Look, I hate to be the one to tell you, but the Chevrolet Volt is dead. Now that The Presidential Task Force on Automobiles (PTFOA) has slammed the electric/gas Hail Mary as a pie-in-the-sky PR-driven panacea, it time to throw in the towel. I know: “While the Volt holds promise, it is currently projected to be much more expensive than its gasoline-fueled peers and will likely need substantial reductions in manufacturing cost in order to become commercially viable.” This little ditty gives Volt boosters something to cling to and argue about (Toyota didn’t make money on the Prius for three hundred years!). Surprisingly enough, it appears that the PTFOA’s Mr. Rattner has set aside green dreams for a little something called business. So just let it go, Automotive News Europe [sub].
“Chevrolet Volt remains on track, but electric grid still a challenge.” No, it’s not on track. And any concerns about the Volt’s effect on the electrical grid are about as pertinent as discussions linking alien cow carving and the nation’s meat supply. Still you can’t try a man for blaming, especially when GM’s put a $2.6bn request for additional federal funding on the table. And for good reason!
GM is so optimistic about the technology, it’s working on the second-generation of the car’s propulsion system, called Voltec. It has asked the federal government for an additional $2.6 billion in loans to build hybrids, which would expand the Volt program. Previously, the company announced plans for an Opel version, called the Ampera, and revealed a Cadillac concept, the Converj, at the Detroit auto show.
With 56 days to GM’s C11 filing, with Opel in ruins, with the Converj officially dead, why are these people talking about the Volt’s future? What’s the bet that the Volt doesn’t appear in GM BOD Chairman Kent Kresa’s “good GM” side of the post-C11 ledger?
Well, at least we get this helpful and entirely misleading little nugget: “The Volt uses roughly the same amount of electricity as three plasma-screen televisions over the course of a year, according to estimates.” Seeing as the pronouncement is in the present tense, would it be safe to say that the Votl in question is parked in a shed somewhere in Detroit?
This looks very much like General Motor’s version of Microsoft’s history of “Vaporware”. That is, make all sorts of promises about a future product that in fact never materializes, just to keep people under their influence, as they wait for the promises to come true.
Some other successful companies, Honda, (Toyota to a lesser degree) and Apple come to mind. They keep their future plans quite well concealed, and then reveal well thought out and successfully engineered and marketed products.
The electrical grid can’t handle 3 plasma TVs? Oh that explains why Circuit City went out business then.
This looks very much like General Motor’s version of Microsoft’s history of “Vaporware”. That is make all sorts of promises about a future porduct that in fact never materializes, just to keep people under their influence.
The difference is that Microsoft, evil as they are, has some 90% of the market, and pull that kind of thing off.
Whether or not the Volt dies, the Volt technology should not.
The Volt platform is an elegant way of increasing our transportation fuel options.
Short trips can be handled by electric power, which means we can get electricity from a wide variety of fuels (coal, oil, gas, nuclear, wind, solar, biomass, etc.).
Longer trips mean the combustion engine kicks in, but since the CE doesn’t directly drive the wheels, it can be any kind of engine running almost any kind of fuel.
If a coal-dust-fired Sterling-cycle unit turns out to be the most thermodynamically/economically efficient way to feed the batteries, we can use that.
At some point, the flexibility and efficiency of hybrid powertrains (Toyota/Ford parallel, Honda IMA, or Volt-type series) need to be in every vehicle on the road.
It was a dead duck as soon as they announced the price of 40k. Segement-busting technology are always associated with huge initial costs. The problem is that you can’t lay those costs on the customer. Those costs have to be written off in the long-term, and I mean really long-term, as time and increased sales will cheapen the process.
Toyota invested ten years time and I don’t know how many billions in their hybrid and Prius-program, before production costs could meet retail price. The Prius wasn’t profitable before it’s second generation. Any normal company would see the logic in this equation, though GM wants to burden the customer with those costs from start, or having the government foot the bill before the program is even implemented.
“This looks very much like General Motor’s version of Microsoft’s history of “Vaporware”. That is make all sorts of promises about a future porduct that in fact never materializes, just to keep people under their influence.”
You know, I don’t know anyone, outside of the car industry obsessed, that is really following the Volt story, nevermind considering its implications about the state of affairs at GM. If that isn’t just an abberation then what GM has got is a vaporware product that frequently injects the company into discussions about the future of car design and green initiatives in general. I’ve seen more ink devoted to this one car than any other in recent memory. I might find the saga irritating and telling, in that order, but everyone else seem to be hearing, “blah blah blah, GM, blah, new hotness, blah blah, environmentally responsible, blah blah, pwns Prius!.” Seems like the discussion should be more along the lines of how much print GM is receiving for its investment in the Volt project as compared to other marketing investments (I have no idea how that would end up).
