I disagree with the general statement that GM made a mistake not building a hybrid vehicle back when Toyota did. Here are my reasons why:

1) Had GM dove into the water at the same time as Toyota, then they probably would have invested heavy in a lousy configuration, like the Prius, which wouldn't have been plug-in, and it would have had expensive, heavy NiMH batteries - leaving GM "stuck", just like Toyota, having tooled up a dead-end product line. By staying out of the race, GM was able to evaluate other approaches, allowing them to dive in with a far better plug-in hybrid approach that uses light and powerful Li-Ion batteries for great performance/weight.

2) Until GM and the UAW solved their long-term liability issues, there was no point in chasing any longterm future configurations, as their ability to serve future markets remained uncertain at best.

3) Environmental/mileage demands weren't known. Fortunately, many things converged to allow the government to write CAFE standards to help US automakers leap over Japanese gains, which their current configurations couldn't attain.

The only downside to GM's inaction was a prolonged image of being environmentally unfriendly, which GM's current actions are erasing. If one simply looks at all that was set against GM in the past, and how, when those things were removed, GM quickly became the most environmentally friendly of the big 3 US automakers, one would see the poor image is underserved.

I disagree with the general statement that GM made a mistake not building a hybrid vehicle back when Toyota did. Here are my reasons why:

1) Had GM dove into the water at the same time as Toyota, then they probably would have invested heavy in a lousy configuration, like the Prius, which wouldn't have been plug-in, and it would have had expensive, heavy NiMH batteries - leaving GM "stuck", just like Toyota, having tooled up a dead-end product line. By staying out of the race, GM was able to evaluate other approaches, allowing them to dive in with a far better plug-in hybrid approach that uses light and powerful Li-Ion batteries for great performance/weight.

2) Until GM and the UAW solved their long-term liability issues, there was no point in chasing any longterm future configurations, as their ability to serve future markets remained uncertain at best.

3) Environmental/mileage demands weren't known. Fortunately, many things converged to allow the government to write CAFE standards to help US automakers leap over Japanese gains, which their current configurations couldn't attain.

The only downside to GM's inaction was a prolonged image of being environmentally unfriendly, which GM's current actions are erasing. If one simply looks at all that was set against GM in the past, and how, when those things were removed, GM quickly became the most environmentally friendly of the big 3 US automakers, one would see the poor image is underserved.

I guess I'd respectfully have to disagree with some of your points (I do agree that the Union issues were sinking GM), If they'd taken up the challenge when Toyota did, GM's engineers MAY have solved some of the problems BETTER than Toyota did. They certainly are better at "outside the box" thinking currently.
Since environmental demands are STILL unkown, I don't think that it's too much of a driving force with the development team on the Volt. I'm not saying that they don't want to make it a green machine, but given 5 or 6 years of fiddlin with hybrids, surely the experience would be helping them now.
Lastly, most painfully, I think GM has earned a lot of their bad reputation. Thank goodness they are working sooooo hard to undo that.
God's Speed, GM.

The mistake GM made was backing off their own EV car. They would be miles down the road on batteries, expected life issues and the kind of information that can only be learned on the road if they had just let the project continue.

By killing it, they also gave Toyota the PR win with the Prius and made every tin foil hat in the world think GM wasn't serious about putting out a real eco friendly car. I can't tell you the number of comments I hear from enviromentalists saying that the Volt is vaporware and will never come out. Most of them based on killing the EV project.

Meh, in the end, what matters is that they deliver the Volt in the end. If they do that, all will be forgiven and forgotten.

The mistake GM made was backing off their own EV car. They would be miles down the road on batteries, expected life issues and the kind of information that can only be learned on the road if they had just let the project continue.

By killing it, they also gave Toyota the PR win with the Prius and made every tin foil hat in the world think GM wasn't serious about putting out a real eco friendly car. I can't tell you the number of comments I hear from enviromentalists saying that the Volt is vaporware and will never come out. Most of them based on killing the EV project.

Meh, in the end, what matters is that they deliver the Volt in the end. If they do that, all will be forgiven and forgotten.

Uncontested.

NO ONE was talking plug-in hybrid a few years ago. Now that I think of it, GM's environmental response has always been for the use of ethanol, instead of batteries, so in their minds, they were proceeding with the config they thought would win.

