Chevy’s Volt “will likely be too expensive to be commercially successful in the short-term,” reveals the PTFOA in what amounted to stunning news for Volt boosters and no one else. Wasn’t the Volt supposed to justify the whole bailout in the first place? The DetN‘s Scott Burgess takes the “yeah, but” tack, spinning expensive impracticality into farsighted vision. With a little help from his friends, of course. “In hybrid technology, it’s hard to argue that we’re not behind,” GM’s Rob Peterson tells Burgess. “But we believe we have a better solution.” And what of that $40K price tag that the government says will require “substantial reductions in manufacturing cost in order to become commercially viable?” “It’s a transformational technology,” says Peterson. “That’s part of the reason the cost is so expensive. But we believe if you start in the right direction, as the supply base matures, the volumes of the vehicle increases and the costs will go down.” If. As. Will. As in “we hope.” Meanwhile, someone has to pick up the bill and worry about the viability of a firm that is staking everything on an unprofitable-at-$40K moon shot. Needless to say that someone ain’t Bob Lutz . . . .
Having witnessed the horrors of the Wagoner shit-canning and the PTFOA Volt diss, gm-volt.com’s Lyle Dennis had to turn somewhere for an encouraging word. And who gives a better knee-deep-in-guts, battlefield pep talk than Maximum Bob Lutz? “Thanks for your concern,” writes Lutz. “Volt will survive and prosper. We know the numbers better than the Government…we furnished them! First-generation technology is expensive, but you can’t have a second generation without a first generation. Common sense and intelligence will prevail, here!”
As if to disprove Lutz’s point, a gm-volt.com post from a few days ago reveals that GM doesn’t know what the Volt’s MSRP will be yet. But the crazy part is the explanation why. They ‘re saying that fuel prices in 2011 will be the determining factor in setting the Volt’s price. “We’re not wishing for higher petroleum costs, but the economic viability of what we’re doing only gets greater with higher fuel prices,” GM’s Bob Kruse tells gm-volt.com, “$1.50 [a] gallon gas is not helping our business case.” The upshot though, is that GM will charge as much as it possibly can for the first generation of Volts because it won’t make money at any price point. And it seems that only the government is worried about the effect that this “charge what we can” scheme might have on GM’s competitivity.
There’s no denying the fact that cheap gas does not make a good business case for the Volt, or any other hybrid or expensive econobox. At $40,000 a pop, though, the Volt is stupid expensive, and it blows me away that GM can’t get the cost down. What the hell is going into that thing that’s so costly? Batteries? Electronics? I don’t get it.
We know the numbers better than the Government…we furnished them made them up!
The volt will disappear during GM’s not-Chapter 11. All it takes is one look at the new car market, gas prices, and the MSRP of the new Insight and Prius to know that this money black hole is DOA. Even the government knows this, they just can’t say it.
People ripped on Ford last summer for not being innovative enough, but guess who’s hybrid is actually coming to market?
(heavy sigh!) These guys do not get it. Let me understand the logic presented here: they are hoping for higher gas prices (which will further DECIMATE their profitable truck sales) in order to increase demand of the Volt (which will LOSE money on every unit sold)from 10,000 units in the first year to 11,000 in the first year. I ain’t got no MBA like Rick and Fritz, but somebody help me out here!
The Volt is an excellent metaphor for the ‘green’ movement.
I don’t like pollution, and I don’t want to make more of it, but most consumers will gravitate to the most economically-viable solution to their problem. This has always proven to be true, whether the measure is MPG, quality, resale value, or whatever. The Volt has NO payback even if it uses NO fuel, due to the class of vehicle it competes against (economy cars).
Oh, and where does one buy replacement 21″ Volt tires?
superbadd75: I believe the main cost driver is in the batteries. A gazillion customized lithium ion cells are very expensive. Second on the list would be the electronic controls (safety and operational) for the whole vehicle, which are complicated by the fact that it still has a gasoline motor and generator. Ditch those, and you have a 40-mile pure electric car. GM could have just built that and gotten a $25k version to market much sooner, and at least had something. Oh, wait, didn’t they try that once?
The $40k Volt makes Tesla’s $55k Model S look pretty good. Which, by the way, I think it is.
