There is new information found in an updated business plan that GM presented to the government on Wednesday.
The automaker is requesting an additional $2.6 billion in low interest loans to support the development and introduction of three new electric vehicles.
Specifically this is for the purpose of developing two spinoff cars from the Chevy Volt, and a third hybrid, and raises the amount GM is requesting from the section 136, or ATVMIP loans to $10.3 billion. These loans are intended to help companies build advanced technology high efficiency vehicles and are not related to the government funding GM currently possesses.
GM wouldn’t be able to get these loans, which could be released as early as June, until they are deemed financially viable. However this information confirms that GM has production plans to build two more EREVs, proving they do not intend the Volt to be a one-off or niche car. Building multiple models in increasing volumes is the primary way to drive costs down for the battery technology.
GM has previously unveiled the strikingly designed Voltec-powered Cadillac Converj which could conceivably be one of those two cars.
GM-Volt.com has been told that one or more additional Voltec concepts would unveiled in 2009. There is speculation that one could be a Buick, perhaps based on the new China-based Excelle which sits atop the same compact delta platform the Volt and Cruze use.
Even if GM has to go through a quick-rinse bankruptcy to cleave off its bad assets, the company will survive lean and mean and if all goes to plan with at least electric cars to choose from.
This entry was posted on Thursday, April 2nd, 2009 at 7:46 am and is filed under Converj, E-REV, Voltec. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (7:54 am)Kudos to GM for planning to offer three other variants of the Volt — let’s hope these will all be positioned as luxury models, such as a Cadillac Converj and a Buick Excelle or Electra, so as to help GM more quickly realize profits and exploit their investment in Voltec technology!
Apr 2nd, 2009 (7:54 am)How about an electric truck or van, as many of us have no use for a small sedan and will not be buying one no matter what powers it.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (7:56 am)The more the better. GM needs to get the cost down to be competitive
Apr 2nd, 2009 (7:58 am)I’m with Randy. Give me reason to replace my 86 Vanagon! E-Rev minivan would do it!
NPNS
Apr 2nd, 2009 (8:08 am)With this one we confirm GM’s return to infancy… There crying to be feed, and crying if something they try don’t work. But since every great person alive used to be a small kid, it’s not bad news for GM… Especially when the kid already has experience
NPNS
Apr 2nd, 2009 (8:10 am)#2 Randy, I was thinking the same thing. I have more use for a work van than a Volt. I just don’t drive a car around town much.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (8:13 am)Minivan would be sweet! Sign me up!
Apr 2nd, 2009 (8:14 am)Note: In ref to my comment in #1, when I re-read the Reuters article, it’s unclear whether GM is applying for money to build two or three new hybrid vehicles. If it’s THREE, I’d strongly suggest they scale up the Voltec system somewhat to power a crossover/CUV styled like the gorgeous yet practical Cadillac Provoq concept announced in 2008.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (8:15 am)intrade.com has a betting market on the likelihood of a GM bankruptcy before 2010. Right now it’s at 74%.
http://www.intrade.com/
Apr 2nd, 2009 (8:16 am)Wasn’t GM faulted for not catering to the small car market? Here is a chance to address that. I could go for a small, no-frills BEV. At this point in the technology, a small BEV seems more doable than a truck or minivan.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (8:25 am)As Lyle mentions this is a bit of a non-issue, because with the Obama administrations striking down of GM’s viabilty plan, that clearly puts them in violation of the terms to qualify for these loans…so the Energy Department can’t legally give this loan to GM.
If however, they get the Obama stamp of approval after 60 days, or they pull out of a GSB with a decent balance sheet they could certainly grab (some of) these dollars (or maybe they could get this in conjunction with exiting bankruptcy).
Apr 2nd, 2009 (8:26 am)I appreciate that the Chevy Volt is designed for the masses, but typically, new technology is rolled out through the higher-end vehicles and then trickles down over time as production costs come down. An example of this is the On-Star systems that started out in high-end Cadillac models only at first, and then found its way into most of the GM line-up. To me, applying Voltec to higher end vehicles now is a prime example of how GM could ensure profitability with the powertrain while still providing a low-end version for quick adoption by the masses.
Bravo GM!
Apr 2nd, 2009 (8:27 am)I think we all know that the future of transportation is electrification. And E-REV is the first real step towards eliminating fossil fuels used in cars, while maintaining our traditional style of driving.
It appears that GM is at least trying to think long term on this situatuion. You have to give them credit for that.
Now they just have to be able to be here long term, to make this all happen!!!
So if the Chevy is $40K, and the Caddy is $80K, does that mean the Buick will be $60K?
Apr 2nd, 2009 (8:29 am)Was’nt that long ago that GM was actually fighting the electric car.
Lo & behold, now they’re asking for loans to build them.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (8:33 am)I think the Cadillac Converj makes sense on so many levels that they really have no choice but to build that car. Customers of Cadillacs could/should be willing to shell out the kind of money a Cadillac EREV demands without much arm twisting.
As far as a third Voltec vehicle, I hope GM is considering perhaps a Voltec version of the Chevy Orlando. No qualms with a Buick if that’s what’s being planned, but an Orlando, or maybe an iteration of the new Equinox would be a neat and different twist on the idea of EREV’s. It would also show people that an EREV can be any kind of vehicle, not just a smaller sized car. Food for thought GM.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (8:34 am)E-REV HHR….
Or bring back the S-10
Apr 2nd, 2009 (8:35 am)I’d like to see something along the lines of a S10/Colorado size pickup with the Voltec system.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (8:37 am)How about we do the reasonable thing and get the volt out into the hands of independent testers before we commit any more government dollars to EREV technology from a bankrupt company?
To those who subscribe to the “two wrongs make a right” argument, I’ll save you the trouble:
2.6 B is far less than the 3.6 B Merrill Lynch paid its executives in bonuses after the 10B Tarp bailout.
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/bb/index.php?showtopic=25829&mode=threaded
We’ll just print some more.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (8:38 am)I really like the car above. Obviously, It will never be built.
/I’m really negative, like Tag today
//Just playing Tag, you know I luv ya.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (8:44 am)“Even if GM has to go through a quick-rinse bankruptcy to cleave off its bad assets”
Hmmm…that sounds very surgical.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (8:44 am)This is exciting news and quite frankly, just what the government wants to hear…..electric propulsion, lessons our need for foreign oil, less carbon in the air and helps on the global warming front too.
I still want mine in fall 2010!!
Apr 2nd, 2009 (8:45 am)Build it now Man!
Just Build It!!!!!!!!!!
Bring back the passion GM lost so long ago.
The only GM Classics are from the 60′s and 70′s
This is an instant classic.
Passion makes people “have to have that car”
They forgot this long ago.
Wake up stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DO NOT CHANGE THE CONVERJ CONCEPT. IF YOU DO DON’T BOTHER TO BUILD IT.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (8:46 am)When GM emerges from it’s short bankruptcy, I agree, an E-Rev mini-van would be a great use for the advanced technology loans.
I’ve always been envious of the Toyota RAV4 EV drivers. Why can’t a reborn GM with lots of advanced technology loans produce something as good?
Apr 2nd, 2009 (8:47 am)#12 GLV
“I appreciate that the Chevy Volt is designed for the masses”
…the masses can’t afford the Volt
Apr 2nd, 2009 (8:49 am)GM Volt is a purely bargaining tool to extract money from Obama, it is destined for failure due to battery longevity problem. There is no way they can succeed technicaly, or financially, even in 5 years!
Apr 2nd, 2009 (8:49 am)NPR did a story on U.S. Department of Energy testing of plug-in hybrid cars. Apparently, your mileage may vary depending on driving habits and conditions.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102634940&ft=1&f=1001
Apr 2nd, 2009 (8:52 am)The auto business is all about economies of scale – this is absolutely what needs to be done to make this technology viable and cost-effective. GO GM !
Apr 2nd, 2009 (8:53 am)#25 GM Dying
Please cite your references regarding the battery longevity problem. Without a citation, some might consider you an ignorant troll.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (8:55 am)Thomb,
If GM markets and educates the consumers correctly, I think many more of the masses will be able to afford the Volt. I spend about $120 per month on gas, but my commute is within the 40 mile limit of the Volt’s battery. If I use an extra $20 or $30 a month in electricity, I can put almost another $100 toward the purchase price.
But the trick will be for GM to convince the market to do the cost analysis necessary to reach that decision.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (8:55 am)GM Dying Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:49 am
GM Volt is a purely bargaining tool to extract money from Obama, it is destined for failure due to battery longevity problem. There is no way they can succeed technicaly, or financially, even in 5 years!
————
Ahh – here’s one of those “vaporware” trolls now – unfortunately, they’ve had to backslide. Toyota is getting desperate – the GM that emerges from this dark period is going to be lean, mean, and ready to open a can of whoop-ass on all the naysayers!
Apr 2nd, 2009 (8:59 am)#1 nasaman Says: Kudos to GM for planning to offer three other variants of the Volt — let’s hope these will all be positioned as luxury models, such as a Cadillac Converj and a Buick Excelle
————————————————————————————–
Let’s hope that they build an EREV station wagon or micro-van. After all, Subaru is the only company whose sales are up.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (9:01 am)ThombDbhomb @24 said, “…the masses can’t afford the Volt”
Time will tell… We still haven’t heard an actual MSRP…and, if GM can make money on the Cadillac and/or Buick versions, while they bring production costs down, there is still the possibility that the Volt will not be so cost prohibitive as we all fear.
LJGTVWOTR
Apr 2nd, 2009 (9:01 am)let’s rename GM – “Government Motors”
Apr 2nd, 2009 (9:02 am)I am thinking the same as Bailers # 29… With the amount I drive… and the first 40 miles being electric…. I could foresee a savings of $150 – 180 per month and also could use the savings toward a larger car payment.
Let’s get the Volt out there GM….
Apr 2nd, 2009 (9:04 am)#22 Vincent
Bring back the passion GM lost so long ago.
