’s “dead-end” HSD than you give it credit for.
And here’s another myth busted: Diesel-electric locomotives don’t use that system because it’s more efficient, but because the challenges of transmitting 5,000 hp to metal wheels is either too mechanically challenging and less reliable. In fact, all German diesel locomotives for decades had a hydraulic-machanical drivetrain, and WERE more efficient than US diesel-electric locomotives. But the reliability and invested infrastructure of the American approach was too deeply established, especially in the long era of low oil prices. But who knows, if someone can come up with a reliable non-slip mechanical drive for diesel locomotives, it will be more efficient, and there will be interest by the railroads.
Bwahahaha. I see that Phil can recite The Volt Fanboy Party Line. Toyota, a very large, very profitable company just bursting with top-quality engineers, thinks otherwise. Certainly, they can build and retail HSD for as little as $21,100.
Don’t put me in the party line on Volt. I had the same view of parallel hybrid at its outset, long before GM mentioned the Volt. Parallel hybrids are a dead-end motive architecture, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be well executed for awhile. It’s just not much of a future. It’s fundamentally inelegant to have two drive technologies humping each other around; no more than a bridge.
By the way, that stop-gap, dead end parallel hybrid is in its 10th year. How’s the SSR doing? The GTO?
Non-sequitur. Who mentioned the SSR and GTO? They were marketing exercises, not technical development projects.
What is this? Marketing-Exec code for “Serial hybrids will not sell well but it’s not GM’s fault, it’s that darned consumer who refuses to understand GM’s purity of purpose?”
It will be GM’s responsibility to execute the marketing necessary to educate the market about serial hybrids. But they may not be good at doing that, and even if they are, most of the market will not have the attention span to think beyond “hybrid” at the outset. So like any other new technology, it will have an early adopter phase comprised of people who are geeked out on it enough to understand its differentiation. Then the market comprehension can (emphasis on “can”) be generalized. I could do it, but I don’t know whether GM’s marketing can.
At $22K, when you remove the powertrain from the equation, the Prius is well within range of normal, mainstream mid-size vehicle purchases. It’s just beyond the upper limit of really-well-equipped compact car territory. At $40K (or more), when you remove the powertrain from the equation, the Volt well outside the range of normal, maintstream, mid-size vehicle purchases. By at least $10K.
Sure. But the $40K market is still plenty fat with buyers. The question is whether — if GM has to roll out the full-capability Volt at $40K — they will field a car with an interior and style appropriate for that segment. If there is a step-down with reduced ICE-less range, that’s a mitigator to the launch economics. They do have to get the Volt drivetrain in mainstream, affordable cars. But it’s not an absolute requirement on Day 1.
Lo and behold, today, gas is $4 and the Prius pays off. The problem with the $40K Volt (and I’m not in denial about this, even if you are), is that you can’t assign a gas price to your model that includes “life as we know it” and makes the Volt payoff in a comparison to just about anything.
In 2010, most cars purchased will be straight internal combustion powered. And a pretty fair percentage of Prius sales will not be economically driven. GM can find Volt buyers absent a precise ROI on day-to-day fuel costs if serial hybrid yields a better or more interesting car. We’ll see. I do fully expect a Volt to handle, i.e. drive, better than a Prius.
several of your arguments have been ably refuted by KixStart
I saw pertinent response but not refutation.
You are under the false assumption that a serial hybrid is intrinsically more efficient than a parallel hybrid. This is an area that interests me greatly, and I have made a point to educate myself extensively on it. Let me say flat out: it’s difficult to declare an absolute winner, but/and there is a lot of very good indication that it’s not the serial.
I think until someone builds a serial hybrid and it gets on an evolution path informed by real world experience, we won’t know. I didn’t make an assumption. I am postulating the serial hybrid may be more efficient, and I expect it can be a lower emitter of smog-forming compounds. I also expect a serial hybrid to feel like a more powerful, responsive car than a similar-efficiency parallel hybrid.
The stark reality is this: If you want to put the power of an ICE engine to the wheels, the most efficient way is through a direct mechanical transmission.
It may turn out that way, but efficiency is only one point on the polar graph of a balanced product. The power delivery, driveability and simplicity of an all-electric drivetrain may win favor, especially if the serial hybrid’s packaging potential is creatively applied to real product.
And here’s another myth busted: Diesel-electric locomotives don’t use that system because it’s more efficient, but because the challenges of transmitting 5,000 hp to metal wheels is either too mechanically challenging and less reliable.