“That’s part of the reason the cost is so expensive. But we believe if you start in the right direction, as the supply base matures, the volumes of the vehicle increases and the costs will go down” = squeeze suppliers into bankruptcy
The amazing part in this is its Democrats saying it – they as a group have had unrealistic, costs be damned approach to being green no matter how unfeasible or desirable.
Tesla’s $55k Model S is simply a pipe dream, with an even smaller target market than the Volt. If both get produced, neither will get produced in significant enough numbers to have any meaningful effect on fleet mileage.
Take my comments with a grain of salt (I’m a Ford salesman)
I think the idea of the Volt is good, but not viable for our market in the near future. I do believe that we need to be more energy efficient across the board in our transportation needs. Environmental, economical, national energy security and policy concerns are all good reasons why we need to consider new technologies.
However, parading around a technology that you don’t have the ability to produce and sell profitably is doomed to failure and really is little more than PR.
The way to make real changes NOW in our transportation fleet (private and commercial) is to begin introducing the technologies that are available and affordable NOW. We can and should keep working towards the future on electric vehicles, fuel cell technology and others, but if those technologies can’t be put into American driveways now, then what do we do in the meantime?
Do we just keep things the way they are until the basket with all the eggs in it is ready for market and affordable for the average Joe?
OK, here’s where I brazenly plug Ford. We have technologies coming out now that make a difference now. Granted there is more to do and we can’t afford to take our eyes off of the future (as a company and as a nation).
We have electric assist power steering going into our new vehicles. (Less drag on motors)
6-speed transmissions are becoming the standard with ford.
Using high strength steel in our F-150 frames (same strength with thinner guage equals lighter weight)
Eco boost for 2010 models (small turbo charges gas motors) will be affordable alternatives and have been used successfully in Europe for quite some time.
Soy Based Foam for our seats
3.0 V6 for 2010 will have Cam Torque Actuated(CTA)intake Variable Cam Timing(i-CVT).
Long story short, will require less oil pressure for variable cam timing and the motor will require a smaller oil pump which results in less internal energy loss.
Our Hybrid Fusion is receiving Rave reviews.
My point is, auto manufacturers (if they plan properly) can make a difference today AND keep working on the future.
I’m tired of hearing about all the great things a company (GM) is going to do someday if the US taxpayer will just keep cutting checks.
Ford, Toyota, Honda and others are doing it now.
The Volt has a Birth Watch at 133?! I definitely haven’t been paying attention! But, (now that I’m fully awake) I think the number will go to 266 (2X).
Look, the Volt was wildly sucessful. It’s only true purpose was to get the left wing Congress to pony up operating cash. It accomplished this is spades, by giving Nancy Pelosi et al. the ability to claim they were tying free taxpayer money to some illusion of environmental gains.
@gslippy: unless GM designed the Volt to be engine-less in the first place (incl. crash testing = doubtful), it’s likely too late to have a Volt EV-only variant. It would also have competition from vehicles designed to be EV’s, such as the Tesla (theoretically) Nissan in conjunction with Project Better Place (that, too).
I’m tired of hearing about all the great things a company (GM) is going to do someday if the US taxpayer will just keep cutting checks. Ford, Toyota, Honda and others are doing it now.
Amen, brother.
Look, the Volt was wildly sucessful. It’s only true purpose was to get the left wing Congress to pony up operating cash.
There is that. Especially if one considers the ridiculous, but eye-catching brick shape that was originally proposed…
bill301972–
I absolutely agree with everything you said in your post. GM needs hybrids as of yesterday and not a year or two down the road. To say that the price is based on what gas will cost is absolutely ridiculous! Toyota and Honda didn’t care what the cost of gas was when they built their Prius and Insight in early 2000’s. But this is typical GM. They’re always late to the party. Just look at some examples: SUV’s, minivans and hybrids. They complain to the gov’t about imports. They complain to the gov’t about too high of MPG requirements or too high of emission standards. What does it take for them to take a step back and realize that it’s NOT everyone else that is the problem and that….IT’S GM!?!?
It’s only true purpose was to get the left wing Congress to pony up operating cash.
It’s real purpose was to distract people from that fact that GM missed the hybrid boat entirely and was caught utterly flat-footed. They never intended to build the thing, just to show it around, make some noise and keep people from realizing how badly Toyota outflanked them. Just like the Sixteen, HyWire and such, it wasn’t really meant as a actual car, and everyone more or less knew that.