The only GM Classics are from the 60’s and 70’s
_________________________________________
Absolutely. And the name should be “El Camino”.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (9:09 am)Perhaps more pertinent to yetserday’s sales levels thread, but this AP article “Toyota roots for GM, hopes for US sales recovery” might be of interest:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Toyota-roots-for-GM-hopes-for-apf-14825321.html
Mentions the impact on shared supplier networks of a GM failure, but also hints Toyota’s sentiment may be motivated as much by fear of an anti-foreign automaker backlash should GM go down.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (9:17 am)Still so much to see if the cars wil sell do to high costs and a potential horrible used car market. GM needs to go ch11, pay the government off and fire the government minions that are being installed.
GM can make a profit today, if restrutured. They have ~20 vehicles that turn a profit right now (based on recent treasury numbers). It is about figuring out what to do about the rest and how to handle electric cars since their is no profit in them for another 5 years.
A successful energy indepent future is about drill here right now, get fuel cells developed, and build up those nuclear power plants. Of course, there is always the new cold fusion research I read about a few days ago…
Apr 2nd, 2009 (9:17 am)If the Model S can get this many deposits after one week. It must be good for the Volt which should be at least 17 – 20 thousand cheaper.
Since the launch on 26 March, Tesla Motors has taken 520 reservations for the Model S, an all-electric family sedan that carries up to seven people and travels up to 300 miles per charge. The $5,000 reservation fee is refundable.
Production of the Model S is planned to begin in late 2011. Tesla has applied for a $350 million loan from the Department of Energy’s Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program, which would be used to build the Model S assembly plant in California.
The Model S can be recharged from any 120V, 208V or 240V outlet or quick-charged from an external direct current supply in 45 minutes. The Model S does 0-60 mph in 5.6 seconds, and will have an electronically limited top speed of 130 mph (209 km/h). The anticipated base price of the Model S is $49,900 after a federal tax credit of $7,500.
Three battery pack choices will offer a range of 160, 230 or 300 miles per charge. The company has not released options pricing.
Tesla also is taking reservations for the Model S Signature Edition with a $40,000 reservation fee. Tesla will produce only 2,000 Signature Edition cars, which will be the first built and have unique interior and exterior features. Signature Edition cars will be evenly split between US and European customers.
Separately, Tesla delivered 104 Roadsters to customers in March, marking the first triple-digit delivery month in the company’s history. Tesla delivered more than 170 cars in the first quarter—more than the total delivered in 2008.
Tesla has delivered about 320 Roadsters so far. The base price of the Roadster is $101,500 after a $7,500 federal tax credit.
Source:http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/04/tesla-takes-520-reservations-for-model-s-in-a-week.html#more
Apr 2nd, 2009 (9:20 am)How do people feel about a protection plan like Reagan did for Harley Davidson?
Apr 2nd, 2009 (9:21 am)Let’s assume that GM’s going to end up with something north of 40B in loans when this is all done.
If these loans were at a normal interest rate (6 or 7%), would GM conceivably be able to cover even the interest, much less the principle, on these loans if things went back to 1/2 way normal?
Apr 2nd, 2009 (9:22 am)I think this is great news and gives me hope that G M will live on.
Regarding the Orlando, even tho it would be of no interest to me I think it would be the right choice for G M. I live in a middle class neighborhood and on my street there are 17 houses and 6 minivans.
I wish G M success with the Voltec program.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (9:55 am)COST! They can build what they want, but if they can’t sell them because they COST too much or people can’t get financing or afford the payments because they don’t have jobs or hyperinflation is draining their “disposable” income, who cares? The same hold true if people are uncertain about their financial stability or the stability of the economy and the Democrat-socialists printing $Trillions to fund pork projects is NOT helping calm economic stability fears.
Build and Sell are 2 completely different things.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (9:56 am)Earlier this week I visited my local Ford dealer to find out when they expected to have a Fusion Hybrid to test drive. The answer I received surprised me: the sales manager said that, due to Ford’s allocation plan, the ONLY Fusion Hybrids to hit his lot would be vehicles ordered by customers. I could look at one of these, but obviously I wouldn’t be able to drive it. If this is true, a lot of people interested in the car upon which the Blue Oval has pinned so much of its hopes for the future will be very disappointed.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (9:59 am)Still waiting for a Golf / Fit style hatchback into which I can put my four legged and very enthusiastic companion. Need a real hatchback — not a terrarium. Please build the GM Labrador!
Apr 2nd, 2009 (10:02 am)#43 Rob
I hope this means that they are expecting orders to come in at a rate that exceeds production.
I’m eternely optomistic!
Apr 2nd, 2009 (10:02 am)2 lines – Small Car = Converj – Electra – Volt
Small SUV = SRX – Vue(or Whatever the Buick will be) – Equinox
They already have the Vue in testing – I will take 10 miles all electric in the the SRX / Equinox
I would like to see them add minivan like Orlando and larger and a small PU line
Apr 2nd, 2009 (10:03 am)#33 GM-fan Says: let’s rename GM – “Government Motors”
————————————————————————————–
Transcript from Obama’s announcement Monday:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/us/politics/30obama-text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2
“Let me be clear: The United States government has no interest in running GM. We have no intention of running GM. What we are interested in is giving GM an opportunity to finally make those much-needed changes that will let them emerge from this crisis a stronger and more competitive company.”
Apr 2nd, 2009 (10:05 am)@ #26, thank you for pointing out that lead-foot driving reduces your fuel economy. How is that different than your poison-spewing, terrorist supporting gas powered vehicle?
The only way we will get off our addiction to foreign oil is to go 100% electric for cars and light trucks. Sure you can have your minivan. I’d kinda like one myself even though it’s just me an’ the missus. As long as it has an all-electric range that would meet our needs (40 miles or more). Long term goal: sure I’d like to have an EV with 200+ miles all-electric range. Personally, I’d like a Volt with no gas engine at all, just add whatever quantity of batteries that equals the cost of the gas (ICE) engine and its various poisons, fluids, hoses and systems.
Domestic natural gas should be the mandated fuel for big trucks, delivery vehicles and company vehicles that drive hundreds of miles in a day. All other vehicles should be 100% electric eventually. Right now that’s not practical so the EREV is the right choice in the near term (10 years or so at most) but with advances in battery tech (or whatever energy storage tech that wins) there will be no advantage to any other propulsion system.
Trains are EREV-type hybrids. The wheels are driven by electric power only. The diesel engines are only gensets. If it works for a train what makes you think your pickup truck can’t operate on electric power (given battery enough to supply good range).
Apr 2nd, 2009 (10:08 am)There Will Be (Hyper)Inflation!
http://mises.org/story/3390
Building things that few can afford will not save GM.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (10:13 am)Dave G-overnment (#47)
Your comment requires a repost:
“As the White House has said, they do not intend to run a car company, much less make product decisions.” HA HA HA HA HA… that’s a good one!
This administration is EXACTLY like the last administration because what they SAY and what they DO are usually polar opposites.
Say: “We must be fiscally responsible and tighten our belts”
Do: Biggest spending bill in the nation’s history all on borrowed/created debt. Keynes would be so proud!
Say: “We will have complete transparency”
Do: Not giving congress time to read bills before voting. Those who voted Aye on any bill they did not read are Traitors!
Say: “We will put all spending bills on the internet 7 days before the vote.”
Do: Place propaganda on a website with no real substance.
Say: “We will get out of Iraq”
Do: Troops there indefinitely and send MORE troops to Afghanistan
Say: “No more Earmarks & Pork… ever!”
Do: PorkZilla and Porkzilla II, (the sequel) are almost ALL earmarks.
http://www.benjaminbradley.com/politics/obama-lies-about-earmarks-in-stimulus-bill/
Say: “We don’t want to run the auto industry”
Do: Appoint a committee to “oversee” the auto industry and fire GM’s CEO because it’s politically good to be seen as “doing something” other than just digging a huge debt hole.
Maybe these Statists should have just obeyed their OATH to the Constitution and let Bankruptcy work instead of giving $Billions in taxpayer debt created “money” to for-profit companies FOR NOTHING?
Only those FOOLS who still watch the Chairman’s propaganda arm, CNBC still have faith and hope. It won’t be long before the American people get tired of the lies, doublespeak and wake up to the Chairman’s/banker’s hidden world gov’t oligarchy socialist agenda.
Welcome to the USSA brought to you by the New World Order!
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” -Thomas Jefferson
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” — Thomas Jefferson
“From my cold, dead hands!” — Charlton Heston
Apr 2nd, 2009 (10:17 am)22 Vincent: “Bring back the passion GM lost so long ago. The only GM Classics are from the 60’s and 70’s This is an instant classic. Passion makes people “have to have that car”. They forgot this long ago.”
The problem is that the masses don’t have a passion for cars any more. They don’t care about styling any more. Look at Toyota’s bland styling with cheap plastic interiors of late and Honda’s & Acura’s awful styling, but they sell well. Many consumers just look at what the deceptive little circles in Consumer Reports have to tell them. Deceptive because the difference between solid red and solid black circles is for the most part only a few percentage points, whereas most people think it’s an even scale of 0% to 100%.
America doesn’t have a big love affair with cars any more. Travel has always been a glorious thing… the problem is that people take trips by plane nowadays. The car is viewed as an appliance to get to and from work, guy groceries, take kids to sports, etc.
Mind you, it’s nothing that some good marketing can’t fix.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (10:17 am)#46 Dale Says: 2 lines – Small Car = Converj – Electra – Volt
Small SUV = SRX – Vue(or Whatever the Buick will be) – Equinox
————————————————————————————–
I don’t think the battery economics are there yet to do any kind of EREV SUV.
But they have entertained an EREV version of the Orlando, which is kind of like cross between a tall station-wagon and a really small mini-van, but with SUV type styling. The Orlando is built on the same platform as the Volt, Cruze, and Converj, so it a relatively small vehicle.
The regular gas-engine version of the Orlando seems to have been canceled in the U.S., but is still set for 2010 production overseas.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (10:21 am)I would love to see an S-10 size EREV pickup to replace my current S-10, which is getting a little tired. 2nd choice a small van.
How about somethig like the electric Transit that Ford is going to sell here? A plain Jane commercial version of the Orlando would work too. That’s probably better. Have a jazzed up fancy version for family transport and a stripper for commercial use.