At least now GM is placing several bets, allowing the marketplace to pick the winner.

Sorry, Jason, I disagree. Instead of lobbying to dismantle the ZEV mandates in California to be replaced with government subsidized Hydrogen development, they should have lobbied for reasonable lower emission standards (and incentives) that favored their technology. The time and $ put into developing the EV-1(2) should have been transfered into hybrid development and practical EV's. I believe a 60-70 mile range 4-seater with modest performance would have had enough appeal and low enough cost to put it on a practical production path. Certainly not high volume, like GM prefers, but enough to support development. I also believe they could have utilitized a lot of the EV program technology to develope a plug-in hybrid of some sort. With either or both, GM and battery development would be a lot farther along than they are now.

3.) Agreed that many circumstances are converging now to improve the climate for the Volt and Synergy Drive is great technology on a dead end path.

Produce the Volt en masse then push E-flex out from there and Blakec will be right.

Sorry, Jason, I disagree. Instead of lobbying to dismantle the ZEV mandates in California to be replaced with government subsidized Hydrogen development, they should have lobbied for reasonable lower emission standards (and incentives) that favored their technology. The time and $ put into developing the EV-1(2) should have been transfered into hybrid development and practical EV's. I believe a 60-70 mile range 4-seater with modest performance would have had enough appeal and low enough cost to put it on a practical production path. Certainly not high volume, like GM prefers, but enough to support development. I also believe they could have utilitized a lot of the EV program technology to develope a plug-in hybrid of some sort. With either or both, GM and battery development would be a lot farther along than they are now.

3.) Agreed that many circumstances are converging now to improve the climate for the Volt and Synergy Drive is great technology on a dead end path.

Produce the Volt en masse then push E-flex out from there and Blakec will be right.

Sorry Koz, have to disagree. GM should lobby to remove all environmental standards on vehicles. Why? Because they never truly accomplish their goal and are easily manipulated by the big players as seen in the example of the ZEV that you gave. I think we would be alot further along in development w/ low emission vehicles if instead of working to mandate standards in the government, the environmental lobby would have spent their time attempting to educate the consumer on the impact of vehicles on the world. The 76 million dollars that GM has spent in the last 10 years to lobby Congress could have been better spent in R&D. The 505 Billion spent in the last 5 years to fund the Iraq war could have paid a nice down payment on a new electric vehicle for every household in the nation. But then again, we could sit here and argue numbers about this and that and who spent what where and the truth of the matter is that we are all complicit in what has occurred to this nation and for the reasons we do not have the things that we want. I just hope that GM continues in this direction, blazing a path, instead of finding ways to beat around the same old bush.

I can't agree with much of your logic. There are very few regulations and incentives that do nothing towards there goals. Often times they may be rediculous and wasteful but many times the are very beneficial. Just think of what LA's air would be like without the emissions standards and how many lives are saved by safety standards and speed limits. The problem is not an inherent incompetence of all legislation. The problem is incompetent legislation. While the ZEV mandates where a nice ideal, they were too far from practical. The mistake was then magnified by an even more impractical push for hydrogen. There were achievable goals that should have been set, and at a fedaral level, not the state level which is ridiculous in this situation. But, even as silly as those goals were, they did achieve some good. The Prius would not have been introduced when it was and there were battery improvements that many other industries have benefitted from. The problem is choosing the appropriate areas for government to be setting goals and in setting those goals most effectively. Unfortunately, the free market does not cure all ills. Emissions aren't a concern to a free market until after dire consequences are seen. Gas prices aren't a concern until they are too high. Oil dependency isn't a concern until supply is an issue. Yes, accurate public education is a good thing and can serve to drive free markets properly, but everyone cannot be educated in everything adequately. This is a utopian goal that cannot be achieved. Much like everything else in life, there has to be a balance.

I wouldn't post this anywhere but the politics forum, but what happens if the Dems win the White house?

I wouldn't post this anywhere but the politics forum, but what happens if the Dems win the White house?

I started a thread on that:

http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?t=78

Put me in the "It was a very bad mistake" group. Koz said it well enough but I'll just add the following: Close your eyes and think of high technology and innovation (pre-Volt talk). Now, does GM or Toyota come to your mind first? That is "case closed" for me.