The bugger was that a) Bob Lutz couldn’t keep his mouth shut about it (he ought have been vague about the Volt, not spelling out the specs and benchmarks in detail before GM had so much as built a concept) and b) People actually wanted to buy the thing, especially as gas got more expensive.
So GM was caught promoting a car that people wanted, yet they had no intention of building, or look like patsies. Rock. Hard place.
Thank God there will be no volt. How in the hell do you bring out a $40K+ car when toyota and honda are in the trenches at the $20K level fighting for every green sale? You don’t. Did you get the little canard offered by GM; if the govt gave a huge incentive check to buy volts, they would at least get this product started. If the govt. gave a check to buy all things sold in America, the recession might be over. So would the government.
@ Richard Chen:
No doubt you are correct. Even under the best of circumstances, the Volt would have real competition.
I used to write TV commercials for Toyota. I remember that when the 1st generation Prius came out, Toyota was losing about 10K on each Prius they sold. That’s why it was a limited model. They priced it at 20K but the car cost 30K. They were smart enough to know that nobody would buy a small car with unproven technology for 30K. They could have sold more of them but didn’t want to lose too much money. Point is, their second generation Prius is actually making money (now) and the 3rd generation Prius will be a profitable enterprise, especially considering that Toyota has a whole fleet of hybrids so the development costs are absorbed by multiple vehicles.
In the mean time GM dismissed hybrid technology and decided to ride out the large truck / SUV gravy train. Now they’re screwed. They have a car that they’re struggling to bring to market at 40K but it should really sell at 25K. The 3rd generation hybrids from Toyota/Honda will be at 20K (and they’re making money at that price)
Toyota took their hit on development back in the days when they could afford it. GM can’t.
Just because the government says it, doesn’t mean it’s true. It’s entirely natural that the first generation of a new technology direction is introduced unprofitably. Volt is an electric car, not a hybrid in the motive sense. It’s termed a “serial” hybrid, but unlike the temporarily-interesting parallel hybrids in the market, only one kind of rotating force is moving the car: electric motor(s). This has long-term implications for the design, architecture, construction and configuration of personal transit that are beneficial.
You can Google my comments on this site from an earlier post a few weeks ago for the citation, but even Toyota’s own personnel admit that the company sold Prius unprofitably until “recently,” meaning some time last year. GM certainly had the option of fielding the first generation Volt as a Cadillac at a premium price, for profitable sale. The company has a long history of debuting new tech in its upper marques, for eventual proliferation throughout its product line. But a reasonable decision was made instead to broaden Volt’s relevance by targeting a price in the upper ranges of the mass market while limiting volume and therefore liability. This is a good move, and good use of financial resources, regardless whether the losses would be subsidized by government bridge loans or accumulated corporate cash reserves (if there were any).
Ford’s parallel hybrid system has been in the market for several years now, and will see expanded presence in their line. That’s OK, but it’s still a kluge that represents a technology tributary rather than an extensible path. Same with Toyota. Both were good tactical responses to a changing market, and GM both had the resources for and should have more aggressively fielded their own hybrid motive options for immediate market competitiveness.
But Volt is an electric car, adding a range extender, which is a better, more extensible path for a large part of the market. Anyone among the Feds who think that the losses on the first few tens of thousands of Volts is somehow significant to a decision on whether to build it is way out of touch with the way market-changing technologies are introduced as well as in denial about the vastly more expansive ways government agencies (and, well…., banks) waste money by comparison.
In the 1990s I was opposed to CARB’s attempt to force adoption of electic cars (for which the EV-1 was built) because such adoption would merely shift pollution from one place to another, e.g. from Los Angeles to Utah. I was also opposed to simply transfering pollution from wealthy cities to poorer locales. Now, however, the picture is changing. For anyone who believes reducing CO2 emissions is important environmentally, there is now more promise in achieving real reductions in fixed-location carbon capture or banking than in trying for the same result in the automotive fleet. In fact, the automobile is NOT the place to start for global (as opposed to local) green concerns. A full US passenger car fleet of Prius-level efficiency would only drive a little more than 2% of the annual reduction of carbon contribution called for by the IPCC by 2050. Power plants fueled by coal are much more impactful as targets for change.