I would think that EREV commercial vehicles would resonate with a government which wants to reduce oil consumption. They do a lot of miles.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (10:22 am)GM management made a choice of having three distribution channels Chevy, PBG. and Caddy, along time ago. ThehPBG channel is already more than 80% completed. To make these dealers viable, they all have tot have an attractive vehicle to sell. That almost dictates an Electra spin-off of the Volt.
The fourth vehicle, and the Third one that GM is asking for the Section 136 loans, could logically be the Orlando EREV. Don’t forget that the Orlando is a RAV-4 competitor, or sub-RAv4 and perhaps half a size downsized. An electric Voltec Orlando would seem pretty easy to do.
At the same time GM really needs to push forward a solution for larger cars and larger CUVs, as a PHEV. The downsized dual-mode in a FWD configuration as has long been planned, and showing up on the Vue, makes sense for GM.
The batteries and EREV architecture will eventually expand in scope, but GM needs to build a solution for its larger cars, CUVs, and very light trucks that is viable before 2015. These are usually profitable vehicles and GM needs an electric image car for these vehicles too.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (10:28 am)#48 CS Guy Says: The only way we will get off our addiction to foreign oil is to go 100% electric for cars and light trucks.
————————————————————————————–
No, that’s not the only way, and it’s not really even feasible.
Everyone says that EREVs are just a temporary step to a world of pure electric vehicles, but when you look at the details, this doesn’t make any sense, for many reasons:
1) Liquid fuels have the highest energy density, by far.
2) We have a huge infrastructure of liquid fuel filling stations that took 50 years to build.
3) Charging in 20 minutes is a lot slower that filling your tank in 5 minutes.
4) Charging a 300-mile BEV SUV in 20 minutes will require 360,000 watts of charging power. Try making that connection with rain or snow dripping down your car. Kaboom!
5) Fast-charging stations require batteries for storage and are not cheap to biuld. A new infrastructure of fast charging stations would cost trillions of dollars.
6) Using cellulosic gasification, ethanol can replace up to 35% of our gasoline consumption, without any affect on our food supply
httpwww.coskata.comEthanolFeedstockPotential.asp
Together with EREVs, that’s more than enough to completely replace gasoline.
7) Using cellulosic gasification, ethanol can be made for as little as $1 per gallon
httpnews.cnet.com8301-11128_3-9928810-54.html
The internal combustion engine will be around for a long, long time. Get used to the idea.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (10:31 am)#48 CS Guy Says: Domestic natural gas should be the mandated fuel for big trucks, delivery vehicles and company vehicles that drive hundreds of miles in a day.
————————————————————————————–
CNG (compressed natural gas) makes no sense.
CNG has the worst carbon emissions. CNG is worse that gasoline. CNG is worse than fuel cells (a.k.a. Fool Sells). CNG is worse than diesel.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/greendorm/participate/cee124/TeslaReading.pdf
(See page 4)
CNG does emit less pollutants, but note that carbon dioxide is not currently classified as a pollutant.
CNG requires a completely new infrastructure (like fool sells). Probably take 25 years to roll out.
CNG engines are extremely inefficient. That’s why carbon emissions are so high.
Now, if you come from big oil, and you see the writing on the wall – oil is running out – then you would think CNG is great. It will allow you to hold on to your monopoly. Electricity and ethanol can be made made from lots of sources,
http://www.coskata.com/EthanolFeedstockPotential.asp
so that’s way too much competition for an oil man.
But if you’re not an oil man, CNG is a really bad idea.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (10:31 am)#47 CS Guy
Lead-foot driving is lead-foot driving, no matter if you do it in an EV or an ICE. It is an attitude. A narcisstic, kick-ass attitude. Get the hell out of my way! My monster truck needs more power!
We want Mayberry (Andy Griffith reference; sorry kids), we’re getting Bladerunner’s Los Angeles. Might makes right.
Give me a small BEV and cooperative people on the road.
BTW, I might be old, but why do they calli it a “soapbox?”
Apr 2nd, 2009 (10:36 am)@carcus1 18
“How about we do the reasonable thing and get the volt out into the hands of independent testers before we commit any more government dollars..”
I agree. Get one out at least before running back to ask for more $$$. It’s like a poor mannerd child shoveling chocolate in their mouth with one in hand and asking for more. You haven’t finished the first one!
Besides, wasn’t one of the problems with GM the fact that they had redundent products? Now they are doing it again? Wasn’t the Volt a “Global” car?
Apr 2nd, 2009 (10:43 am)I can’t wait for the Volt. I keep nagging the local dealerships to take my $1000.00 deposit so I will on the list to get one. Maybe GM should start a real list? Lyle, sell them yours…..I will keep my position of 1984….and get a Volt.
NPNS – Sooner the better
Apr 2nd, 2009 (10:51 am)Regarding lead-foot driving, GM did a detailed study on U.S. driving habits, and found that the average driver does indeed have a bit of a lead foot. This makes PHEVs like the Plug-in Prius look a lot worse, and EREVs like the Volt look at lot better.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/02/gm-study-shows.html
Apr 2nd, 2009 (10:53 am)ThombDbhomb @57 asked, “…why do they call it a ‘soapbox?’”
The phrase comes from a time when orators would stand on a soapbox crate to deliver speeches…
Here’s a link that explains it better…
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/5/messages/1302.html
Apr 2nd, 2009 (10:54 am)Make the Volt first. Then after it is in the hands of consumers and there is REAL world data you can make the next PHEV better.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (10:55 am)The task force concluded what we concluded when the price of the Volt went north of $30,000. To quote “GM needs to get the price down.”
What part of that is so difficult to grasp?? One, two, three or a half dozen versions that are priced above $30,000 will not gain market share. Lets get real folks.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (10:55 am)It’s hard for me to consider the Volt an electric car or any other ER-EV for that matter. An electric car runs entirely on batteries and has no place to store fuel for an ICE. The Volt having been designed with such a limited range needs something to cover up the poor design range. And GM want’s to build 4 more models just like it (don’t forget the Ampera already proposed).
The main reason I want an electric car is to eliminate the biggest source of my personal CO2 emissions. On many weekends I would be burning some gas with the Volt as my car. And on some weekdays too. My commute is near the range limit of the Volt at 36.8 hilly miles round trip.
My ideal car is something like the eBox with a 120 mile range and a fair amount of cargo capacity. I could sell my gas burner and for when I want to drive the 325 miles to my dad’s house for Christmas, I’ll rent a Prius with the money I didn’t spend on gas the rest of the year and still have a fatter wallet. This would fulfill my weekend travel needs and weekday errands for my boss.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (10:57 am)More E-REVs would definitely bring down costs as they can be amortized over more units. GM will definitely be a player in the next gen EV market.
#56 Dave G says “CNG (compressed natural gas) makes no sense.”
It’s being presented as an interim solution. The infrastructure issues aren’t so difficult if the idea is to focus on long haul trucks. Years ago you could only get diesel at truck stops and that didn’t really limit diesel trucks.
Bio-fuels are promising but at the moment they are not ready for prime time. Plus it’s always hard to predict the pace of breakthroughs.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (11:00 am)Good report, Lyle. It is nice to see GM still planning for additional electric vehicles. It is still too early to determine if any of this will come to pass. Let’s just hope for the best and encourage GM to work through their current difficulty as best as they can. No, wait. Let’s make that “much better than they are expected”. Good luck, GM.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (11:00 am)They need to work on a 20 mile all electric range model at a lower price point. As long as fuel prices are relatively low it would make the volt a much better buy. As it stands now the cost of the big battery is what’s pushing the volt price into the uneconomical area.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (11:06 am)Tesla S is a better Volt than the Volt.
With GM getting all these handouts I sure hope Tesla gets their fair share. If Tesla got, say, $10 billion they would be able to totally destroy GM and the Volt, no doubt about it. This is all good’ol boy politics rewarding GM for failure.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (11:07 am)I think the first two should be the Converj and Buick Electra (sorry people who want bigger cars, GM says that needs more development). After that they can try to expand to the Chevy Orlando Van, since it is still on the Delta Platform. It would be a great small city work van/ soccer mom minivan. Only after that should GM spend the money to branch out from the compact delta. Despite GM’s dire situation, I am very excited about the range of possibilities- I truly believe EREV is the best car technology I’ve ever seen.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (11:08 am)Johann Says: Make the Volt first. Then after it is in the hands of consumers and there is REAL world data you can make the next PHEV better.
————————————————————————————–
First, GM has abandonded the term PHEV for the Volt. Tesla seems to support them on that:
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog3/?p=67
“Many people have criticized GM for spinning the issue and calling the Volt an EV with a range extender, and not a hybrid. Those people are usually surprised when I tell them I agree with GM 100% on this. Although the technical terminology of series hybrid has been in existence for over 100 years, the marketplace has redefined “Hybrid” in such a way that I think it misrepresents the key differences between the platforms. You might argue that the average Joe won’t understand the difference between series and parallel hybrid systems if you were to tell them about it, but I can assure you that they will understand the difference when they get behind the wheel. “
Second, GM has already announced a dozen cost and performance improvements for the 2012 Volt, and that was a while ago, so there are probably more by now. You have to remember that development works like a pipeline. There are different engineers for each step of the development process. By the time the test engineers are testing mules, the engineers that developed the body, interior, and other various parts have pretty much moved on. Unless the testing shows a design flaw, they’ll be working on something else. That could be the the following model year Volt, some other EREV, or something else. I would rather have them working on the next EREVs, Volt or otherwise.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (11:11 am)Can someone please post a link to the GM business plan update where GM adds this additional request for $2.6b? I have found a billion articles giving the general details, but can’t seem to locate the actual business plan update itself that they gave the Dept of Treasury yesterday. Thanks in advance!
Apr 2nd, 2009 (11:13 am)#69 ccombs Says: After that they can try to expand to the Chevy Orlando Van, since it is still on the Delta Platform. It would be a great small city work van/ soccer mom minivan. Only after that should GM spend the money to branch out from the compact delta. Despite GM’s dire situation, I am very excited about the range of possibilities- I truly believe EREV is the best car technology I’ve ever seen.