Agreed. I didn’t say anything about *why* D-E locomotives use their powertrain configuration. I just said the principle is proven in long-term use. Compared to Germany, America’s exceptionally long, heavy-haul rail distances argued for the mechanically simpler approach.
There’s a lot more brilliance (and life) in Toyota’s “dead-end” HSD than you give it credit for.
I never claimed there isn’t brilliance in HSD. There’s almost always brilliance in Rube Goldberging a product. It’s an intrinsically difficult engineering problem to marry two dissimilar mechanical motive systems to one set of drive wheels. Ford did it too (no, they didn’t just license HSD). It might even have an extended life if the market prematurely settles on parallel-hybrid motive architecture as the commodity blueprint. I hope not, because parallel hybrid drivetrains complicate packaging and therefore truncate innovation of the car itself. Inelegant engineering solutions tend to fade. Perhaps this one will have to yield to something else early.
Paul, you start your last post saying that serial vs. parallel efficiency is an area of interest and that it’s “difficult to declare an absolute winner.” Fair enough. Three paragraphs later, you’re declaring a winner: The stark reality is this: If you want to put the power of an ICE engine to the wheels, the most efficient way is through a direct mechanical transmission.
So which is it? Are you really capping what can be done by a motive architecture that’s not in a car yet in the open market and subject to further development? Or are you still, as in your first paragraph, studying the question, skeptical serial can win but open to the outcome either way?
Phil
Phil, debating with you can be fun, but…there’s something else that is wanting to get written. I won’t address all of your points except for two:
Your argument about the “intrinsically difficult (“Rube Goldberg”) engineering problem” and the “complicated packaging” of the parallel hybrid system is bunk. That argument might have been relevant in 1996, if you had heard Toyota was considering building one. But the reality is that the “problems” were perfectly mastered by the two companies that took on the challenge (toyota and Ford), and both came up with similarly highly efficient and functional systems. To call them “inelegant” is simply a slur; they are a brilliant solution to dramaticaly improving efficiency, they work beautifully, and have been shown to be highly reliable. “inelegant” indeed.
The Prius certainly proves that there are no “packaging complications”; it’s a highly practical, roomy car for its size.
Regarding your question of the relative efficiency of serial vs. parallel, yes, I keep my mind open, because there is no apples-to-apples proof to confirm my suspision that the parallel MAY have an intrinsic if small advantage. My statement “If you want to put the power of an ICE engine to the wheels, the most efficient way is through a direct mechanical transmission.” is not negated by my open-mindedness, because it is a blanket statement without the constraints of real-world driving factors that could mitigate it.
In continous highway speed driving, there is little doubt in my mind that the statement is correct, and I have read several engineering assessments to base it on. So I am qualifying that statement (highway driving).
City and mixed driving MAY narrow the efficiency differenc between the two approaches. It ultimately depends on exactly how efficient the ICE in the Volt can run. Whether it can make up the difference of its intrinsic drivetrain innefficiency (some 30%), perhaps,; but that is a big hurdle. Frankly, from my point of view, that 30% built-in inneficiency hurdle of the serial hybrid seems somewhat “inelegant” to me.
Meanwhile, any improvements in ICE efficiency will also benefit the parallel hybrid. That is expected on the next gen Prius.
Keep in mind that GM has been saying that the Volt will get 50mpg in charge-sustaining mode (no proof yet, thought). The 2010 Prius will undoubtedly achieve that (EPA combined), and very possibly improve on it.
Phil Ressler, “Sure. But the $40K market is still plenty fat with buyers.”
The $40K market is still plenty fat with buyers of luxury cars. Will a Chevrolet Volt be a luxury car?
Of course, GM could do that. Look how well it’s working for the Yukahoe. Yeah, I read what you had to say about that. It is NOT working. I have no doubt you’ve seen some but I’ve seen more new Bentleys (2), Honda Insights (4) or Maserati Quattroportes (2) than Yukahoe hybrids. This is not Bentley and Maserati country.
When GM prices the hybridized mass-market vehicle $10K (25-33%) above the market norm, it does not sell. And, at $40K, you could consider the Volt premium to be nearer $20K (75-100%) above the market norm (especially if it’s a four-seater).
Phil Ressler, “As for GM’s risk with new technology given the track record you [Paul Niedermeyer] list, I think you’re piling on [by returning to the ’60’s].”
No need to go on an archaeological dig… look at the trouble with the two-modes and BAS system… total recall.
Paul said: Your argument about the “intrinsically difficult (”Rube Goldberg”) engineering problem” and the “complicated packaging” of the parallel hybrid system is bunk….
and
But the reality is that the “problems” were perfectly mastered by the two companies that took on the challenge (Toyota and Ford), and both came up with similarly highly efficient and functional systems. To call them “inelegant” is simply a slur; they are a brilliant solution to dramatically improving efficiency, they work beautifully, and have been shown to be highly reliable. “inelegant” indeed.