Mass solar adoption is now mostly inhibited by lack of will, not feasibility. Nuclear power has compiled an excellent safety record in the West and can be more widely adopted. Hyperbranched aluminoscilica holds great promise for carbon absorption and containment inside coal powerplant smokestacks. So electric cars, aided by now-meaningful cumulative improvements in battery chemistry begin to take their place in the preservation of personal mobility amidst rising environmental consciousness (or climate fearmongering, depending on how you interpret the relevant data).
Volt, or something like it, is a faster, better vehicle architecture vector for evolving effective electric cars than is the inelegant mating of mixed piston-mechanical and electric drive. If GM stays on track to produce Volt, the introductory car will easily sell out to a pool of buyers eager to pay a premium to step away from the oil drip. No doubt, building demand will induce economies of scale, even if the battery is the component of slowest price decline. You’ll get your $19,000 electric car with petrol-fueled range extender only a few clicks further on the calendar.
Volt will be transformational if it retains the commitment of its maker. Dan Neil claimed recently that the 2010 Prius is a “game changer.” He’s wrong of course. There have been 50mpg cars before. Prius is instead palliative — appreciated in the absence of other solutions, but it transforms nothing. Volt strikes out on a new automotive direction, and inevitable compromises made on its debut version should not cloud understanding of its significance over time.
Phil
I agree – the Volt should not even be offered to the public… as a Chevrolet. Sell it as a Cadillac, the Converj or whatever the hell that sharp-looking showcar coupe is called.
Then it could justify the price, on looks alone. And, by being a Caddy, if that still means anything.
Phil:
Sorry to disagree, but I must –
1. The technicalities of the Volt being an electric car vs. a hybrid do not matter. There may be a certain elegance to the Volt layout, but the fact remains that it still has a gasoline engine under the hood. This dual-fuel approach says “hybrid” to consumers.
2. Cadillac – if they had such a choice – wisely stayed away from this boondoggle. Cadillac’s reputation as a luxury performance brand is far more important to them than the price point of its products. Offering a $40k economy car with the Cadillac badge spells “Cimarron”, a near-death experience Cadillac will never repeat again.
3. Ford and Toyota are selling actual hybrid vehicles, whether they are elegantly designed or not. Their economic payback is dubious, but their drivers just operate them like any other car. They are not tethered to an electric plug every night. They do not suffer a performance loss when the battery drains. They just drive them. The Volt has special needs, requiring special drivers [translation: small sales potential].
4. CO2 is not a pollutant. Attempts to regulate it are nothing more than grabs for money and power. Attempts to sequestor it will backfire, and clouds of it will likely suffocate those in the vicinity. CO2 is plant food; I like plants.
5. Electric cars have their place, but as a consumer I will always compare their cost, performance, and utility to other options. And most Americans will never choose a vehicle which could leave them stranded without an easy fill-up, for example, while driving cross-country with the family. I know the Volt won’t do this, but its other compromises are unappealing.
6. GM has been in dire financial straits for years, and so now their Volt development has become a Hail Mary pass. If the Volt had been developed at a Tesla-like startup, it wouldn’t be nearly so derided. Its halo is undeserved, just as much for its business implications as for its dubious consumer appeal.
1. The technicalities of the Volt being an electric car vs. a hybrid do not matter. There may be a certain elegance to the Volt layout, but the fact remains that it still has a gasoline engine under the hood. This dual-fuel approach says “hybrid” to consumers.
Dual-fuel may mean “hybrid” to people today. Correcting this is merely a marketing problem that, albeit requiring good marketing chops and disciplined communications, is solvable.
2. Cadillac – if they had such a choice – wisely stayed away from this boondoggle. Cadillac’s reputation as a luxury performance brand is far more important to them than the price point of its products. Offering a $40k economy car with the Cadillac badge spells “Cimarron”, a near-death experience Cadillac will never repeat again.
GM already fielded the concept in Converj. I wasn’t suggesting that the Volt you see promoted as the car in the pipe be rebadged as a Cadillac, but that the option to repackage the technology and vehicle architecture into a Cadillac-worthy package could have been sold at a unit profit. They didn’t start with that option for defensible reasons. Cimarron doesn’t preclude successful, brand-consistent fielding of a premium small Cadillac if the technical story is convincing.
3. Ford and Toyota are selling actual hybrid vehicles, whether they are elegantly designed or not. Their economic payback is dubious, but their drivers just operate them like any other car. They are not tethered to an electric plug every night. They do not suffer a performance loss when the battery drains. They just drive them. The Volt has special needs, requiring special drivers [translation: small sales potential].