GM has a real chance to catch up and even pass Toyota using the Volt's series hybrid design. Will they take that chance? I don't know. It's a gift if you ask me.

Put me in the "It was a very bad mistake" group. Koz said it well enough but I'll just add the following: Close your eyes and think of high technology and innovation (pre-Volt talk). Now, does GM or Toyota come to your mind first? That is "case closed" for me.

GM has a real chance to catch up and even pass Toyota using the Volt's series hybrid design. Will they take that chance? I don't know. It's a gift if you ask me.

Toyota does NOT evoke images of high tech and innovation. Their image is quality, dependability and friendly (environmental or otherwise). The Prius ugly design simply reminds all those who would like a green car that Toyota simply doesn't understand the American market.

Toyota understands the US market well enough to rival GM for #1 car maker in the world. Bob Lutz made it clear that GM screwed up and that they are now playing catchup. THe Volt is their chance to pull ahead (again).
JMO (and ever-accurate reporting)

Toyota understands the US market well enough to rival GM for #1 car maker in the world. Bob Lutz made it clear that GM screwed up and that they are now playing catchup. THe Volt is their chance to pull ahead (again).
JMO (and ever-accurate reporting)

Toyota is rivalling GM worldwide, NOT in North America.

I would ask Lutz to qualify his statement about not pursuing hybrids earlier. Does he wish he had tooled up for a Prius type hybrid several years ago, or does he wish he had tooled up for an E-REV several years ago - I suspect he means the latter, as the former is a dead-end in achieving the new CAFE standards.

Here's my two cents. GM screwed up big-time in the 1990's. The EV-1 program was a failure from the start because they wouldn't produce enough to fill demand (demand they claimed wasn't there) then took them all back and crushed them. They tainted their image very badly with the public. It didn't help that around the same time they started selling the Hummer, the opposite of what they should have been working on. Then the gas-crunch hits us and suddenly nobody wants their fuel-hogging vehicles. Of course, Ford and Chrysler are equal in this aspect, but GM is more noteworthy because they actually had a car that could have worked here.

So.. Now they see the error of their ways. But is it too late? The general public already knows that Toyota is the only viable hybrid. (I realize there are a dozen others, but the Prius is the only well-known model) And why is that?

The Volt is definatly a step in the right direction, but many people don't trust GM to follow through, just like with the EV-1 program. If they do, then good for them. But they need to take this technology beyond the volt. After all, I don't care for the bodystyle and I bet a lot of people don't either. So they need to develop this technology for several different types of vehicles, or retrofit previous designs such as cars like the Sunfire, or one of their SUV lines.

I suspect people like the Volt body style better than the Prius.

Jason M. Hendler wrote, "The Prius ugly design simply reminds all those who would like a green car that Toyota simply doesn't understand the American market."

That's a pretty bold statement. Toyota misunderstands the American market so badly that they sold 180K "ugly" Priuses here last year.

The following GM vehicles currently outsell the Prius... Cobalt, G6, Impala, Silverado, Sierra. Pretty short list, isn't it? And if one took out fleet sales, how long would that list be? I think you'd be crossing off the Cobalt, G5 and Sierra.

Jason M. Hendler wrote, "The Prius ugly design simply reminds all those who would like a green car that Toyota simply doesn't understand the American market."

That's a pretty bold statement. Toyota misunderstands the American market so badly that they sold 180K "ugly" Priuses here last year.

The following GM vehicles currently outsell the Prius... Cobalt, G6, Impala, Silverado, Sierra. Pretty short list, isn't it? And if one took out fleet sales, how long would that list be? I think you'd be crossing off the Cobalt, G5 and Sierra.

We'll see how many Prius's sell when the Volt finally gives it competition.

Jason M. Hendler, "We'll see how many Prius's sell when the Volt finally gives it competition."

(link) Toyota will be prepared to sell quite a few. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aS72IfaHobmk&refer=japan)

There's little doubt that there will be a lot of Prii available. All the more reason for GM to get this right.

Put me down for Prius selling a lot more for at least the first few years after the Volt comes out. It takes time to ramp production. The new Prius is already planning on selling more than 100,000 units the first year out. The Volt estimates?