Honda is doing the same exact thing with the Clarity. That’s a car that cannot and will not be sold, and one that has a far less realistic powertrain. They just aren’t doing as good a job milking it for public love, and not for lack of trying.
I completely agree, by the way, with sidelining vanity projects if the bottom line is at issue, and it seems intuitively obvious that the Volt program has been very costly, with more to come (and at sales…ouch). Still, I don’t actually know (I do suspect) that this isn’t paying for itself in other ways, especially not if actual/eventual sales could offset some of those costs. Also consider how much press would be garnered after releasing examples to the mob for actual driving.
With the Clarity Honda is being upfront with the fact that they are costly technology demonstrators that are not ready for prime-time. Honda is also about to release their me-too Prius clone.
Can you imagine the screams from the Car & Driver/Detroit Free Press/etc/etc crowd when the government bureaucrats pull the plug ont he volt?
It’ll be hilarious…
In terms of hurting the bottom line, don’t count out the people who believe the hype that the Volt is “coming soon” and therefore are holding off on buying a brand-spanking new GM product today so that they can save their pennies for the Volt.
The Volt program is sort of like the Titanic crew trying to invent the helicopter after they hit the iceberg – there are more pressing, and relevant – issues to deal with.
And of course, GM’s products (either real or imagined) aren’t GM’s only problem.
..or more specifically an electric helicopter
Sunk cost or no, I’ve got a better idea. Drop the gas engine and erev bs and make it fully electric. Throw in some beefed up batteries into the space where said engine and fuel tank were supposed to go and give it the concept body and sell it for $40K. It would crush the Tesla and be on the market sooner with better reliability and might sell in low volumes.
The Volt platform is an elegant way of increasing our transportation fuel options.
If it was as elegant as that, then Toyota would have already built it.
The theory of the Volt (price point excepted) is a good one — use the electric motor more, use the gas engine less, burn less fuel. That’s the premise upon which hybrids currently operate, and it works.
But there is a reason why the leader in hybrid powertrain R&D doesn’t already do that. It’s not because they didn’t think of it — everyone in that position understands that hybrid fuel economy increases as the time that the gas engine operates is reduced — but because it isn’t particularly easy.
It isn’t easy because batteries are not an ideal storage medium for cars. As batteries are drained and recharged, they lose a bit more life. The Volt concept promises to put more demands on batteries, including more frequent charging and more significant drainage, which can’t be particularly good for the batteries.
The Volt is mostly a PR exercise with a questionable premise and an excessive price point. If it’s that doable, then GM management should just shut up and build it already.
Redstapler
“With the Clarity Honda is being upfront with the fact that they are costly technology demonstrators that are not ready for prime-time. Honda is also about to release their me-too Prius clone.”
My point is that we might know that, and respect Honda for making that distinction, but I don’t think anyone else really does. I’ve heard people ask about both cars in that vague, “dosen’t GM/Honda have that new car…” way, with no clue really that neither is a buyable option.
I could stretch into cynical fantasy land and credit GM for lying to a gullible press corps in order to get better coverage for their vaporware than Honda does. That might be taking it too far though, I think they really expected to make this car.
There is a French study somewhere, that Sarko was suppressing for a while (presumably because of ties to the electric power or battery industry) saying that it would be mostly hybrids, not EVs, in 2030.
Another dif btw the Volt and the Clarity: you can actually drive the Clarity as I have. That doesn’t mean it’s anywhere near ready for prime time. Because of costs and durability issues around fuel cells, it’s not, and may never be. HOwever, it is an absolutely beautiful, well constructed car, and if they stuck an ICE and a stick in it and sold it for a decent price, I’d buy it.
The Volt platform is an elegant way of increasing our transportation fuel options.
If it was as elegant as that, then Toyota would have already built it.
Toyota does (or did) produce it, its called the Rav4 EV, and its been (was) pretty successful as a production spec full electric vehicle. Many people have their original battery packs well over 150,000 miles.