This what carriage makers said about automobiles in the early years of cars. No doubt parallel hybrids are a viable (even successful) transition platform. But ultimately they are not transformational and the market has room for a more imaginative solution that early adopters will popularize. Where feasible and appropriate, plugging in your car overnight can quickly become mainstream. But if you forget, or can’t, you’ll still just drive away generating electricity from a gasoline engine. No one stranded, not too disorienting.
4. CO2 is not a pollutant. Attempts to regulate it are nothing more than grabs for money and power. Attempts to sequestor it will backfire, and clouds of it will likely suffocate those in the vicinity. CO2 is plant food; I like plants.
If you’ve ever read anything I’ve posted here about anthropogenic global warming you’d know I agree with you that CO2 is not a pollutant. But nevertheless it is going to be regulated and there will be programs for sequestering or reducing it. Research hyperbranched aluminoscilica. There won’t be suffocating CO2 pocket.
5. Electric cars have their place, but as a consumer I will always compare their cost, performance, and utility to other options. And most Americans will never choose a vehicle which could leave them stranded without an easy fill-up, for example, while driving cross-country with the family. I know the Volt won’t do this, but its other compromises are unappealing.
YOU might always compare cost, performance, etc., but lots of people won’t when they experience the quiet of that first 40 miles or so, the possibility of local driving for days on end without a fuel-pump stop. I won’t debate whether Volt’s first-gen compromises will be unappealing to YOU. I accept that at face value if you say it’s so. But there are many — certainly enough — people for whom the price premium is trivial and the benefits are real on emotional or anayltical grounds, or both.
6. GM has been in dire financial straits for years, and so now their Volt development has become a Hail Mary pass. If the Volt had been developed at a Tesla-like startup, it wouldn’t be nearly so derided. Its halo is undeserved, just as much for its business implications as for its dubious consumer appeal.
Volt isn’t a Hail Mary pass for GM, despite that label bandied about here on TTAC. If the EV-1 had not been cancelled, Volt would be viewed as a logical extension of GM’s electric car expertise: a variant model that addresses the EV-1’s chief liability through the simple expedient of petrol-fueled range extension while keeping the vehicle electric. Remove the generator and you have a local electric car variant. Put in a fuel cell and it’s a hydrogen vehicle. Sell a compressed gas variant for clean burning. Heck, sell a compressed air powered generator and make it entirely electric (the air tank’s air having been compressed by an electric compressor). All of it’s feasible. Volt only *looks* like a Hail Mary to TTACers because of its timing but GM’s arc of R&D made Volt inevitable. They should get it done.
Phil
The Volt in its current form has, er, suboptimal packaging. I don’t recall why the intrusive battery is in the shape of a T, was it the Cruze platform that dictated it? limitations of current Li-ion capacity? both? Volt also needs room for the ICE and its fuel tank, so there’s less room for passengers and cargo. The parallel hybrids do a much better job in the packaging department.
For comparison, the Mitsubishi i MiEV probably has just as much interior room despite being a kei-car, twice the battery-only range, weighs barely over 2 tons, and is projected to cost a little over half the Volt’s base price. (And RWD, if anyone cares.)
Unlike the Volt, the EV Tesla Model S has a flat rear seat for 3 and a sizeable rear trunk. Heck, with its front trunk, RWD, and rear-biased weight distribution, it sounds like a 911.
the market is changing faster than the product development cycle. I am watching the volt launch in a disgusted state of flinch. By the time this is ready to roll out, the public opinion might have come to a different disposition about energy conservation as the stages of deep public denial give way to far more disturbing trends. lets all try to give the homecoming queen the best reception we can.
We don’t know how the parallel vs. serial hybrid architecture wars will turn out. Early in the development of the automobile, all sorts of configurations and layouts were tried and argued about. Water vs. air cooling, front vs. rear engine, front vs. rear wheel drive, external (steam) vs. internal combustion and so on. I’m sure heated arguments were made in favor of everyone of those choices. The FWD/RWD debate continues somewhat to this very day, though FWD has won the volume war. External combustion, air cooling and rear engine designs lost out (yes, I know that the anachronistic Porsche lives on).
