GM’s Onstar EV Lab recently invited Autobloggreen in for a preview of some of the Volt’s unique Onstar options. The upshot is that the GM-exclusive system will reach new levels of invasiveness, monitoring battery charge and temperature levels, as well as providing charging information. But beyond these Volt-related systems, ABG also reveals that Onstar monitored current users as guinea pigs for developing Volt roll-out plans:
GM pulled real data from thousands of OnStar-equipped vehicles over the last week, and calculated what would have happened had they all been Volts. These vehicles were a representative sample, which in this case means the random drivers were selected from areas where GM expects initial interest in the Volt will be high. GM has previously said that it has its eye on “early adopter” cities like San Francisco and Washington, D.C. to sell the Volt at first, so the sample might have included drivers from these areas.
This is a new development in the discussion of whether Onstar crosses privacy lines in the pursuit of safety, and oh yeah, profits. Onstar would argue that complete access to your vehicle helps prevent things like carjackings (a mission it has now officially accomplished once). The downside is that GM is apparently allowed to spy on your vehicle use patterns at will. Oh, and apparently the computer voice recognition leaves something to be desired, for the rurally accented. Is the system worth the downsides?
The Mainstream Media has a thing about safety-related stories. It started with the “if it bleeds it leads” paradigm, and has become a predictable hobbyhorse thanks to the fact that you’d have to be the worst kind of sociopath to even consider arguing against more safety. If the MSM likes anything more than trench-warfare debates, it’s coming together afterward over a hot cup of won’t someone think of the children? But facts are facts, and as the WSJ reports, driving a car has literally never been safer. There were 1.19 deaths for every 100 million vehicle miles traveled in the second quarter of 2009, the lowest number since the NHTSA began keeping statistics in the 1970s. And the IIHS’s recent gee-whiz test results don’t even tell the whole story, although they do indicate that the lobbying group may be losing some relevance. Beyond passive safety features like improved steel, engineering and airbags, active safety features like stability and traction control are preventing a great number of deaths. As are roadway improvements like rumble strips and median dividers, not to mention increased DUI and seatbelt enforcement. In short, great strides have been made. Which means it’s time to think about changing the conversation about safety. As the video above proves, we’ll never completely wring the danger out of the practice of piloting tons of metal around at speed, but the latest statistics show that it might be a good time to consider prioritizing lower vehicle weights over a safety-at-all-costs approach. After all, even the most fanatical safety advocates are now focusing on distracted driving and motorcycle deaths.
Actually, that’s not the equivocal message we might have expected from a University of Michigan study on electric vehicle (EV) viability [via Green Car Congress]. Instead, the money quote reads:
The data provide strong evidence that a combination of economic and social incentives may be most effective in successfully introducing these vehicles.
The study’s baseline shows that, given no increase in fuel costs, 42 percent of those surveyed would consider buying an EV. But with every doubling of a hypothetical price premium, the probability of purchase fell by about 16 percent. At a $10k premium, only 14 percent said they would consider purchasing an EV. Which is enough to conclude that the “social incentives” of EV ownership are enough to create a certain level of demand for even uncompetitively-priced vehicles. And that seems to indicate that breathless green marketing is here to stay. In fact, if the image after the jump is anything to go on, this eco-toehold in the minds of some consumers will likely be exploited with ever-more breathtaking shamelessness.
Chinese automaker Geely has been pursuing Volvo for 10 months now, and it’s beginning to look like the chase was in vain. Bloomberg reports that disagreements over Volvo’s intellectual property are about to scuttle the deal, the same reasons GM gave for rejecting Beijing Automotive’s bid for Opel in July. The problem, it seems, hinges on product integration. Volvo’s vehicles are all based on Ford platforms, so giving Geely access to current and in-development Volvo models means trusting them with the special sauce. And Ford is even less likely to do that, after a former Ford employee was arrested last week for attempting to pass some 4,000 secret documents to SAIC and Beijing Auto.
After months of teases and race-car previewing, Toyota is publicly unveiling its production-spec LF-A supercar at the Tokyo Auto Show [via Automotive News [sub]]. And it’s a legitimate front-engine supercar, with a 4.8 liter V10 motivating it to 60 MPH in 3.7 seconds. It even has a true supercar pricetag: $375,000. But how does this car square with Toyota’s appliance-and-environment-driven image? “It’s our mission as automakers to offer cars that possess the ‘fun’ spirit that should be at the base of any car,” explains Akio Toyoda, who sees the supercar as a way to gain attention in developing markets. But having axed its own front-engine V-10 supercar, Honda is reacting to the LF-A by retreating into greener-than-thou sniping. “Sure, there are folks who like that ‘vroom’ of the engine out of nostalgia,” snickers Honda prez Takanobu Ito. “The era of V10 engines is gone.” And you’ll never guess what vehicle Ito offers up as Honda’s counterpoint to the LF-A.
