More Bob Lutz Volt Q & A
U.S. News and World Report got to ask a few more questions than I did of Bob Lutz at the L.A. Auto Show press day.
Among other things, when asked if he thinks the Volt will work out, he said “There would have to be some horrible surprise for it not to work.”
He talked about how the initial Volt plan intended a lot of batteries and 100 mile range, but was later changed to 40 miles and less batteries by VP Jon Lauckner.
He is quoted as saying the Volt team said “2010 is an impossible target”.
With respect to production numbers of 60,000 he says “Within a few years we hope to be producing hundreds of thousands. This is potentially the reinvention of the automobile.”
He also addresses the risk of this program to GM.
Our very extensive GM-Volt.com Q&A is coming shortly so stay tuned.
Source (US News and World Report)
Popularity: 1%
(No Ratings Yet) 
Loading ...
32 Responses to “More Bob Lutz Volt Q & A”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- As GM Goes So Goes the Nation
- Lutz Provides More Volt Details: Photovoltaic Roof to be Unveiled in January, and Volt Development Ahead of Schedule
- GM’s Electric History
- Project Better Place CEO Calls the Volt a Niche Product
- The Production Chevy Volt Has One Charging Port, and Unnamed Object Identified
- Video: 60 Minutes - Race For the Electric Car
- Chevy Orlando: Will This Become an E-Flex Microvan?
- Along With Wall Street Bailout, Plug-in Car Tax Credit is Passed: Chevy Volt Now $7500 Less
- Chevy Cruze Versus Honda Insight
- The Chevy Volt May Have a “Calculate Most Efficient Route” Navigation Mode
November 16th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
This was a good article, Lyle. I am very anxiously awaiting your Q&A.
November 16th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Well, I think that Mr. Lutz’s comments about the critical importance of technology leadership are absolutely, 100%, dead right.
I think that many of us have been saying this here, and at Fastlane, for quite some time. It is extremely encouraging to see him stating it in such a direct and straight forward way.
November 16th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
I see no reason why GM and their suppliers can not make this work, and in the timeframes they are talking about.
This will be great for GM, and even better for us!!
And I am also waiting to read the Q & A.
November 16th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
The Volt is going to happen folks.
There’s an astounding turnaround in the works for Detroit.
November 16th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
I wonder how much the fall in the value of the dollar will help in the export of the Volt, and will help GM in general.
- death to oil
November 16th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
This is off-topic, but I have bought $25,000 worth of GM stock in the last couple weeks based largely on the Volt. I think this would be a good place to ask since it is quite busy with people into GM.
Do you think that Saturn operates largely as an incubator for Chevrolet products? I am thinking mostly of the Aura which was released to great acclaim, but without marketing last year. Some improvements were made, and it is now the even better and even more acclaimed Malibu, backed by a massive marketing campaign.
November 16th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Lyle
I just found this forum yesterday, so I’m a little late to the party. After reading the questions to be posed to GM’s Volt team (with so many asked again and again), I didn’t see one about this, so here goes:
In 2002 GM announced the ’skateboard’ platform that was developed to be the base for the future fuel cell vehicles. Wouldn’t it be possible to gut the skateboard of the fc stack and hydrogen tank and fill the space with batteries, keeping the electric drive? What you’d have is an all electric skateboard to which you could attach any of the vehicles currently under development for the fuel cell vehicle.
GM could sell a range extender (gas or diesel generator) as an option and put it under the hood or in the trunk.
Has this been discussed here / presented to GM? The skateboard is a great idea for its versatility and they could have a vehicle that uses it on the market in 2012 or 2013, instead waiting until hydrogen is ready for the market in, maybe, 20 years.
I’m hoping that GM’s plan is to under-promise and over-deliver. They’ll develop a vehicle that can travel 60 or 80 miles in electric mode and blow Toyota out of the water.
In my 30 years of driving and buying cars I have never even considered a GM product (In California, we abandoned American cars long before the rest of the country), but I’ve vowed recently that I will never again buy a car that I can’t plug-in (to my solar array), and if GM can pull this off, I’ll be trading in my Honda Fit for a Saturn Vue, and my BMW 525 for a Chevy Volt, and GM will have to tool up for record sales.
Make it happen GM
Glenn in Sacramento
November 16th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Dan, I think you’ve bought at a wonderful price point. I wish I had some free cash to buy some more myself.