————————————————————————————–
Ditto.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (11:13 am)Since all you others are putting your two cents into the discussion about what GM should be building next, let me add mine. I don’t mind the Cadillac model because it is very upscale and would sell very good to the “upper crust”. I don’t think we need a Buick sedan model to compete with the Volt. That is what it would do. I don’t care if the model is called a Buick or Chevrolet, but I think they should offer a cross-over vehicle like the Orlando to address that market. Having a Buick and a Chevy Volt 4-passenger sedan would be unnecessary. GM needs to address either the van, small truck or cross-over market as soon as possible. Other companies will be addressing those markets about the same time GM can get the third model to market. Having two 4-passenger sedans is one sedan two many at this time. Expand the base, GM. Go for something higher up on the fruit tree. The Chevy Volt will be enough “up-scale” to address the sedan market. The Cadillac model will address the “money” crowd. You need to address another segment beyond these two. IMO.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (11:18 am)So they want us (the taxpayers) to give the money to build the cars, then they want us (their customers) to pay again to buy the cars.
What a fantastic business model. I am going to start a new business where the customers pays to manufacture AND purchase the product. Woohoo! Go GM!
Apr 2nd, 2009 (11:24 am)resurrect the ev1. No more land barges, GM. Planet in crisis , folks.
in 1998, ev 1 had curb weight of 2900 lbs(including a 1147 lb 26kWh NiMH battery . cd .19.- traveled about 5-6mi/ kwh. Todays reinvented version might have a curb weight of, say, 2400 lbs(including a 600 lb 26 kwh lithium battery, have a cd of .17- travel 8 or 9 miles/kwh of electricity… Going out on a limb now….Estimated Cost, with the economy of GMs mass production, under 27K(way under if government subsidized ev battery , as in Japan*) Range, 100-150 mi/charge,
*Japanese government offers(to offer) incentives of almost $16000 off retail price on iMiEV. http://www.hybridcars.com/electric-cars/miitsubishi-all-electric-car-2010-imiev.html
(rav4 has curb weight of 3400 lbs, cd .33 – travels about 3mi/kwh of electricity.
aptera has c. w. of 1700 lbs, cd .15- travels about 10 mi/kwh. Cost, @ 25K)
Apr 2nd, 2009 (11:26 am)#68 Youda Farmer Says: Tesla S is a better Volt than the Volt.
————————————————————————————–
The Tesla S is a pure BEV, so I would never buy one. I’m not alone here.
The Tesla S costs $50K after tax credits. The Volt costs $30K after tax credits.
The Tesla Model S uses consumer electronics grade batteries that last around 5 years. The Volt uses a new battery chemistry that lasts at least 10 years. What’s more, the Volt only uses 50% of the battery capacity initially in order to maintain the 40-mile range over the full 10-year warranty.
To date, Tesla has only produced 250 high-end sports cars, which are basically hand built. The body and frame are built by Lotus to Tesla’s specs.
So Tesla has never mass produced cars, not even close. Expect some bumps in the road to production…
By the way, I really respect Tesla and Elon Musk, and I credit them for changing our mindset about electric drive. But even Elon Musk admits he doesn’t want to compete head-on with a major car maker. If anything, he would rather work together with the big auto companies by licensing their technology, as they did with Daimler.
I think Tesla will grow a little and be profitable, but I don’t see them competing with the big boys.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (11:29 am)#74 TRex Says: So they want us (the taxpayers) to give the money to build the cars, then they want us (their customers) to pay again to buy the cars.
————————————————————————————–
No. They want us (the taxpayers) to loan them the money to build the cars, then they want us (their customers) to pay to buy the cars.
I think this is a good idea.
Remember, if GM goes bust, the taxpayers are first-in-line to be repaid from the liquidation.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (11:33 am)#73 N Riley,
I agree totally.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (11:34 am)#51…Yes I see your point…however that’s the limited choices consumers have had. Reliable cheap plastic or Un-reliable cheap plastic. Ho Hum OK honey lets get the reliable one.
Bring Back the Passion with QUALITY and no cheap plastic. Watch consumers flock.
By the way the DOW hit 8,000 today…I say again we have hit bottom and things are going to get better.
come on Fritzy Boy.
Oh Yeah Baby!
BUILD the CONVERJ GM…WITH ZERO CHANGES!
Apr 2nd, 2009 (11:36 am)Gentlemen , Gentlemen , We all want to see this Voltage technology go forward and set the standard of excellence by GM as well as Ford and Chrysler , no mistake about it .
However we have to be realistic too .
Sure most of us want to go to the 40 mile plug-in type of vehicle whether it is a Volt or some other designated name and shape.
We must be cognizant of the fact that it is a perilous time in the global economy and we have to be very realistic in the approach to making profits and a workable viable company .
With that in mind it would be a wise decision of GM to do their best to market the Volt in three different configurations all based upon the same size shape and design .
Practically speaking , I think that the best way would be to bring out the lowest cost version and the fourty mile version at the same time .
From appearances they would look identical , but physically they would be very different . The basic version would be a Prius killer that would get an all electric range of 10 miles , still be plug in and be able to add extra battery capacity to increase the electric range to 20 miles or even to the 40 miles . The reasons for this is straight forward , many of us want the technology , but many of us cant afford the expected cost of the 40 mile range one either . Now if the people at GM are serious about the Volt’s introduction and success from sales , the first thing to consider are the demographics of the interested perspective buyers . Not a I want list posted on a web site . No marketing manager in his right mind would even consider that for perspective sales other than maybe 5% of any such a list at best .
A basic Volt with a 10 mile range could either be a plug-in range extended electric vehicle or operate as a full time Hybrid where the owner doesn’t have to plug it in at all , but just drive it like a regular hybrid and put gas in the small tank .
I would like to see GM as a business offer a 10 , 20 , and a 40 mile Electric Volt so that there are price options available to the consumers .
Money talks and if you don’t have enough money than nobody listens to you . That is real life .
The parallel development and introduction and sale of the Converj would be excellent for deferring cost and bringing a quicker break even point for the development costs and again it should be made as a 10 mile all electric vehicle and a beautiful top of the line Caddy that can be operated as a hybrid vehicle or as an extended range electric . Either way it should be introduced and produced as a four door model right from the start and exactly as shown in the pictures as a two door only about a foot longer to easily accommodate the rear doors and the passengers . This could easily be done on the same assembly line and possibly even another version for Buick . If things were done that way with the vehicles then there would be a price for most every pocket book and the technology would get to the masses much quicker than trying to get a premium price for a Chevy . $35,000 is not a price that the average person is willing or can afford to pay when $25,000 is about the limit most people are hard pressed to pay for a new car now .
If you can pay $60,000 ( Converj price ) for a car you most certainly aren’t thinking about owning a Chevy , you are more drawn to the Cadillac , Mercedes , Audi , etc , but definitely not Chevrolet .
A 10 mile plug-in capable hybrid would walk all over a Prius , would get much much better acceleration and have a higher miles per gallon rating too , the only thing different would be the programming of the electronics for the gen-set to keep the battery at 85% charged and a few ultra capacitors to fully capture the regenerative breaking and for acceleration from stop and for rapid passing and merging .
This is a business that we all want to see succeed and we want to be proud Americans , we must beat the Japanese at their own game , they started it now it is up to us to finish it and do it right . Make our cars so good that they can’t compete with us . (we includes Canada)
Again this is business , it is not a friendly little game with foreign automakers anymore this is for real and business has to be very serious to survive and prosper .
No more Mr nice guy , friendly , yes , nice guy NO .
We can do it !!!
Apr 2nd, 2009 (11:42 am)#68 Youda Farmer says “Tesla S is a better Volt than the Volt.”
The Model S represents the triumph of hyperbole over reality. The battery pack makes it commercially unfeasible in the short run and commercially limited in the medium run. If it is built at all, and that is highly unlikely, it will cost at least $20K more than advertised.
Snake oil salesmen are more believable than Elon Musk. IMHO
Apr 2nd, 2009 (11:45 am)#1 nasaman Says: Kudos to GM for planning to offer three other variants of the Volt — let’s hope these will all be positioned as luxury models, such as a Cadillac Converj and a Buick Excelle
————————————————————————————–
#31 Dave G Says:Let’s hope that they build an EREV station wagon or micro-van. After all, Subaru is the only company whose sales are up.
=================
Works for me….seems like a good segment, lol.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (11:48 am)Points :
1) 2 mode is not down sizable ( else we should have seen a malibu 2 mode hybrid or a cruze 2 mode hybrid )
2) GM is lagging in green technologies :
http://www.ipfrontline.com/downloads/apa-intel-09.pdf
now the question is on voltec because 2.6Billion is high money for a scaled voltec application and GMs market cap is only 2 Billion.
so question is is Voltec scalable and efficient ?
2) questions to answer :
1) Battery technologies : when it will reach 400 miles on single charge and charge with in 5 minutes for common man.
2) Extended range : There are 3 losses ( gas to mech, mech to electric, electric back to mech ). How this can prove better than strong hybrid – where ice connects directly to wheels when its operating at optimal point. how software and algorithms does compensate for other losses. I think we need clear maths and if maths proves it, its will be a patented maths
which is licensable.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (11:49 am)I’m with all those that want a variant of a 4-door rather than another Volt.
minivan or pick-up seem to be the best choice. I know, we’re dealing with the DELTA platform- BUT IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE FLEXIBLE.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (11:50 am)A basic Volt with a 10 mile range could either be a plug-in range extended electric vehicle or operate as a full time Hybrid where the owner doesn’t have to plug it in at all , but just drive it like a regular hybrid and put gas in the small tank.
I would like to see GM as a business offer a 10 , 20 , and a 40 mile Electric Volt so that there are price options available to the consumers.
___________________________
Sensible, constructive messages being posted.
That must be a sign that the end is near!
Apr 2nd, 2009 (12:04 pm)Hopefully the building of 3 models will help bring the costs of the Volt down. There would be a lot of shared components between them and would help reduce production costs. This would also allow them to run the production line full time like any other plant and pump out more cars.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (12:04 pm)I would love to see a nice EREV crossover that looks like the GMC Acadia and the Chevy Traverse.
With a larger family, we need 3 rows of seating, but we also need an EREV. I really think something like that would catch on… or just a classic minivan (though i am not much of a minivan man myself)
Apr 2nd, 2009 (12:05 pm)#23 Gorden Green When GM emerges from it’s short bankruptcy, I agree, an E-Rev mini-van would be a great use for the advanced technology loans.