Reuters reports that GM’s deadline to participate in its Daewoo division’s $424m rights offering has passed without GM putting any money down. But the Korean Development Bank, which GM-Daewoo owes $2b (soon to be closer to $3b), isn’t freaking out yet. “Given that GM is not allowed to take money out of the United States, it seems to have a plan from the beginning to drop the rights and use its units to buy them,” say KDB spokesfolks. KDB will not participate in the offering until GM stumps up some cash, so the betting marker has been passed to GM’s units. But which unit will answer the call? Opel is days away from being sold, so you can rule that out. Holden is a possible white knight, but the Australian division is hardly a piggy bank with which to keep other operations afloat. Which leaves only GM’s South American, Chinese and Indian operations to pick up the slack.
Former head of the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry, Steve Rattner has penned a retrospective for Fortune on his time guiding the auto industry bailout. He covers everything from how he assembled his team and developed a strategy to the decision to fire Rick Wagoner and the showdown with Chrysler’s creditors. There are no real surprises if you’ve followed TTAC for the last year or so, but it’s fascinating stuff to read coming from the horses mouth. Take Rattner’s initial impressions of the GM “culture thing”:
Everyone knew Detroit’s reputation for insular, slow-moving cultures. Even by that low standard, I was shocked by the stunningly poor management that we found, particularly at GM, where we encountered, among other things, perhaps the weakest finance operation any of us had ever seen in a major company.
For example, under the previous administration’s loan agreements, Treasury was to approve every GM transaction of more than $100 million that was outside of the normal course. From my first day at Treasury, PowerPoint decks would arrive from GM (we quickly concluded that no decision seemed to be made at GM without one) requesting approvals. We were appalled by the absence of sound analysis provided to justify these expenditures.
Having a hard time guessing the value of the Volt showcase? Join the club. Everyone knows what the Volt is by now, namely a four-seat, 230 mpg, extended-range electric sport sedan that’s currently under-budget. But what does that sell for? The closest thing to a consistent answer we’ve heard from GM on this point is zero profit at $40,000 a pop. Which is always quickly followed up with reminders that consumer tax credits will make the crucial difference in transaction prices. But what about those tax credits? EV World‘s Bill Moore relays the following message from an anonymous “former GM executive”
“Assume you will trade in your Prius when the Volt becomes available. The feds will probably put a $20,000 kickback on the price to move them. If they do not, Volt will not make it.”
If you think about it, AM General really is a pioneer in the 21st Century automotive industry. How so, you ask? By cutting out the consumer and building its business around government vehicle buyers. From GM to Better Place, almost everyone in the business either owes a government money or is pitching a future based on government assistance or involvement. By this logic, the GM-Hummer experiment was a predictable disaster, eschewing AM General’s core strength and attempting to build a consumer brand. But with Hummer as good as sold off, AM General is going back to its bread and butter, showing off this MV-1 developed in conjunction with the Vehicle Production Group.”The vehicle is the first purpose-built vehicle for people in wheelchairs,” VPG’s chief marketing officer tells The Freep. “Every municipality has to offer on-demand service for the disabled as a result of the Americans With Disabilities Act.” See how that works? That’s how you build a vehicle with built-in demand.
Curious about how in the hell Chrysler is going to turn it all around, and go from an industry punchline to, well, less of an industry punchline? We sure are. Especially now that we know the presentation of Chrysler’s five-year product and business plan is going to be a “six hour extravaganza.” We knew ChryCo had some ‘splaining to do, but six hours worth? Or is this just ChryCo’s way of not letting anyone get an awkward question in edgewise? Either way, mark November 4 on your calendar. And while you’re at it, drop a comment to let us know what you’re most curious to learn about the New New Chrysler. You never know where TTAC is going to show up to ask these awkward questions…
Nissan’s got a new platform (codename “V”) that will underpin a number of low-cost body styles for third-world markets… like the US. According to Automotive News [sub], a four-door sedan, a five-door hatchback and a multipurpose vehicle will be based on the sub-Versa platform, collectively replacing the non-US-market Micra. Nissan hopes to sell a million of the three-cylinder subcompacts annually worldwide, necessitating a US campaign that will launch sometime after 2010. The vehicles will offer 50 percent fuel economy improvements over the Micra, use 18 percent fewer parts, and will not be built in Japan as Nissan has sought to keep costs for the range as low as possible. Auto Motor und Sport adds the crucial consideration that the new model will not fall into the gender-specific categorization that caused 80 percent of German Micra sales to come from women. Thank goodness for that then.
Michael Copeland at Fortune has his priorities straight. “In my rusted jalopy, a 1991 Volvo 240 sedan, I have installed the future,” he boasts. His use of the “f-word” tells you he’s not talking about a V8, forced induction or any other fossil fuel-sucking upgrade. What then? An EV conversion? That would be too interesting. Too car-related. No, Copeland’s future shock was a simple feat: “All it took was a friend whose iPhone came along for a ride.” His argument is the same tired trope we hear every time a business writer dips a toe in the product-analysis game: make it more iPod-phone-y!
when you think about it, the car is the ultimate mobile device. And automakers need to start acting more like consumer electronics companies if they don’t want to cede one of their last great opportunities to Apple, Research in Motion or Google [Ed: as if!].
Sigh. Didn’t we go through this when Thomas Friedman called for Steve Jobs to take over GM? Incidentally, whatever happened to the Draft Oprah movement?
Recent Comments