Why don’t they still produce it? Lets look at this little tidbit (from the wikipedia article):
“Whether or not Toyota wanted to continue production, it was unlikely to be able to do so, because the EV-95 battery was no longer available. Chevron had inherited control of the worldwide patent rights for the NiMH EV-95 battery when it merged with Texaco, which had purchased them from General Motors. Chevron’s unit won a $30,000,000 settlement from Toyota and Panasonic, and the production line for the large NiMH batteries was closed down and dismantled.”
Electric vehicles (including the volt) aren’t really a big engineering challenge on the technical side of things. The problem is cost, political will, things like patents, consumer interest, gas prices, emission regulations, and a whole host of other crap unrelated to battery lifetime or engineering feasibility.
Toyota does (or did) produce it, its called the Rav4 EV
The RAV 4 didn’t have a gas motor, and it didn’t use lithium ion batteries. It’s quite different from the Volt.
Because GM management starts frothing with rabid rage whenever they see proposals for smaller vehicles, the Volt was oversized from Day 1.
And because it was oversized, the energy equation does not compute.
I cant even find a Ford Escape Hybrid for sale at any dealerships in one of the largest cities in the US. No Altima hybrids either.
GM is easily 10 years away from selling a Volt like car to the masses in high enough numbers to matter.
I think Chevy is going to have a real sinking feeling when their 40+k moonshot is appearing on dealer lots (ok, pretend with me that the “miracle occurs here” on the Volt project plan does) around the same time as the much whispered Ford/Magna Electric Focus arrives at a much lower cost.
Sure the Magna Focus lacks the “Ahh” factor of “Extended Range Electric Vehicle”, but a usable electric car is still pretty “Ahh”. If the Magna Focus works, Ford gets a nice little green glow for it’s new Focus to build a little post launch excitement with minimal cost and risk to Ford. Magna in turn gets to pimp to the other OEMs some of their sexy new electric drivetrain love.
Thus, my solution to the Volt problem. GMs modify the Volt body to accept the Magna electric drivetrain, send Magna a couple of Volt shells with a PO and deposit check (given their finance, a Cashiers check), and wait for Magna to send back a pure electric Volt. Of course, they’ll need to slap Voltec labels on all the Magna parts and quietly scrub the internet of any Volt references to ICE, but PR spin is what GM does best!
My point is that we might know that, and respect Honda for making that distinction, but I don’t think anyone else really does. I’ve heard people ask about both cars in that vague, “dosen’t GM/Honda have that new car…” way, with no clue really that neither is a buyable option.
Problem for GM is that conversation will eventually turn to “When is that Bolt or Volt or whatever it’s called coming out?” When those people are told that it won’t be coming out, they’ll say “Then why did they make such a big deal of something that was never going to be released?”.
Biggest problem with the Volt is battery cost and life and I doubt the economics of batteries will be more favorable by 2011. The Volt is a nice demonstration of technology, but it’s not ready for mass production. Right now GM needs to focus on survival. I would spend less R&D budget on the Volt and focus on a successful launch of the relatively high volume Chevrolet Cruze.
Sunk cost or no, I’ve got a better idea. Drop the gas engine and erev bs and make it fully electric. Throw in some beefed up batteries into the space where said engine and fuel tank were supposed to go and give it the concept body and sell it for $40K. It would crush the Tesla and be on the market sooner with better reliability and might sell in low volumes.
Better yet, put the EV1 powertrain in a Corvette body. That could have been on the road by now, stealing Tesla’s thunder. A $100k electric Vette could turn a proft from day 1.
Honda is doing the same exact thing with the Clarity. That’s a car that cannot and will not be sold, and one that has a far less realistic powertrain. They just aren’t doing as good a job milking it for public love, and not for lack of trying.
True, but the difference is that the Honda Clarity EXISTS and actual people are driving it on a normal day to day basis. Honda has actually proven that their technology works. The problem now to be solved is that of infrastructure – and it’s a biggie – but you have the same problems to face with biodiesel and plug in electric too.
I think EVs will be a very small niche until and unless recharging time gets down to 5-10 minutes. The number of people who own a home and can afford a car that is permanently relegated solely to commuter duty (and can never take a long trip) is vanishingly small. Range extended EVs eliminate that issue and greatly increase the market.
There is no doubt that the Volt’s price will keep it from being a sales success even if GM lasts that long. But the first Toyota Prius was a money loser as well. We won’t get to the second generation without a first generation.
I drove a Toyota RAV4 EV as a rental in Sacramento. I was worried the range wouldn’t even take it on a straight shot to the Capitol and back to the airport. That was a pretty short distance (I think maybe 10 or so miles each way) and It nearly didn’t make it.