I think that the labels merely reflect a target demographic, a product line image, the packaging. The technology is shared by all.
I was especially happy to read this quote: “So of all the different technologies GM is working on, how would you prioritize them?
Electric. Advanced hybrid. Plug-in hybrid. Advanced clean diesels. And far out, there’s hydrogen.” EV via RxEV is the low laying fruit. It took Nixon to go to China (as Spock once stated) and it is taking Lutz to bring EVs to the American mainstream.
November 16th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
It would be nice to have a lote more context on this quote:
“He is quoted as saying the Volt team said “2010 is an impossible target”.”
Does this mean that the people actually building the Volt don’t think it can be done by 2010?
November 16th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
I thought it meant that that’s why they’re changing their ways. It mentioned that each meeting used to have printed materials etc. but they’ve cut it to the essentials to save time.
November 16th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Glenn -
I like the skateboard too, and I think they will probably bring it back in some form eventually. However, I don’t think it is practical for the Volt. Wheel motors are more expensive than a single motor on the axle, and I’m also not sure if people are ready for a vehicle that different.
As others have said many times here, KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid).
November 16th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Grizzly, #10:
Yeah, and, if this teaches them ways to dramatically compress their product development times, not to mention the critical importance of technological leadership, it will be at least as important as the Volt itself.
November 16th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
The answer to the last US News question warmed my heart and fed a hope in transportation sanity.
Lutz says GM’s priorities are:
Electric. Advanced hybrid. Plug-in hybrid. Advanced clean diesels. And far out, there’s hydrogen.
Huzzah hydrogen is last. Congress, stop the grants to fund hydrogen cars, let’s do battery, power grid and photovoltaic advanced development.
November 16th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Lylel #13, “Huzzah hydrogen is last. Congress, stop the grants to fund hydrogen cars, let’s do battery, power grid and photovoltaic advanced development.”
I couldn’t agree more. Hydrogen is such a waste of time. Perfect the battery technology and the photovoltaic technology along with wind and other clean energy. Forget Hydrogen. If it is really at least 20 years out, battery technology should be so improved by then, we won’t need to the hydrogen at all.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
If the design team feels under pressure they have my sympathy.
But if they are trying to design a volt that both sings and dances by 2010 perhaps they could just release the one that dances and put singing in the 2011 release.
I thank them for their efforts whatever they decide.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
I just discovered this site. Lyle, job well done, keep up the great work.
I just finished reading many of the previous articles and comments, and I’m impressed with the concept behind the Chevy Volt and have added myself to the waiting list.
The reason I’m posting this message is to voice my opinion that I doubt hydrogen is a lost cause, yet. It may very well become one when compared to electric vehicles of the future, I think.
If you compare current fuel cell technology to the technology from a decade ago, much improvement has been made, and nano technology might just make fuel cells much more efficient. Of course, I’m not qualified to predict that, but from what I’ve read there’s been a lot of progress.
I’m more confused about how to mass produce hydrogen assuming fuel cells achieve their goals. Anybody know what THAT plan is?
November 16th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
RE #13, Yep, couldn’t agree more.
However, I would add that it is worth doing research into clean generation of hydrogen. That’s where the biggest problem with hydrogen is.
e.g. http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200711163
This is a great discovery, however, the byproduct of generating hydrogen this way is that it also generates C02.
In the mean time we need the Volt asap, I’ve already got the fuel for my Volt (spare capacity in my solar system).
I heard a figure that Iraq war will cost 3 trillion after interest on loans and paying for VA care etc. A little maths (counting zeros). Let’s say there are 100 million homes in USA (round figures). That is 30000 per home. That’s enough for about 5KW of solar power per home (without rebates). That will generate enough power for TWO Volt cars for 12,000 miles per year!
So if that figure was right money spent on Iraq war could have funded free green independent fuel for ever (or at least 30 years). If the war was over oil, then it was a really dumb in investment terms!