I’ve always been envious of the Toyota RAV4 EV drivers. Why can’t a reborn GM with lots of advanced technology loans produce something as good?
_________________________________________
yeah, they can make it similar in size to the Ford Escape. We would have a ton of middle aged women who want to be green, but don’t want to be seen in a Minivan so label it an “ESUV”.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (12:12 pm)We are 90 odd posts in…hard to believe no one has any issue with GM asking for another 2.6 billion to spin off a couple more EV based on the Volt. (or 10.3 all in)
I mean, 2.6 billion?…and GM hasn’t even shown us anything, other than a reskinned Volt as a high end Cadillac application? Why would the DoE even consider this? There is no mention in their application of what they would build, by when or how many.
10.3 billion all told? Is the gov’t to fund all R&D going forward at GM for the next 2 years? I haven’t seen the final tally the GM spend on R&D for 2008, but I expect it to be around 5-6 billion for the year.
And this are loans, supposedly only going for 5-10 years…has any thought been given to paying it back, or are they just trying to hoover in every penny they possibly can?
People say there is too much public outrage for automakers and not enough for banks…but this is crazy. Please give us 10.3 billion to build…um, something or other…not sure just what yet, but we promise to do it…or maybe we will just use it against some projects we already had planned and then skim all that money for other things.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (12:15 pm)This is what is currently going on in China in regards to hybrid and electric cars, take note of the government buying support for customers . Look at the numbers too .
China Vies to Be World’s Leader in Electric Cars
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30009998
Originally posted link found on
http://evworld.com/evworld_wire.cfm
Apr 2nd, 2009 (12:16 pm)#85 john1710a says “That must be a sign that the end is near!”
Could be. The Department of Energy has said that PHEV10s and PHEV20s will dominate the market. (It would call the Volt a PHEV40).
But these have no pizazz. Bring on the Volt with it’s 40 mile range so we can SNEER at those pathetic Prius drivers who have to make due with 20th century technology. We’ll think of them as we roar off from the red light, the Prius becoming a distant speck in the rear view mirror as it gingerly accelerates. LOL
Apr 2nd, 2009 (12:20 pm)#80 Keith
I agree with nearly all you said. Even tho I love my Buick, I think if a Buick version is made it should only be a rebadged Volt with a better interior. I firmly believe the Orlando would result in more sales than the Buick.
As far as 10, 20, 30, or 40 mile EV range goes I am with you, If I could get a 20 mile range for say $5000.00 less I would probably do it. If I actually got 50 mpg when the Ice was operating the car then I would end up buying about 2 Gal of gas a month, About 3 times a year I would end up buying gas for long trips. I estimate my gas purchases for a year would be approx 90 gallons.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (12:20 pm)#89 statik says “hard to believe no one has any issue with GM asking for another 2.6 billion to spin off a couple more EV based on the Volt. (or 10.3 all in)”
The big issue you are completely missing is: Compared to what? The money has been allocated. The DOE is required to issue the loans. So which company in your mind is more deserving? Tesla? Bright Automotive? Aptera? Chrysler?
Being the Queen of the Pigs is sometimes enough.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (12:23 pm)For those who have larger families or who need a little extra cargo space, why does the first thought seem to be off-road vehicles? A minivan will have more room than a comparably sized SUV. A sport-wagon will have more room than a comparably sized crossover.
Check out the 3rd picture of the Orlando here:
http://www.chevrolet.com/orlando/
The Orlando is basically a station wagon with a raised roof and SUV-type styling. It will seat 7 people, or 5 people and lots of luggage, or 2 people with a fairly big cargo area. Why don’t more people want this type of vehicle?
Apr 2nd, 2009 (12:26 pm)It seems there will be plenty of buyers in the Model S range….
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/04/02/tesla-receives-over-500-models-s-reservations-in-first-week/
Now, this car in not even close to prod and folks are out to buy it putting real $$$ for a deposit. Doesn’t GM see this? Can you imagine how many Volts they can sell NOW.
I’m not a Tesla Fan but so far they have a product on the ground with 300 some odd delivered. OK, some of you will say “We don’t even know if it will be built” but the same principle goes for the Volt as well AND there is no product even on the ground delivered.
My order is easy, stripped down no features not even an ICE or Generator. How easy is that?
Apr 2nd, 2009 (12:27 pm)#93 DonC Says: Being the Queen of the Pigs is sometimes enough.
————————————————————————————-
Yeah. Laugh out loud.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (12:30 pm)#91 DonC Says: The Department of Energy has said that PHEV10s and PHEV20s will dominate the market. (It would call the Volt a PHEV40).
————————————————————————————–
That seems insane!
Do you have a reference?
Apr 2nd, 2009 (12:33 pm)“Bring back the passion GM lost so long ago.
The only GM Classics are from the 60’s and 70’s
This is an instant classic.
Passion makes people “have to have that car”
They forgot this long ago.
Wake up stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DO NOT CHANGE THE CONVERJ CONCEPT. IF YOU DO DON’T BOTHER TO BUILD IT.”
Perhaps you mean late ’50s and ’60s, when agile little imports started limiting GM’s market share. In the ’70s, the smaller the GM vehicle, the more concentrated its great crappiness was (the Vega being the classic pinnacle of concentrated crappiness, with the Monza close behind IMHO).
There was a car survey test published by Car & Driver or Road & Track maybe a decade ago regarding car character. Passion was a central element… “Was your car made by a company led by an inspirational character?” i.e. Lotus’ Colin Chapman or Honda’s Soichiro Honda. The CRX died the same year as Soichiro Honda, and many feel the company spent at least several years then wandering lost, producing until recently increasingly bloated things and increasingly fake hybrids and thereby losing the clean & efficient crown to Toyota’s relatively heavy Prius. The S2000 and MkI Insight IMHO are the only cars worthy of the heritage of the earlier Hondas (I’ve driven only mid-’80s Civics and CRXes for 17 years now, finding absolutely nothing but the occasional almost-affordable Insight as a worthy potential replacement, with used Toyota Celicas having alarmingly 1980 Turbo RS Capri -like specs).
I traded a sloppily engineered turbo 1980 Ford for my first Honda in ’91 secure in the confidence that America could and would eventually rise back up and out-compete the Asian upstarts. I didn’t think it would take two to five decades, depending how you look at it. We always get our butts kicked around for awhile before figuring out how to have a brain again, but with GM’s apparent transition from making the EV1 to “prove” EVs shouldn’t be produced to having its future riding largely on the spread of the Voltec platform (plus glowing reviews for recent Ford hybrids) suggests maybe, finally that faith in the American car industry from so long ago it seems was justifiable after all.
The Austrian-born dad of a friend once mentioned he was sure GM would be reduced to GMAC Financing from negligence, and most relatively modern models have always seemed at best just “numbers cars” with no real character, reliability or personality to me. GM does appear to be trying fairly hard for a “Hail Mary” pass at survival here, throwing much of the remains of the Mighty GM Engineering Pool into EREV development and, unlike with the EV1, actual real-world sales .
If there would eventually be a smaller, more nimble version produced that oozed from its every surface demonstration that those who produced and made it actually, truly gave a damn about what it was they were creating (like the seriously rust-prone Hondas I’ve sworn by for so long), I would want one while very seriously hoping that those with more disposable cash bought them in significant numbers.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (12:38 pm)Approved! Give them the additional loans, especially if they use it to build that nice looking car.
But please, under no conditions, do not voltize that Converj!
GO EV !
Apr 2nd, 2009 (12:38 pm)#94 Dave G
I have nothing wrong with the Orlando (just a concept right now)… I just want it as an EREV.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (12:40 pm)#63 Van Says: The task force concluded what we concluded when the price of the Volt went north of $30,000. To quote “GM needs to get the price down.”
What part of that is so difficult to grasp??
————————————————————————————–
I find this very difficult to grasp.
The price of the battery will come down significantly as sales volumes increase. If the government doesn’t believe that, then why did they issue a $7500 tax credit?
The whole point of a tax credit is to get sales volumes up to the point where the tax credit is no longer necessary. That’s how it worked with the Prius. Why do they think the Volt will be different?
Apr 2nd, 2009 (12:43 pm)“We are 90 odd posts in…hard to believe no one has any issue with GM asking for another 2.6 billion to spin off a couple more EV based on the Volt. (or 10.3 all in)”
I have a HUGE problem with it. Like I said before I’m not paying them to build it AND to buy it. Why don’t we just all direct deposit a portion of our bank accounts into GM and its workers. Would THAT be enough to give them the honor of building cars?
I’ve had enough of this crap, I’m buying a Subaru.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (12:47 pm)A basic Volt with a 10 mile range could either be a plug-in range extended electric vehicle or operate as a full time Hybrid where the owner doesn’t have to plug it in at all , but just drive it like a regular hybrid and put gas in the small tank.
I would like to see GM as a business offer a 10 , 20 , and a 40 mile Electric Volt so that there are price options available to the consumers.
___________________________
#85john1701a Says:
Sensible, constructive messages being posted.
That must be a sign that the end is near!
===============================
Indeed. I would also like to see a lessor and/or greater range system being offered. Maybe a 10 at first, then 80 down the road.
Despite GM’s ‘optimum range’ graphs and the constant hammering of how perfect a 40 mile range is here on the boards, it would be nice to see some flexibility out of GM here…especially, if they are gunning for another 2.6 billion. I get the feeling they are really sticking to one standard, one platform…which could end up hurting them in the long rung.
I think the idea of a 10 mile range at first is a good idea for a couple reasons:
1.) Pricing: it would bring it down to a price where more people could afford it. You are looking at about $10,000 less in pack costs (assuming the double pack priced into the MSRP). Something like $39,900 and $29,499 pre-rebates…of course the smaller pack would have less rebate…but they would still end up around $32,500 and $26,999
2.) Production: Quite simply the roadblock here is batteries, and their availability. If you can only get 10,000 packs of 16kW for 160,000 in 2011, then you can only produce 10,000 cars…if you have 5kW packs, then you can have 31,000 packs…or 31,000 cars. By splitting the difference you could have 4,000 40 milers in the first year and 20,000 10 milers.