Declarations of victory for either the serial or parallel hybrid architectures are rather premature. Once upon a time I was a player in the microprocessor wars amougst various architectures. I played on team Sparc for anyone who cares to remember. In the end, Intel won that war in spite of the inherent technical weaknesses of their architecture. Sometimes other factors overwhelm technological beauty.
We don’t know how the parallel vs. serial hybrid architecture wars will turn out.
True. Many variables remain and it’s possible the market will embrace parellel hybrids as “good enough”. It’s happened in many technologies to date.
Declarations of victory for either the serial or parallel hybrid architectures are rather premature.
My position on the long term value of Volt’s electric car + range extension as point of departure for the next wave of automotive design isn’t a declaration of victory. It may fail regardless how well the production car turns out. Markets often embrace inferior or simply different solutions for other reasons. But somehow the idea has taken root here that Volt is an unserious project, a corporate Hail Mary with no valid role in next generation automotive design. This I disagree with for reasons amply stated.
The EV-1 was culturally cool but cramped and severely range-limited. The initial Prius and Insight were both homely and cramped. The initial Volt borrows a non-electric platform to speed development, thereby imposing a raft of compromises. This is how stuff gets to market. If v1.0 doesn’t impress you, wait. There will be plenty of people ready to take the first 10,000, pushing Volt down a path of development that should remove the dorky and ill-considered characteristics that also marked (or marred) other v1.0 hybrid effords.
Your Sparc vs. Intel reference reminds me of an interview I once had at Silicon Graphics with Tom Jermoluk, in which he derided Wintel’s ability to ever be relevant in graphics. But that’s a story for a different day.
Phil
For what it’s worth, Intel still isn’t a serious player in graphics. That would be nVidia and ATI’s role.
Cheers,
Jeremy
Ressler: “But somehow the idea has taken root here that Volt is an unserious project, a corporate Hail Mary with no valid role in next generation automotive design.”
Somehow? It’s because people here noticed it’s too freakin’ expensive.
You persist in thinking GM is doing something unique while it’s pushing the envelope. You’re half right… they’re not doing anything unique (the Volt is most of a Prius and nothing more) but they are pushing the envelope. But the envelope they’re pushing is the envelope of sane business practices.
Ressler: “But Volt is an electric car, adding a range extender, which is a better, more extensible path for a large part of the market.”
You’re asserting something that is, as of today, entirely unproven. Your assertion also argues against the wisdom of at least two manufacturers with successful hybrid programs, Toyota and Ford. They both know exactly how to do this, have all the necessary parts and techniques available and aren’t doing it.
As to what it is, GM has married the idea of a mediocre BEV and a mediocre conventional compact car. And stuck a $40K price tag on it. And removed a seat.
The early EV adopters are ready for a good BEV… they’d buy, at premium prices, the first 10K of pretty much anything from a major manufacturer if it had 60-80 miles of range. If I recall correctly, a used Rav4-EV, something like 7 years old, sold for $60K. It fetches these prices because nothing else is available as a BEV. The better the BEV is (better for a BEV is principally measured in range) and the cheaper it is, the more people will climb aboard. I’ve heard some assert they won’t buy the Volt because, although it is, kinda/sorta, an EV, it still has a gas engine in it.
Rip out the Volt’s iron lump of an engine, gas tank and generator, put in some additional cells, repackage the vehicle for maximum aerodynamics and it’s a decent BEV that should fetch a decent price and it would be far easier to build and most likely a lot less trouble-prone.
GM is ignoring this market to focus on creating problems that didn’t exist.
Ressler: “Dual-fuel may mean “hybrid” to people today. Correcting this is merely a marketing problem that, albeit requiring good marketing chops and disciplined communications, is solvable.”
And one that GM has, so far, been entirely unable to solve. Interview a group of people who claim to follow the development of the vehicle closely and you’ll find a wide variety of opinions as to exactly how it works. Among those who aren’t following this car, it’s a total non-event until it hits showrooms and then… it has a fuel filler port. And a plug. Good luck with explaining that in 2500 words or less. Lots of people will just go buy an Insight or a Prius, thinking it’s a much safer bet.
They’re almost certainly correct.
You persist in thinking GM is doing something unique while it’s pushing the envelope. You’re half right… they’re not doing anything unique (the Volt is most of a Prius and nothing more) but they are pushing the envelope. But the envelope they’re pushing is the envelope of sane business practices.