November 16th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
L.A. Auto Show update: Chevrolet “Volt” area was very secure. The car was on a stage and they would not let anyone even get close. The model was well rehearsed in the volts features but when asked if she is a GM employee she said no. I do have some pictures if you are interested, I’ll need your email, my email wirenutjd@yahoo.com I also went buy Volvo and looked at the C30 plug-in. I was able to get close and took some great shots. The Volvo will be a great car if it lives up to their claims, probably even better than the Volt. 1. An electric motor at every wheel, all wheel drive. 2. No transaxle to maintain 3. 100 mile range. 4. Most people even like the looks better after seeing both up close. 5. Maybe better in a crash (Volvo Safety Record). 5. Easy access to the batteries which are in the back through the hatch-back (maintenance issue) 6. Swedish Models willing to train you on how to drive it (just kidding) they were all form Sweden and they were all very open and friendly which was completely the opposite over at GM. Very much a secrete and stand-offish. No one was allowed to even get close to the car and the revolving stage would not allow you to see car for very long or the other side, completely awkward.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Josh, yes, that mass production of hydrogen is a sticky wicket.
The first line is steam reformation of methane from natural gas. Of course natural gas is in limited supply too, more natural gas use would have to be increasingly imported, first piped in from Canada and then shipped in. That’s no solution.
After that comes electrolysis … a very energy inefficent process … would be much more efficient to charge up a RxEV with the electricity!
And then comes the microbial fuel cell that Mark links to. An actual PNAS article is here - http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0706379104v1 - warning it’s a pdf. This approach is amazingly electricity efficient because the microbes do the heavy lifting.
Mark, not only was it amazingly efficient, the gas produced was >99.5 H2 with only trace amounts of CO2 and CO.
More electricity efficient yet are algal electrolysis methods. http://www.physorg.com/news114172068.html Of course that’s because no electricity is to be used at all - photosynthesis does the work. I am just imagining bioreactors growing algae out of all the CO2 captured at the flues of coal plants, along the lines of Greenfuels stuff - http://www.greenfuelonline.com/ - and using that algae to produce H2 for fuel cells.(Currently Greenfuel is working on converting into a diesel or gas product instead.)
So no I wouldn’t write it off completely either. But these technologies are farther away from practical reality than the RxEV is and batteries are improving from both performance and cost POVs much much faster than fuel cells are.
Lutz is right on the money here. Flex fuel EVs. Use grid derived with ICE generator back up for now and if fuel cells get cheap enough, and if hydrogen production via these biologic electrolysis methods can be done in scaled up versions and an infrastructure for delivering it can be estabished, then considering replacing the ICE for a fuel cell or possibly even the batteries too. But as he said, that possibility is “far out” into the future, and RxEVs are not.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:57 am
wirenutjd:
The Volvo is certainly an interesting car, but I don’t think it will be as great as you seem to think.
1. Wheel motors are expensive. I would expect 4 wheel motors to be at least 2-3 times more expensive than one motor like the Volt has.
2. 100 mile range is great of course, but how do they get it? By adding more batteries, which are the most expensive part of the car.
3. The Volt’s battery pack is just as accessible. Mechanics have easy access to the underside of any car.
You’re right about all-wheel drive being a good feature, and of course Volvo has a good record of building safe cars. But I expect the Volvo will probably be somewhere between $45k-60k, if they ever make it at all (Volt already has a solid release date, can that be said for the Volvo?)
November 17th, 2007 at 1:00 am
also, I just checked Volvo’s website and the ReCharge concept has a 60 mile EV range, not 100.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:13 am
Quick calculations for the microbe H2 generator. The Chevy Equinox uses 4.2KG of H2 for a full charge that will take it about 150 miles. That’s about 40 miles per KG H2.
The microbe H2 generator generates 1.1m^3 of H2 per day per 1m^3 of volume of generator.
That’s 1100 liters, or 1100/22.4 moles, == 49 moles per 1m^3 per day. That weighs for H2 2×49g (98g). So about 10m^3 of generator volume is required to make 1KG of H2 per day to drive the 40 miles.
That’s a generator about 7 ft x 7 ft x 7 ft.
In other words using this technique a machine about the size of a car is needed to make enough H2 to drive a car 40 miles per day. That machine has to be fed and maintained too. Cost?
To power a Volt for 40 miles per day (averaged over a year) you need about 2.6KW of solar cells. This requires about 220 sq ft of roof space, and about $19K. The cost of solar power is falling about 5% per year per KW. By the time that the hydrogen generation technologies have been proved, solar power could be half its current price.
Again the point is the day of hydrogen may come, but it is not tomorrow. The Volt works with today’s technology is practical and affordable. Go GM!