You run into some issues with line capacity on year two, but it would still leave the door (and battery capacity) open to be flexible, something like 25,000 (40 milers), and 120,000 (10 milers).
When talking about recouping costs and making the project profitable…having a battery a third to a quarter the size and having the option at least to produce four times as many would certainly go a long way to getting there.
I think it would serve GM well to get out as many Volts as they can the first couple years. They make good on the 40 miler, and they have 10 milers as well, “Volt-lite” They have three times the cars out there, almost three times the revenue, and people only have to wait a thrid as long to get their Volt.
…maybe then GM can get a Volt to me before someone else takes that business
Apr 2nd, 2009 (12:48 pm)Going after Government money?
Better propose a middle-America vehicle.
Perhaps a van that can range from Family Van to Small Business Delivery van.
The other one might need to be smaller and more efficient than the Volt.
But thats if Government money being spent.
Gotta make DC happy here.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (12:49 pm)WCFJ Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:35 am .I’d like to see something along the lines of a S10/Colorado size pickup with the Voltec system.
————————————————————————————
Exactly!
If GM makes a mid-size E-REV pickup to replace my ’04 Colorado, I’d forget about the Volt in a heartbeat. My current plan is to get a Volt for my commute and keep my Colorado for my towing and hauling (weekend) duties.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (12:53 pm)Since we’re all looking for differen’t EREV, I want a small EREV Pickemup truck, say a Colorado.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (12:56 pm)#103 Statik (me)
Not saying that would (or is likely) to happen. Just something I think would be a smart move on GM’s part…and something that would be well received by the public.
The ’40 mile only’ crowd can still get them, the ’10 mile range is fine’ crowd can have theirs…and the ‘I don’t care, just give me a fricken EV’ already crowd also gets a car.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (1:01 pm)CaptJack
Don’t say Colorado. Say ‘El Camino’.
It has a better ring to it.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (1:12 pm)#94 Dave G said:
For those who have larger families or who need a little extra cargo space, why does the first thought seem to be off-road vehicles? A minivan will have more room than a comparably sized SUV. A sport-wagon will have more room than a comparably sized crossover.
Check out the 3rd picture of the Orlando here:
http://www.chevrolet.com/orlando/
The Orlando is basically a station wagon with a raised roof and SUV-type styling. It will seat 7 people, or 5 people and lots of luggage, or 2 people with a fairly big cargo area. Why don’t more people want this type of vehicle?
==========================
I love the 6/7 seater as the first choice of ‘non-sedans’. Before I seen the Chrysler T&C one, I had never even thought of it…but afterwards I was thinking, “that makes a lot of sense” Unfortunately, my next thought was, “too bad it is coming from Chrysler and will never get made” lol
Apr 2nd, 2009 (1:12 pm)The whole point of a tax credit is to get sales volumes up to the point where the tax credit is no longer necessary. That’s how it worked with the Prius.
________________________
No, it only helped to reach out to more consumers. Volume didn’t change.
Prius was already selling well before the credit… 107,897 to be specific (2005). Then when the year the full credit was available (2006), sales were 106,971.
The point of Volt should be to get the platform out on the road right away, then worry about increasing capacity later. Priorities are definitely screwed up now. The original plan of “nicely under $30,000” has been lost.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (1:22 pm)unfortunatley increasing number of Americans are against auto bail out ( the last no: is 76% ) . Mostly it looks GM has to go through a big pressure.
And china – govt is funding for electric vehicles so they can be world leader.
And Americans : funding Chinese companies, buying Chinese /import products, supporting their products and living : question is how long this will go ?
Apr 2nd, 2009 (1:34 pm)#95 CaptJackSparrow Says:
It seems there will be plenty of buyers in the Model S range….
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/04/02/tesla-receives-over-500-models-s-reservations-in-first-week/
Now, this car in not even close to prod and folks are out to buy it putting real $$$ for a deposit. Doesn’t GM see this? Can you imagine how many Volts they can sell NOW.
I’m not a Tesla Fan but so far they have a product on the ground with 300 some odd delivered. OK, some of you will say “We don’t even know if it will be built” but the same principle goes for the Volt as well AND there is no product even on the ground delivered.
My order is easy, stripped down no features not even an ICE or Generator. How easy is that?
=========================
I noticed that as well, you have to assume that these 520 deposits/commitments, plus another few thousand that are likely to come, are missed opportunities/lost sales for GM….for no good reason. (Some of course are Tesla Roadster owners, and just want/are loyal to the brand)
What is the harm in taking open ended deposits? The Model S starts production in late 2011? When are these people expecting these cars…2013? And they are still willing to ante up. Whats the worst that can happen? You give them back?
The more car companys that come to market and also start taking orders are in essence taking away demand/production from the Volt. I know GM is thinking they are going to roll this like the new Insight/Prius/Cube (whatever is hot), by just shipping whatever they make to the approved dealers…and those dealers get a representation share based on their historical volumes. However, at some point 6 months to a year down the road, the car has lots its ‘OMG its a new car’ vibe and that rush wanes.
GM could take 100,000+ pre-orders w/deposits starting now until production without too much trouble….thats over 2 years production, and ‘regular joes’ would still be frothing to get them after those 2 years expired…because they couldn’t just walk into a dealership and get one (everybody wants what they can’t have).
I’ll use myself as a example (again). My own standards here are pretty low…”Any PHEV that can be serviced within its EV range”.
If Toyota says tomorrow that they are taking deposits on a 10 mile plug-in with an expected ship date of late 2010…I’m going to take it, no sale for GM. If next week Mitsu says, we are taking deposits on the iMiev and you aren’t going to get it until mid 2011…I’m going to take it. If Ford says to me, “You can have our BEV in 2012, give me some of your money”—yupe, they get it. I
I’m not going to hmmm and hawww about it either, there is no time for another car manufacture to react once one of the big boys does it. It is a no brainer. I want to be top of the list
If a waiting list (lets say from Ford) comes on the internet this afternoon at 5PM, requiring a $5,000 deposit….you can bet at 5:01PM I am keying in my credit card number or transfering money to them. Then its done for the Volt…I’m not getting it. (Unless I happen to need a second car, the Volt fits my needs/pricing and my dealer has one…basically, it is a regular car purchase then).
/there has got to be tens of thousands of people like me…in the ‘just build a fricken’ EV already’ camp
Apr 2nd, 2009 (1:36 pm)#93 DonC said:
The big issue you are completely missing is: Compared to what? The money has been allocated. The DOE is required to issue the loans. So which company in your mind is more deserving? Tesla? Bright Automotive? Aptera? Chrysler?
=======================
I don’t think they HAVE to issue loans if no one who applies fits the criteria for which it was written…that doesn’t make sense.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (1:42 pm)#112 statik
Are you saying you would give GM your money right NOW, even though they may go bankrupt in a month or so?
Apr 2nd, 2009 (1:51 pm)“And Americans : funding Chinese companies, buying Chinese /import products, supporting their products and living : question is how long this will go ?”
Until America realizes we live in a world economy with no borders and that manufacturing is now done mostly by China. Then we decide to embrace the industries that we do well with and can actually profit from rather than clinging to the past.
Fact: The top 10 in demand jobs for 2010 did not exist in 2004. Thats the reality of the world today. You can either get on board, or be left in the dust.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (1:54 pm)#113 statik says “I don’t think they HAVE to issue loans if no one who applies fits the criteria for which it was written”
Well the DOE is being heavily criticized for not moving on this though I think you’ve hit upon a main reason why they’re not moving. :-
Apr 2nd, 2009 (1:55 pm)#114 Arkansas Volt Says:
#112 statik, Are you saying you would give GM your money right NOW, even though they may go bankrupt in a month or so?
===================
I would assume given their current circumstances over the next 57 days (and while inside a C11 scenario) it would be held in a trust of some kind that would be outside the grasp of a bankruptcy. After that I have no problems with a direct deposit.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (1:57 pm)A battery pack 1/4 the size of the current pack may not have enough power for strong acceleration, but still have 10 miles of range.. also battery life may be affected by the hard usage.. but its all a guess, GM needs to determine this. The pack would be about 300lbs lighter and that may require changing the springs.
Assuming the current pack is $8k (a strong assumption) and GM is building in a second pack for warranty (could be doubtful), total 40 mile pack is $16k.. then a 10 mile range would save about $12k from the pack cost, but also a reduced tax deduction. In any case assuming a $33k Volt would then end up at $21k that would make it a very strong Prius killer.. but economics are not my strong point.
Regarding later-on upgrading the pack by adding more cells or modules.. this could be iffy, not really a good idea to mix old and new lithium cells. Perhaps GMs pack tech is smart enough to adapt itself to this mix. Perhaps it may be better to just sell the 10 mile pack and buy a new 40 (or 80) mile pack.. or maybe just lease the pack?
How about this, provide a 10 mile Volt Lite, cut the battery warranty to 5 years/50k miles and reduce the cost to $21k..
………………………
#80
Keith Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:36 am
With that in mind it would be a wise decision of GM to do their best to market the Volt in three different configurations all based upon the same size shape and design .
Practically speaking , I think that the best way would be to bring out the lowest cost version and the fourty mile version at the same time .
From appearances they would look identical , but physically they would be very different . The basic version would be a Prius killer that would get an all electric range of 10 miles , still be plug in and be able to add extra battery capacity to increase the electric range to 20 miles or even to the 40 miles .
Apr 2nd, 2009 (1:59 pm)#113 statik says “I don’t think they HAVE to issue loans if no one who applies fits the criteria for which it was written”
#116 DonC says: “Well the DOE is being heavily criticized for not moving on this though I think you’ve hit upon a main reason why they’re not moving. :-”
———-
The DOE is certainly in a no win situation I think. Although they get a east ‘out’ when anyone asks what the holdup is…at least when it comes to auto loans.
I think the request from EnerDel is quite reasonable, and maybe even A123′s (provided they can verify all these orders in their pipeline)….personally, I might be inclined to give A123 about a third of what they are looking for. Investment in the battery players would seem to be a lot easier to make the case of future viability and timely payback.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (2:01 pm)#117 statik
if i wasnt worried about bankruptcy and they were taking deposits, I would be in front of the line with you.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (2:06 pm)#118 Herm says:
A battery pack 1/4 the size of the current pack may not have enough power for strong acceleration, but still have 10 miles of range.. also battery life may be affected by the hard usage.. but its all a guess, GM needs to determine this. The pack would be about 300lbs lighter and that may require changing the springs.