Prius and Volt are different cars, different architectures, different designs. A parallel hybrid, with neither powerplant optimized for exclusive motive use isn’t the same as a pure electric-drive car that has a range-extending generator fueled by hydrocarbons. Prius isn’t an electric car; Volt is.
You’re asserting something that is, as of today, entirely unproven. Your assertion also argues against the wisdom of at least two manufacturers with successful hybrid programs, Toyota and Ford. They both know exactly how to do this, have all the necessary parts and techniques available and aren’t doing it.
Well, in fact, neither Ford nor Toyota has demonstrated they “know exactly how to .” GM has built and fielded a modern electric car in the past. It’s certainly believable that Toyota and Ford know how to build a Volt. But they haven’t, whereas GM has extensive experience with various kinds of electric-powered vehicles, from heavy duty to light automotive. There is no special wisdom to be respected in Toyota/Ford’s decision to build parallel hybrids now. It reflects a combination of pragmatism and short-sightedness. There’s a temporary advantage to that combination, as it turns out. But Volt’s configuration is a better vector for long-term development.
I’ve heard some assert they won’t buy the Volt because, although it is, kinda/sorta, an EV, it still has a gas engine in it.
There’s always somebody who doesn’t get it. Not a stopper.
Rip out the Volt’s iron lump of an engine, gas tank and generator, put in some additional cells, repackage the vehicle for maximum aerodynamics and it’s a decent BEV that should fetch a decent price and it would be far easier to build and most likely a lot less trouble-prone.
This is exactly why Volt makes sense. The development cost supports iterations for different prices and uses. It’s an electric car. Period. Selling a version sans the range extender is an incremental project and, sure, it should be an option. That’s not an argument for killing Volt.
And one that GM has, so far, been entirely unable to solve. Interview a group of people who claim to follow the development of the vehicle closely and you’ll find a wide variety of opinions as to exactly how it works. Among those who aren’t following this car, it’s a total non-event until it hits showrooms and then… it has a fuel filler port. And a plug. Good luck with explaining that in 2500 words or less.
Volt’s configuration can be explained in ad-length copy. The idea is simple; just new to most people. Articulate communication repeated often will easily solve this problem.
Lots of people will just go buy an Insight or a Prius, thinking it’s a much safer bet.
A dated bet, perhaps. Safer? No. I’ll put it this way: If Toyota or Honda built a Volt-style series hybrid, it would outsell their parallel hybrids once the market understands the difference. Volt’s architecture is a simpler, better way forward, even if it is a bridge.
Phil
Ressler: “Prius and Volt are different cars, different architectures, different designs. A parallel hybrid, with neither powerplant optimized for exclusive motive use isn’t the same as a pure electric-drive car that has a range-extending generator fueled by hydrocarbons. Prius isn’t an electric car; Volt is.”
Examine the components in the car… the Prius is electric when it needs to be, ICE-driven when it needs to be and both when it’s optimal to be both.
Increase the battery, upsize the electric motors and it’s an electric vehicle more often. Eventually, those components are large enough and/or the right price for it to be a serial electric.
The Volt is a commitment to an uneconomic technology. As prices fall, the Volt becomes a more realistic purchase for the mainstream.
In the interim, Toyota kicks GM’s ass.
Ressler: “Well, in fact, neither Ford nor Toyota has demonstrated they “know exactly how to [build an RE-EV or EV] .” GM has built and fielded a modern electric car in the past.
I suggest you check out the Rav4-EV owner’s gallery on EVNut.COM and refresh your memory as to which manufacturers have “built and fielded a modern electric car in the past.” While you’re doing that, you can reflect on which ones are still in the field.
In fact, Toyota has participated in the development of an RE-EV. Check that same site for “long ranger,” a trailer designed to extend the range of any electric car. Want elegance? The trailer idea allows the manufacturer to build an optimized BEV unhindered by range-extender overhead except when it needs it. No, Toyota didn’t get too directly involved but they supported the project and undoubtedly learned from it.
And I know how fond you are of a new paradigm… think about renting the range-extender only when necessary. You buy a BEV and you rent the range-extender only as necessary. This allows the ICE/generator end of the vehicle to be upgraded, modernized or resized as necessary for the task at hand.
Caught somewhere with a flat can because you inadvertendly exceeded your BEV range? A Triple-A service of the future would include bringing you a range-extending trailer when you call in.