I suspect the Volt sales will take a direct bite out of Prius sales. GM's ramp is expected to be 10K first year, 60K to 100K next year, and can continue to increase based on demand. Given that Prius sold 180K vehicles last year, it will interesting to see if GM takes from Toyota in total, or actually expands the markets to include people who think the Prius is ugly. I suspect it will be more the latter case, so GM should be able to increase production beyond the 100K figure.

The real boon will come when GM transfers the flextreme powertrain to the Chevy Malibu - those will sell like crazy.

Jason M. Hendler wrote, "I suspect the Volt sales will take a direct bite out of Prius sales."

I think that unlikely. Toyota's planning to build 450K Volts per year. This is a clear sign that they are looking to dramatically reduce price through volume. A $35K Volt will have its hands full selling against a $25K Prius, even if the Prius is not quite as capable as the Volt (I suspect the difference will be small, a couple hundred a year in fuel cost or less).

Jason M. Hendler then went on to say, "The real boon will come when GM transfers the flextreme powertrain to the Chevy Malibu - those will sell like crazy."

Less likely, still. The Camry hybrid, not a perfect counterpart to a Flextreme but considerable parallels exist, has failed to take off like that. And of course we expect the Camry hybrid to get better using whatever goes into the next Prius and it sells in the mid-20s. If the Malibu is another expensive car (no reason to think otherwise at this point), it will probably be less attractive than an enhanced Camry.

If Chevy want to "win" against Toyota with big sales, they're going to have to get the price under control.

Earlier, someone wrote that Jack Welch at GE would tell his execs to define their markets broadly. Will GM do that and duke it out with Toyota's Prius, or will they define the Volt's market narrowly, so as to inhabit a different market from the Prius and claim a "win?"

dagwood,

No doubt, the E-REV is, for the moment, more expensive than a Prius, but it is also more efficient / higher performance. Costs will of course come down, and people will move away from ugly Prius's to attractive Volts and Malibus.

Jason M. Hendler,

The Prius looks the way it does because of aerodynamics. Everybody else is going to have to do something similar or risk competitive disadvantage in fuel economy and range.

In fact, you don't know if the Volt will be "attractive" because GM has had to redesign it due to poor aerodynamics. Lutz said so himself. The new Volt will look very different from the concept.

I agree with Blake. How do you argue with an Environmentalist if they say "If GM really wanted to build a 40-mile series hybrid they would strip out 75% of those heavy and expensive batteries that powered the EV1 to 183 MPH and 125 mile range (maybe not simultaneously), and replace it with a small generator. Then, just start the EV1 production line up again and YOU ARE DONE. They had actually built a 40-mile range Series Hybrid version of the EV1 for the 1998 Detroit Auto show, along with many other EV1 variants (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1 and search down for Series Hybrid). With the weight drop from the new batteries a four-passenger EV1 was even feasible and they built a pretty yellow prototype.

So Why DID GM start over from scratch when they already had an entire production line worked out for the EV1? Dropping 75% of the batteries had to save alot of production cost, so the cost of batteries couldn't have been a show stopper. So why base the future of the company on Lithium batteries when you could have nickel batteries now and switch to Lithium when it is totally feasible.

Does anyone really believe there are technological hurdles to putting a Series Hybrid EV1 into production? Like an electric generator is rocket science? Tell me what I'm missing so I can have a successful argument with my Green friends.

Dr Mark


The mistake GM made was backing off their own EV car. They would be miles down the road on batteries, expected life issues and the kind of information that can only be learned on the road if they had just let the project continue.

By killing it, they also gave Toyota the PR win with the Prius and made every tin foil hat in the world think GM wasn't serious about putting out a real eco friendly car. I can't tell you the number of comments I hear from enviromentalists saying that the Volt is vaporware and will never come out. Most of them based on killing the EV project.

Meh, in the end, what matters is that they deliver the Volt in the end. If they do that, all will be forgiven and forgotten.

dagwood55 and Dr. Mark,

Both the Prius and the EV1 look like they were shaped by thier movement through, and elimination from, the lower colon.