Really, I’m not slurring anyone, least of all the engineers at Ford and Toyota who brought parallel hybrid vehicles to market. Engineers can be credited with elegantly implementing an inelegant architecture, and in this case I do compliment them. Yes, the systems are functional and the problems intrinsic to driving one set of wheels with two different drive systems are overcome. Two motors, one set of drive wheels, need to blend power delivery — this is not elegant, even if an awkward architecture is elegantly implemented.
The Prius certainly proves that there are no “packaging complications”; it’s a highly practical, roomy car for its size.
Subjective. It’s not roomy to me. It’s OK for its size. It is a hatchback, so that adds practical value. Some people find the car sufficient in its packaging. It is roomier than a Mini, I’ll grant you that. But there’s more to packaging than the people space. I’ve driven the Prius. There’s something wrong with it beyond its unsatisfying numbness. I’ve seen a rash of Prius roll-overs the past couple of years, one of which I came upon shortly after it happened. I talked to the driver, who said that one thing he didn’t like about the Prius is that a driver goes from dynamic stability to losing control of the car more quickly than in anything he’d ever driven. I’ve also noticed Prius drivers appearing to lack confidence in the way they drive canyon roads. A few friends who own and drive the car do admit to feeling less sure of themselves in highly dynamic driving circumstances, but they claim not to care.
What I want to see is how designers innovate packaging when the IC engine does not have to be located or positioned for transferring rotational energy to the wheels.
Meanwhile, any improvements in ICE efficiency will also benefit the parallel hybrid. That is expected on the next gen Prius.
Well, yes. But in the parallel hybrid, the ICE cannot be restricted to (and optimized for) running in its most efficient mode. It must be generalized for the full range of throttle operation.
Keep in mind that GM has been saying that the Volt will get 50mpg in charge-sustaining mode (no proof yet, thought). The 2010 Prius will undoubtedly achieve that (EPA combined), and very possibly improve on it.
Yup. Time will tell whether GM painted itself into a corner. But if they achieve 50mpg at the debut of a 1st generation instance of the car, vs. a 3rd /4th gen of a parallel hybrid, that will be encouraging for the bet GM placed.
I’m open-minded too about which one wins the efficiency measure, but the serial hybrid scheme is intrinsically more attractive to me.
I don’t believe we will imminently run out of oil. I’m not concerned that liquid hydrocarbons for transportation will disappear anytime soon. But I would be happy to see more of the dollars we ship out for energy imports instead be circulating in our domestic economy, or that we had the money for other uses. I’m not irked with GM for ploughing R&D into the Volt. I’m unhappy that they can’t put six-speed automatic transmissions mated to 4 cylinder engines in 2 or 3 million vehicles if buyers wanted them now. I’d like to see an across-the-board effort to slash mass from cars. Where’s my 1800 lbs. car powered by an Ecotec 2.0L turbo four? Make that happen and proliferate the techniques throughout the line.
Phil
The $40K market is still plenty fat with buyers of luxury cars.
I don’t see any $40K cars today that I consider luxury vehicles. It’s now just a step-up category from mass market.
Will a Chevrolet Volt be a luxury car?
Unlikely, but it doesn’t have to be if it’s sufficiently differentiated. It simply has to be premium in ways that some portion of the market will accept as desirable. What that is may be different by 2010, relative to today.
No need to go on an archaeological dig… look at the trouble with the two-modes and BAS system… total recall.
Batteries. No different from the risk consumer electronics and computer makers have taken. GM’s battery recall was prompt, anticipatory and not triggered by catastrophic failure. It won’t be the last instance of battery recalls from a variety of vendors as partial and fully electric vehicles proliferate.
Phil
Phil Ressler, on serial (Volt) vs. parallel hybrid technology (Toyota’s HSD): “It’s fundamentally inelegant to have two drive technologies humping each other around; no more than a bridge.”
Serial hybrids are no better in that regard.
Once you’re out of your 40-mile EV-range in the Volt, you’re carrying around a large, dead battery. When you’re inside your 40-mile EV-range, you’re carrying around a large, inert mass of engine (and a radiator, generator, fuel tank…).
And that dead battery is an expensive component. If you’re going to carry something useless around, make it a cheap something useless and save some money.
Phil Ressler: “Frankly, we don’t know today what a Volt will retail for when it’s launched.”
That was the 16th… Today, we do:
$40K