It was also pretty awful to drive, but then again, I don’t think much of trucks in general so that might be expected.
Overall, I definitely wouldn’t call it ready for prime time.
D
Who wants to bet that Toyota will beat the Volt to market with a $10K cheaper Prius plug-in?
I’d give it 10:1 odds if i didn’t half believe that Toyota wants GM to stick around so badly that it might let them have this one. So 5:1 it is.
ttacgreg: Chrysler and Ford also fall into that category. As long as I have known, Ford has never hyped their products while the sketches were still being drawn. You would never know what they are coming up with until it is released to the public. Chrysler the same. When Ford released the Taurus in 1986, nobody saw it coming. It is not like throughout the 80s, Ford was like, “Here is the Taurus! It is going to be released in 1986, and it is going to be like nothing you have ever seen or driven before!” Ford didn’t reveal the Taurus until it was ready for production. Chrysler the same. Nobody saw the K-cars or the Minivan coming. The only time I have seen them hyping their cars is in a couple of ads I have seen in 1992 issues of TIME, and in those, they were just simply, “We will soon be releasing a string of models that will take American car companies well into the future. Chrysler is going to be a leader.” And they did just that. Until Daimler bought them.
la la la I can’t hear you la la la
Don’t kill the Volt.
….this time could have been better spent fixing the Impala, TrailBlazer, Saabs, Aveo, and all the other also-rans in the lineup….if you’re not going to build it, don’t waste billions of dollars on it when you’re already on the brink of bankruptcy.
Don’t cry for the Volt; it was a highly successful car in a twisted sort of way. It played the global warming hysteria masterfully, which helped attract billions of Obamabucks without ever selling a single working specimen to the public. It was the Bernie Madoff of automobiles.
The bigger the lie, the more people believe it.
I agree with a previous post that if the technology the volt is based on were viable another company, such as Toyota, would have pursued it. The magic trick with volt is we are supposed to assume that GM invented or found a new way to do hybrid gasoline transportation when the facts say otherwise.
The cost of the Volt prevents it from being an economy car because it would take way too long to recoup the investment.
It is not a performance car and for 40-50K it needs to have some measure of performance.
It really can’t be recharged at home without incurring massive electric bills, seriously limited charge options at work, and overall issues with refueling a car electrically.
GM does not have the greatest reputation for reliability. Their existing cars may be fine but this is so new it takes a leap of faith to trust it. For 40K it better be perfect and we all know it won’t be.
And I think it’s ugly.
It’s a conspiracy!
Demonizing Chevron smacks of street belief 1970’s that oil companies had a carburetor which would allow 4000 lb gas hogs to achieve exceptional MPG. Ditto Who Killed the EV1? Here’s the settlement:
http://www.ovonic.com/PDFs/Financial_Reports/form_8k/8k_mbi_patent_infringe_settlement_7july04.pdf
I do think it is very funny (and even more infuriating) that the government, who seem to think the Prius is all that any car company needed to be successful, or that all would be well in the automotive world if those stupid Detroit car companies stopped building trucks and SUVs and just built Priuses, is now the one to realize that cars like this DON’T MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE.
Well there’s a real shocker. A government that doesn’t know what its talking about, acting like it does, then coming out and admitting maybe they didn’t. If GM wasn’t making the Volt, they’d still be bitching at them for making Tahoes and “other cars people actually want to buy”.
The gov has done just as much to put these companies in the grave as they have themselves. Thinking you can just mandate fuel economy and all will happen with no huge cost increase and that all the buyers will come rushing when fuel is $2/gallon. Morons.
BTW, I don’t agree the Volt is dead. It will arrive, but it will be more like a GM Tesla. Do try to remember that 1st gen Prius and Honda Insight were pretty crappy little cars too. Gotta start somewhere. Plus the gov needs to save face after all this green washing and evil-SUV blabbing they’ve done over the past decade.
Jerome, there’s a huge difference between the Prius (a clean, fuel-efficient, car that people ACTUALLY WANT TO BUY) and the crap GM’s been shovelling (dirty gashog SUVs that required loopholes and favorable tax and regulatory treatment to create a mass market out of nothing but marketing). The Prius outsells entire GM brands. Let me say that again, in case your FUD fooled anybody: the Prius outsells entire GM brands.
GM may have been trying to prove that people really didn’t want to buy hybrids. They have, in fact, proven that people don’t want to buy crappy hybrids.