GM was right to start with a more conventional looking design, because part of the market acceptance problem was due to the non-conventional look of these vehicles. The Prius' current "success" is due ONLY to its being alone in the marketplace - once the Volt and other vehicles show up, people will flock to those instead.

dagwood55 and Dr. Mark,

Both the Prius and the EV1 look like they were shaped by thier movement through, and elimination from, the lower colon.

GM was right to start with a more conventional looking design, because part of the market acceptance problem was due to the non-conventional look of these vehicles. The Prius' current "success" is due ONLY to its being alone in the marketplace - once the Volt and other vehicles show up, people will flock to those instead.

I think someone has mistaken their opinion for facts.

NO ONE was talking plug-in hybrid a few years ago. Now that I think of it, GM's environmental response has always been for the use of ethanol, instead of batteries, so in their minds, they were proceeding with the config they thought would win.


Actually, plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles have been talked about, developed and sold for many years in virtually any country that has high gasoline (petrol) prices. Therefore, it is not too surprising that Europe has been far ahead of Canada and the US. Although headquartered in the US, GM is a global company. I'm sure that they were aware of developments in other parts of the world, but chose to stick with the business that they already knew. It's a common business mistake ... anyone remember IBM with their PC in the early 1980's. They didn't foresee where the market was going and what the customer wanted; they didn't adapt and grow - causing many business opportunities for competitors. At least GM has decided to start changing course and steer towards the future ...

Gas prices hit an historic high today. For our economy and for our future industrial base I hope GM begins production of the Volt immediately. Introduce the Volt now, accept some product weakness which can be improved later.

The Prius is shaped the way it is because of aerodynamic drag. It's symptomatic of GM's inexperience that GM was both surprised by the Volt's poor showing in the wind tunnel in the Fall (per Lutz) and the fact that, even at sub-highway speeds, aerodynamic drag matters greatly (also per Lutz).

I suppose when one has a V-16 engine sitting in one's office, one does not often think of the difficulty of overcoming a wee bit of aerodynamic drag at modest speeds.

Moreover, I have to wonder if their efforts in the aerodynamic drag department should be revisited. I noticed this on Yahoo:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080404/bs_nm/gm_volt_dc

"Meanwhile, GM engineers are counting on braking to capture energy that will deliver some 20 percent of the power needed for the Volt's 40-mile battery range. Without any braking -- in perfectly traffic-free highway driving -- the range would be closer to 32 miles, GM engineers said."

That makes no sense. Even if regeneration was perfect, it would make no sense. But regeneration isn't perfect and, inevitably, involves a loss of energy. So why would stop-and-go driving be different from non-stop driving? Probably the speed at which it typically happens. I think what this paragraph is really telling us is that the Volt isn't going to do really well at highway speeds, which is probably part of the reason the unrefuled range estimate also fell off, lately, from 640 to "over 400" miles.

The Prius success could be usefully compared to the Malibu (outsells it by 5K units last month), All GM hybrids (outsold them by 19.5K last month), the G6 (outsold that by 5K), the Fusion (outsold that by 5K), and... well, the list goes on and on and on.

Toyota is building another factory so as to ramp up Prius production to 450K units/year by sometime in 2009, if I recall correctly. They are almost certainly going for price and volume and a more capable Prius will certainly debut within Volt timeframe. That's hammer and anvil with GM's $48K Volt stuck in the middle.

"Meanwhile, GM engineers are counting on braking to capture energy that will deliver some 20 percent of the power needed for the Volt's 40-mile battery range. Without any braking -- in perfectly traffic-free highway driving -- the range would be closer to 32 miles, GM engineers said."

That makes no sense. Even if regeneration was perfect, it would make no sense. But regeneration isn't perfect and, inevitably, involves a loss of energy. So why would stop-and-go driving be different from non-stop driving? Probably the speed at which it typically happens. I think what this paragraph is really telling us is that the Volt isn't going to do really well at highway speeds, which is probably part of the reason the unrefuled range estimate also fell off, lately, from 640 to "over 400" miles.

If you read the Tesla spec, you will see that the Roadster gets as good or better mileage in city driving, as / than it does on the highway, and it is entirely due to the drag caused by pushing against the wind. If I am not mistaken, the resistance force is proportional to the speed raised to the 3rd or 4th power, so drag at highway speeds is much greater than in city driving, so any amount of regenerative braking in the city will allow the vehicle to match the efficiency of highway driving.