November 17th, 2007 at 2:04 am
If GM’s more rigorous checks and balances can only produce cars of average reliability and quality, I’d hate to see what happens when they are removed from a project which is more complicated than anything else they have done before.
I don’t know if Toyota really had an “it will blow up in GM’s face attitude”, but based on these revelations it seems the probability is high.
GM better not screw this one up for the entire market like they tried to do with hybrids.
November 17th, 2007 at 8:48 am
#20 Brian M. said:
“Wheel motors are expensive. I would expect 4 wheel motors to be at least 2-3 times more expensive than one motor like the Volt has.”
Yes, wheel motors are more expensive. But, that cost would be partially be offset in an AWD with smaller wheel motors and through elimination of the transaxle. The cost of wheel motors would hopefully come down with mass production.
I’ll continue to hope for a AWD.
November 17th, 2007 at 10:17 am
To: # 20 Brian, What do you think about maintenance between the wheel type vs. the motor to transaxle type? Maybe this type of compitition will help GM come out early, so we all can have the U.S. made one!
November 17th, 2007 at 10:19 am
# 20 Brian, Volvo waffled from 100 to 60 just like GM went from 60 to 40.
November 17th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Re the Ford/Volvo-badged product:
As the Volt gets closer to reality, and the buzz grows, how many other companies will bring their own versions out? This technology is not so complex really, it’s just a matter of having batteries light enough an that do the job cheaper over a car’s life cycle of ownership than than gas and maintainence. Lots of good battery companies out there that didn’t make the final GM cut - including the big American provider JCI-Saft, small American start-ups like Altair and Ener1, and huge Chinese companies. VW had an electric Li-ion concept car demo’ed in 2001 - the Bora (Jetta based) it wouldn’t be hard to dust it off, cut down the battery capacity some and add in a range extender, Mitsubishi could probably make their car practical if they tried, DaimlerChrysler is planning on releasing an electric Smart car in 2010 and has other concepts ready to bring on out, Renault is building an EV facility in Israel, and so on.
The Volt is already serving its function as a game changer! Tesla moved the mind-set from golf-cart to sexy without even yet delivering a car. GM has moved the mindset to EV for the masses without yet delivering a car. Toyota has gotten complacent and will likely miss the boat the first go round but the race is afoot. GM has an early lead but these products will come out quickly once they prove the market accepts it.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
#25 wirenutjd, One great thing about electric motors is they require little to no maintenance because they have almost no moving parts. But you are right, wheel motors would be easier to work on. Just remove the wheel and swap in a new one.
Unfortunately, I think wheel motors would probably be more prone to damage from rocks, potholes, and collisions.
I am not totally against wheel motors, because they provide great traction and independent control. But I would not buy a car with wheel motors because of the extra expense and vulnerability (maybe Volvo buyers would not care as much about the extra expense as I do).
November 17th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
I agree Brian M. And I like what 27 Don says. Lets change the whole thing and see what comes our way.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Mark Bartosik, #17:
Yeah, $3 trillion. Between that and global warming, we are starting down the barrel of a very large cannon.
November 17th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
#26 (wirenutjd)… I don’t think Volvo waffled… all along from at least early Sept annoucement (see http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33717/113/ ) I’ve been reading 60 mile range on the batteries in the C30 RxEV. The 1st time I heard 100 was in this thread so I think somewhere someone was mistaken.
As I mentioned in another thread, I love my current Volvo (an 8 year old S70 T5 5-speed), but the problem I may have with the C30 is that it’s only a 2-door, and the backseats may not have enough leg and/or head room.
Regarding hub motors, as has been said, because there are 4 of them, each one can be significantly smaller. Apparently hub motors on an EV are nothing new… according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hub_motor Ferdinand Porsche developed them in 1902… on a vehicle that later became an RxEv
Note also that ZAP also has in the works an EV with hub motors.
Multi-motor EV configurations are more complicated in regulating power to different motors. I think I read that one of the 1990’s EV’s built to meet CA’s ZEV mandate had planned to use two motors but switched to just one because of that problem.
November 17th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Jeff M,
Would your Volvo dealer let you sit in the back of a C30.
It would be very interesting to know your opinion.
I accept what everyone says about 2 doors but it didnt stop the mini becoming a cult.