Kix: “I’ve heard some assert they won’t buy the Volt because, although it is, kinda/sorta, an EV, it still has a gas engine in it.
Ressler: “There’s always somebody who doesn’t get it. Not a stopper.”
Let me rephrase that, “I’ve heard some EV-fanatics assert…”
Of course it’s not a stopper but it’s another chunk of a niche market they’re not going to get.
Ressler: “This is exactly why Volt makes sense. The development cost supports iterations for different prices and uses. It’s an electric car. Period. Selling a version sans the range extender is an incremental project and, sure, it should be an option. That’s not an argument for killing Volt.”
OK… so extending and modifying the Volt platform is natural and makes sense for the Volt.
Toyota or Ford can change the parameters, relative sizes, capacities and ratings of their components (or even remove them altogether). But the Volt is superior partly because it can do this whereas the competition… also can do this. But they’re inferior in this regard, anyway. Sure, I understand you.
You should really spend more time over at GM-Volt. You’d fit in very, very well.
Ressler: “If Toyota or Honda built a Volt-style series hybrid, it would outsell their parallel hybrids once the market understands the difference.”
Another assertion without a shred of evidence. People will buy a vehicle that meets their transportation needs at a good price. They are averse to large up-front investments with paybacks in excess of a couple years (although technophiles can be persuaded to do certain things for the gee-whiz factor… those with the means, anyway).
Examine the components in the car… the Prius is electric when it needs to be, ICE-driven when it needs to be and both when it’s optimal to be both.
The Prius is sub-optimally electric under very limited circumstances, and sub-optimally ICE-driven most of the time. It would be much more functional as an ICE-driven car sans its electric drive components than it would be as an electric-drive car sans its ICE. Volt is an effective electric design 100% of the time, irrespective of what you substitute the ICE component with.
Increase the battery, upsize the electric motors and it’s an electric vehicle more often. Eventually, those components are large enough and/or the right price for it to be a serial electric.
But it would not be a serial hybrid with its clumsy power distribution system allocating power between motors and engine.
In the interim, Toyota kicks GM’s ass.
Toyota is not kicking GM’s ass merely due to having Prius.
I suggest you check out the Rav4-EV owner’s gallery on EVNut.COM and refresh your memory as to which manufacturers have “built and fielded a modern electric car in the past.” While you’re doing that, you can reflect on which ones are still in the field.
Is Rav4-EV still in Toyota’s catalog? Did it come after EV-1?
In fact, Toyota has participated in the development of an RE-EV. Check that same site for “long ranger,” a trailer designed to extend the range of any electric car. Want elegance? The trailer idea allows the manufacturer to build an optimized BEV unhindered by range-extender overhead except when it needs it. No, Toyota didn’t get too directly involved but they supported the project and undoubtedly learned from it.
A trailer is not a mainstream, feasible range extender. Most people can’t park them, most parking spaces don’t have room for them, and most drivers aren’t competent with a trailer in varying conditions. Trailers increase accident risk.
Caught somewhere with a flat can because you inadvertendly exceeded your BEV range? A Triple-A service of the future would include bringing you a range-extending trailer when you call in.
An awful kludge. Give me an integrated range-extending generator any time.
OK… so extending and modifying the Volt platform is natural and makes sense for the Volt.
Toyota or Ford can change the parameters, relative sizes, capacities and ratings of their components (or even remove them altogether). But the Volt is superior partly because it can do this whereas the competition… also can do this. But they’re inferior in this regard, anyway. Sure, I understand you.
Parallel hybrids are not electric cars. Volt is. It is much easier to decontent an electric car with hydrocarbon range extender to make it BEV than to re-engineer and reconfigure an electro-mechanical parallel hybrid for pure electric drive.
You should really spend more time over at GM-Volt. You’d fit in very, very well.
IF I worked in the automobile industry, I’d be happy to be part of the Volt project.
Another assertion without a shred of evidence. People will buy a vehicle that meets their transportation needs at a good price. They are averse to large up-front investments with paybacks in excess of a couple years (although technophiles can be persuaded to do certain things for the gee-whiz factor… those with the means, anyway).
Plenty of us have the means to pay the premium that a Volt requires for early adoption. My point on parallel vs. serial hybrid is that the latter will prove to be the more extensible, desirable evolution path and even Toyota and Honda would quickly find their parallel hybrid systems dead-ended in both desirability and customer preference if they fielded both.
Phil