Assuming the current pack is $8k (a strong assumption) and GM is building in a second pack for warranty (could be doubtful), total 40 mile pack is $16k.. then a 10 mile range would save about $12k from the pack cost, but also a reduced tax deduction. In any case assuming a $33k Volt would then end up at $21k that would make it a very strong Prius killer.. but economics are not my strong point.
Regarding later-on upgrading the pack by adding more cells or modules.. this could be iffy, not really a good idea to mix old and new lithium cells. Perhaps GMs pack tech is smart enough to adapt itself to this mix. Perhaps it may be better to just sell the 10 mile pack and buy a new 40 (or 80) mile pack.. or maybe just lease the pack?
How about this, provide a 10 mile Volt Lite, cut the battery warranty to 5 years/50k miles and reduce the cost to $21k..
=======================
I’m not sure about upgrading of the pack/modules…could be done I suppose, but I doubt GM would even want to entertain something like that.
I know you can’t cut the warranty…because that would be illegal in many states.
I believe the CARB AT-PZEV HV battery warranty is now observed in Connecticut, Maine, Delaware, Washington DC, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio and New Hampshire (and of course California)
/would be great if they struck that down already…the time has come
Apr 2nd, 2009 (2:16 pm)@Herm 118
“Perhaps it may be better to just sell the 10 mile pack and buy a new 40 (or 80) mile pack.. or maybe just lease the pack?”
Better yet, make 400VDC @ 10AH modules where you can simply add another module to increase capacity. Up to 80AH, OK that might be a stretch so 40AH will be more viable. So standardize the bat pavk but make it upgradeable/modular for simplicity of upgrades. I see a business potential here….
Apr 2nd, 2009 (2:31 pm)Let’s see, now. Teleprompter Obama proclaimed that high tech and green was the path to financial salvation (I guess he hasn’t been paying attention to those dreadful Toyota Prius sales figures lately).
This was followed by a further claim that the only high tech and green machine practically on the planet was worthless. How about GM giving Obama and his brainless “auto committee” the finger and proceding directly into bankruptcy court? WAgoner’s BIG mistake was not doing that back then (he was scared of hurting sales. Ho, ho).
Apr 2nd, 2009 (2:36 pm)#15 Schmeltz
As far as a third Voltec vehicle, I hope GM is considering perhaps a Voltec version of the Chevy Orlando
========
I think the Orlando is out of the picture
http://www.trucktrend.com/features/news/2009/163_news090327_report_gm_delaying_compact_minivan_production/index.html
Apr 2nd, 2009 (2:49 pm)Would be nice if GM/F/Chry could do things like this.. and not have to worry about a strike. Every other company in the US is doing it.
Honda cuts salaries, goes to 4 day work weeks, Toyota buyouts..etc.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123853762031875371.html
Apr 2nd, 2009 (2:52 pm)#118 Herm,
From your RC experience:
1. Are you familiar with any Lithium cells that have held up longer than 5 years (i.e. do you have any that have lasted that long with your model airplanes, or what would you say the average useful life is (in years) before they degrade below 70% capacity)?
2. Is shelf life an issue now with your lithium batteries (even if you don’t use them, they’ll degrade)?
Appreciate your input.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (2:53 pm)51 Gary
The problem is that the masses don’t have a passion for cars any more. They don’t care about styling any more. etc..
=========
I think the passion is still there, but the style has obiously changed. If you think ‘the younger generation’ doesnt care about cars, watch Fast & the Furious, MTV Cribs, or any rap video. They like their car’s, just not classic cruiser’s from the 50′s (well some do). Some retro cars have made comebacks.. Camaro, Mustang, Charger…
Apr 2nd, 2009 (2:53 pm)(I guess he hasn’t been paying attention to those dreadful Toyota Prius sales figures lately).
_______________________________
You’re calling 8,924 dreadful?
In this struggling market?
At the very end of its model life?
Someone needs a reality check.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (2:57 pm)#124 K Dawg
Thanks for that link about the Orlando. Come to think of it, I sort of remember reading that before too. Well, it would seem that reviving the Orlando concept would be a simple enough thing to do since it is built on the same platform as the Volt and Cruze. Maybe GM just needs clarity regarding their future before considering this idea. We’ll see I guess.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (3:01 pm)Statik,
If the Obama administration simply follows Chelsea Sexton’s advice issued in a press release yesterday by Plug-In America, the battery pack could be half the size with the same range, and battery pack costs would no longer be an issue.
I am glad GM is holding firm on the 40 mile AER, because we don’t need another Prius, nor another Tesla – we need a vehicle that covers 100% of the needs of 80% of the market, while not using a drop of petroleum.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (3:07 pm)#77 Dave G Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:29 am
#74 TRex Says: So they want us (the taxpayers) to give the money to build the cars, then they want us (their customers) to pay again to buy the cars.
————————————————————————————–
No. They want us (the taxpayers) to loan them the money to build the cars, then they want us (their customers) to pay to buy the cars.
====
Or you could say we loan them the money to build them, then they loan us the money to buy them. (I knew i should have been a banker)
Apr 2nd, 2009 (3:08 pm)#124 k-dawg
Interesting. More room to build Volts?
Apr 2nd, 2009 (3:11 pm)The only thing about the Tesla S that impressed me, was the 0.26Cd for something I’d consider stylish.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (3:15 pm)So far the only cells that seem to last more than a couple of years are the A123 LiFe cells, neither cobalt nor manganese-spinel have done as well.. heck even nimh last only a couple of years in our applications.. but we do abuse cells. Old tech nicads seem to be good for about 4 years and about 1000 cycles.. but they are heavy.
This is GM’s big gamble, but they seem confident of their modeling and accelerated testing.
Some of the cobalt cells may experience severe degration in 50 cycles, some will do 300-600 if treated with love.. I have had bad luck with the Milwaukee Tools manganese-spinel cells, getting severe degradation in about a year but they are much cheaper than cobalt cells.
The price of lipos has dropped substantially in the last couple of years, maybe 200% for some brands.
If you go by a modeling field, you are likely to see more electric powered airplanes than alcohol or gas airplanes.. all due to the performance of lipo batteries.
………………………………..
#126
carcus1 Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:52 pm
1. Are you familiar with any Lithium cells that have held up longer than 5 years (i.e. do you have any that have lasted that long with your model airplanes, or what would you say the average useful life is (in years) before they degrade below 70% capacity)?
2. Is shelf life an issue now with your lithium batteries (even if you don’t use them, they’ll degrade)?
Appreciate your input.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (3:17 pm)Speaking of batteries, here is another tecnology frontier:
“MIT Scientists Build Virus-Powered Batteries for Your Next Electric Car”
http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/ariel-schwartz/sustainability/mit-scientists-build-virus-powered-batteries-your-next-electric-c
Apr 2nd, 2009 (3:25 pm)Hey GM
Just build a van and call it the “VOLT VAN”
Apr 2nd, 2009 (3:46 pm)#128 john1701a says:
You’re calling 8,924 dreadful?
In this struggling market?
At the very end of its model life?
Someone needs a reality check.
=============================
I’m going with John on this one….8,900 does represents a 58% fall off from last year.
But you have a new and far superior model coming out in a couple months, sales are banked when customers and dealerships order them, I kind of doubt dealerships are lining up to get an old product…and last year at this time gas was ramping really fast…at about $3.25 on its way to $4.
Relatively speaking, GMs 10-odd models have sold just over 3,000 for the whole year to date.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (4:04 pm)Guy Incognito Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:29 am
Was’nt that long ago that GM was actually fighting the electric car.
Lo & behold, now they’re asking for loans to build them.
————————————————————————-
The situation has only partially changed. In the 1990s, GM was anti-BEV because there was no way to produce a mass market BEV with existing, or immediately forseeable technology.
GM is still anti=BEV, for exacty the same reason, that is why they are building the Volt.
The Volt is still not a practical mass market car, but it could be in 2-4 years if gas goes up enough and batteries come down enough.
BEVs are much farther from being a practical mass market product because of battery cost and charge rate.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (4:09 pm)Hey statik…
Toyota nearly matches price of Honda Insight with new 2010 Prius in Japan
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/04/02/toyota-nearly-matches-price-of-honda-insight-with-new-2010-prius/
“Toyota is planning to nearly match the price of Honda’s latest Insight with its brand new 2010 Prius, setting a base price of 2.05 million yen ($20,750), which is just about the same as the mid-level Insight.”
Apr 2nd, 2009 (4:12 pm)@Tom H 138
“it could be in 2-4 years if gas goes up enough and batteries come down enough.”
Man, that’s always been the case. They said that with Lead Acid, then NiCad, then NiMH and now Lithium Ion whatever mix. Seems the excuse is always the same.
Just build the damn car already geeesh.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (4:13 pm)#134 Herm,
Thanks for the info. It’s nice to read someone’s posts who has both practical and theoretical knowledge of electricity.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (4:24 pm)#97 Dave G says “Do you have a reference?”
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/aeo2009_presentation.html
Slide 9. You can download the data which gives you more background. Keep in mind that the report considers a Volt to be a PHEV, not an EV, so an E-REV vehicle with a 10 mile range would be a PHEV10.
This seems fairly straightforward to me. People just won’t pay upfront for lower running costs. With a range of 10 miles or 20 miles you would use the battery all the time so you wouldn’t pay for something you wouldn’t use, and it would have a lower up front cost. A E-REV20 would not be of great interest to me but most people want a very fast payback.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (4:35 pm)#140 CaptJack,
Near $20k for a base model gen 3 prius? Now we’re talking.
Jump on the internet with $375 for a few upgrades:
1. Blue ant clipped to the visor
2. Tom Tom one stuck to the dash
3. Scanguage II plugged into the OBD port
Bring on the $4 gas!
(blue ant’s got nothing to do with mileage, I just like to talk on the phone when I’m driving)
I know you’re not into the extras, but Toyota would charge $5k for same.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (4:41 pm)@carcus1 143
“Toyota would charge $5k for same”
Yeah, the GPS and rear camera feature is also an additional $5K. At least that’s what the sales dude said. But that was for a 2008 or was it a 2009? Can’t remember.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (4:48 pm)CaptJack @ 144,
The aftermarket GPS system prices having been falling like crazy the last couple of years. That extra $5k would probably put gas in a 50 mpg prius for the next 7 years. Plus, when your add on GPS breaks/ gets outdated, you throw it in drawer and go get a new one.
Too bad they don’t make aftermarket lane keep assist and active cruise control. These features help you forget the prius isn’t very fun to drive. (because then, you’re not driving)
Apr 2nd, 2009 (4:50 pm)I hope they give that Cadillac AWD. Maybe the same electric motor as the Volt in front, and another one just like it in the back. That way they get maximum amortization of the development costs and with exactly double the Volt’s electric torque, VROOOM VROOOM! oops, I mean whooooooooossssh!
Apr 2nd, 2009 (5:08 pm)#39 Vincent says, “How do people feel about a protection plan like Reagan did for Harley Davidson?”
I think it is a good idea. The Japanese government has been doing it for decades. At least H-D was honorable enough to ask the US government to remove the protection (ahead of schedule) when they got on their feet. You won’t see any Japanese companies doing that.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (5:15 pm)#115 Bruce Says, “Until America realizes we live in a world economy with no borders and that manufacturing is now done mostly by China. Then we decide to embrace the industries that we do well with and can actually profit from rather than clinging to the past.”
Just what are, “the industries that we do well with and can actually profit from?” The list gets smaller every day. That is because the only borders that are open are the ones *into* the USA.
I don’t know if it’s ignorance or arrogance that causes so many Americans to assume that the rest of the world plays by our rules, but until we learn to play the protectionist/subsidy game like China, Japan, Korea, India, Germany, and many others, our industries will *always* be at a disadvantage by design.
Following the advice of people like you has decimated American industry (and the middle-class) and will continue until we either face reality or we become just another third-world consumer economy.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (6:13 pm)#139 CaptJackSparrow Says:
Hey statik…
Toyota nearly matches price of Honda Insight with new 2010 Prius in Japan
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/04/02/toyota-nearly-matches-price-of-honda-insight-with-new-2010-prius/
“Toyota is planning to nearly match the price of Honda’s latest Insight with its brand new 2010 Prius, setting a base price of 2.05 million yen ($20,750), which is just about the same as the mid-level Insight.”
================
I ad not seen that (I have not surfed the web for EV news at all lately). That is a awesome thing…well if your not working for Honda.
I have been on the fence about walking from my Honda Insight deposit ($500) when I heard that I could probably get the Prius a couple months later. If that holds even close to be true for NA…I am definitely donated that $500, lol.
I can’t even imagine the ramifications of a 2010 Prius on the NA market if it comes out at $20,750. That thing would be the new gold standard…and would easily be the best selling car in the country (provided they could build enough of them, lol).
/easy to do new car math on 20K @60MPG+ (if your so inclined, and all the early test drives of real world driving are accurate)
Apr 2nd, 2009 (6:26 pm)#139 CaptJackSparrow Says:
Re: $20,750 Japan Prius
=========================
Just think about it further. If that actually was the transplanted price here…and the Toyota holds true as having the Plug-In available as a stand alone option. That is huge.
The guesstimates on the plug-in option are generally between 5,000 to 7,000. Even at 7K, with the $2,500 rebate, that is only $4,500 more.
A Plug-In (10 mile AER) Prius @ $25, 000? That would be crazy good…not saying that is what is going to happen by any stretch, but it is not now out of the realm of possibility.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (6:27 pm)It appears Dave G could not grasp a fact even if used two hands.
The Prius did not enter the market priced too high. The Prius received incentives of about $2000, not $7500.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (7:01 pm)Side note: GM readies giveback proposals for bondholders, UAW
Of interest in this…two things:
Bondholders:
“The offer to the bondholders, who hold roughly $28 billion in unsecured General Motors debt, will exceed a previous government requirement that GM swap two-thirds of its unsecured debt for company stock, one of the people said”
UAW:
“It appears the government is going to seek more cuts from older blue-collar workers…most of those concessions have applied to new workers, entry-level workers coming in… older workers in the union may need to take a pay cut”
There it is…what everybody has been waiting for. Hard numbers for the bondholders to chew on…and a actual, direct wage cut per hour for existing (non-new hires) for the UAW
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GM-readies-giveback-proposals-apf-14837483.html
(was going to post this in the new thread….but it is pretty new and didn’t want to hijack it just yet, lol)
Apr 2nd, 2009 (7:27 pm)Keith, Statik, etc
“Despite GM’s ‘optimum range’ graphs and the constant hammering of how perfect a 40 mile range is here on the boards, it would be nice to see some flexibility out of GM here…especially, if they are gunning for another 2.6 billion. I get the feeling they are really sticking to one standard, one platform…which could end up hurting them in the long run.”
I can’t agree more. I’ve been hammering on the “flexibility” for a long time even it wouldn’t mean all those options on day1 (except BEV could have easily been pre-Day1). It’s like they found the sweet spot on the curve and think just because 80% of the population’s feet will fit in a Size 12 shoe that everybody will WANT a size 12. I have been advocating for the Volt ever since I was comfortable that this was potentially more than a publicity stunt to them. The concept, while not perfect, is the best solution IMO given the current state of technology and prices. Even though I believe they have hit very close to the sweetest spot of the market and this is fine for 1st out specs. They need to be thinking of broadening the appeal because the market needs are so fragmented. A reasonably priced 40 mile EREV will do unbelievably well as long as there aren’t other viable EV options on the market. For example, If a 30 mile EREV comes out with the saving from 3KWH less battery, then roughly 60% of the Volt’s market will be gone.
Apr 2nd, 2009 (7:30 pm)[...] Source: 1, 2 [...]
Apr 2nd, 2009 (7:44 pm)Has anyone reported that Toyota has anything designed into the 2010 prius showing their commitment to a plug in option? i.e. hard points for extra battery mount, unexplained coupling in wire harness, easy way to update software, etc….?
/That would be a pretty big selling point, IMO.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Statik @ 150,
“…and the Toyota holds true as having the Plug-In available as a stand alone option. That is huge.”
Apr 3rd, 2009 (1:06 am)Talk about sticking your nose in the trouph. That just sounds rediculous.
How does it cost $2.6 Billion to develop an EV based on technology they’ve already developed????? Excluding the batteries (which they are licensing the technology off LG for) EVs are mostly electronic and software which are CHEAP to develop. Besides that, it’s already been done.. how much software fine tuning of a BMS can they possibly justify to account for $2.6 BILLION in R&D???
GM hasn’t learnt a thing by the sounds of this money grab.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (5:38 am)They are BUYING the batteries from LG, and software is far from cheap.. perhaps the highest cost in the development of the Volt.
Software is cheap for the second and third car you build, but that first one is expensive.
Apr 3rd, 2009 (8:23 am)I’m all for the Volt but think GM is making a mistake looking to build a high priced electric vehicle. How many times on this site have we heard complaints of the $40,000 figure. They should be looking for a car that the majority of buyers can afford and once this market is stable look toward higher end products.
Apr 5th, 2009 (3:36 pm)I’d like to see an EREV Transverse with an optional “add-a-pack” feature that allows for an additional “plug ‘n play” “stack-your-pack” battery that:
1. Could be a 10 or 20 mile additional range electric,
2. Be resalable if I didn’t need it anymore,
3. Could be a “loaner” if your regular pack had a malfunction,
4. Could be made to be V2G, especially if there was a utility incentive
5. That optional battery could be made for leasing, say, a year at a time
6. It could be an optional performance item for very hot climates where AC must be run all the time,
7. It could be an optional performance item for those who want to be extra sure that the 40 mile array was not overly taxed during very-high-percentage highway speed driving.
Dan Petit Austin TX
(just got back from my semi-annual 3 day vacation)
Apr 6th, 2009 (4:27 pm)[...] Original post: GM Asking For Additional Loans to Build Two More Electric Cars … [...]
Apr 7th, 2009 (6:12 pm)#93 DonC said:
The big issue you are completely missing is: Compared to what? The money has been allocated. The DOE is required to issue the loans. So which company in your mind is more deserving? Tesla? Bright Automotive? Aptera? Chrysler?
Being the Queen of the Pigs is sometimes enough
—————–
#113 statik says “I don’t think they HAVE to issue loans if no one who applies fits the criteria for which it was written”
——————–
#116 DonC says: “Well the DOE is being heavily criticized for not moving on this though I think you’ve hit upon a main reason why they’re not moving. :-”
========================
Article from today on it:
“WASHINGTON — General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC are blocked — at least for now — from receiving any part of $25 billion in loans for retooling factories that federal officials will begin lending in a matter of weeks.
The Obama administration ruled last week that neither GM nor Chrysler met that standard, giving GM 60 days to rework its restructuring plans and Chrysler 30 days to conclude a partnership with Fiat SpA or face bankruptcy.
That means Ford Motor Co. may be the only Detroit automaker that qualifies for the first round of loans, which Energy Secretary Steven Chu has said would be granted by May. Ford has asked for $11 billion.
http://www.freep.com/article/20090407/BUSINESS01/904070343/1002/BUSINESS/GM++Chrysler+can+t+tap+into+retooling+loans
Apr 15th, 2009 (5:17 pm)The Orland is called an MPV. That means little to Americans, but simply think of It as shrunken Chrysler Minivan, one size down, narrower in width, and perhaps shorter as well. You could call it a Micro-Van as opposed to a MIni-Van, if you want.
Thsi si a good vehicle in a niche thta fgew expoit. It would generate voume ansd interst in BPG dealerships, ans serve notice that Buick nameplates will cover the Pontiac range as Pontiac fades away.
I look forward to the Inmsignia
May 20th, 2009 (7:40 pm)[...] 1, 2 [...]
Dec 2nd, 2009 (2:06 pm)Could you spare me a moment? buy clomid http://www.playlist.com/blog/entry/12526097155 buy clomid I’m very thankful to you.
I haven’t seen you for weeks. buy clomid buy clomkd
buy clomid I hope we’ll meet again.