I'm aware of the Tesla propaganda. I understand the issue of drag vs braking energy recovery.

However, Chevy didn't say that the problem was higher drag at higher/highway speeds, Chevy said that driving without using the brakes from time to time would reduce range, which is implicit in higher-speed freeway driving. Chevy is, intentionally, or not, using a bit of misdirection in revealing that the Volt range may not be as was advertised, 40 miles. Commuters who do a long highway commute at speed may find that the 40 mile range is unattainable.

I believe it will be possible to get 40 miles ouf to the Volt on the highway without start/stopping but you'll risk a ticket for violating a minimum speed requirement.

This also has implications for the range and long-distance fuel economy.

This brings us back to why the Prius is shaped the way it is. Toyota built the car for a single purpose, good fuel economy, and made few decisions against that. I expect that when the Volt hits the street, we'll find performance compromises were made to accomodate what GM execs think a car should look like.

I expect that the next Prius will see a point or two shaved off its drag coefficient, probably giving it additional advantage over the Volt in long-range travel.

If you read the Tesla spec, you will see that the Roadster gets as good or better mileage in city driving, as / than it does on the highway, and it is entirely due to the drag caused by pushing against the wind. If I am not mistaken, the resistance force is proportional to the speed raised to the 3rd or 4th power, so drag at highway speeds is much greater than in city driving, so any amount of regenerative braking in the city will allow the vehicle to match the efficiency of highway driving.

Force = 1/2*Cd*A*density*Velocity^2
Power = Force * Velocity

So if your drag force is 500 lbs at 40 miles per hour your drag force would be 2000 lbs at 80 miles per hour. 1000 lbs at 40 miles per hour is 54 Hp, 2000 lbs at 80 miles per hour is 232 Hp.

All of the combatants, er, I mean participants, should read the Greencarcongress.com article http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/04/gm-provides-sna.html#more. and THEN come back here. It appears that GM is UNDER stating the proposed performance by at least 50% across the board. It may be 60 miles AER in ideal conditions, and 40 in challenging ones.
Be well

Force = 1/2*C_d*A*density*V²

Yes, you have V^2, but C sub d is a practical / empirical function of V as well, especially when there is some amount of turbulent flow, as there always is off the back end of a vehicle. C sub d is a number measured for a specific speed for comparison (like a highway speed), but over 0 - 100, it increases as some non-linear function of V, near linear in laminar flow, and non-linear as turbulent flow adds more drag at a steeper rate.

On the Highway it's aerodynamics that gets you. In the city it's regeneration efficiency. I haven't seen anything on making the regenerative braking more effective.

Yes, you have V^2, but C sub d is a practical / empirical function of V as well, especially when there is some amount of turbulent flow, as there always is off the back end of a vehicle. C sub d is a number measured for a specific speed for comparison (like a highway speed), but over 0 - 100, it increases as some non-linear function of V, near linear in laminar flow, and non-linear as turbulent flow adds more drag at a steeper rate.

I think C_d goes down as Reynolds number goes up (with velocity), then has a sharp decrease at the transition from laminar to turbulent, and then steadily goes up. I could be wrong. I would be very interested in seeing a info on C_d as a function of speed for a given car body (if you could point me in that direction). Also, I suppose once you are on the right hand side of those plots and C_d is growing then yes technically Force is changing on the order V^3

I think C_d goes down as Reynolds number goes up (with velocity), then has a sharp decrease at the transition from laminar to turbulent, and then steadily goes up. I could be wrong. I would be very interested in seeing a info on C_d as a function of speed for a given car body (if you could point me in that direction). Also, I suppose once you are on the right hand side of those plots and C_d is growing then yes technically Force is changing on the order V^3

Having taken classes on fluid dynamics, I would crack up at EE's who thought electromagnetc equations were difficult. At least EE's deal with equations that are derived, producing simple and perfect relationships between electric fields, magnetic fields and current. In mechanical engineering, even the simple equations are just polynomial approximations over short ranges using bulk material / fluid values, and are null / void over large ranges or using thin samples. Fortunately, many mech problems have electrical equivalents - heat transfer, shock / vibration, etc., but so many things do not, particularly mass transfer and fluids.

dagwood55 and Dr. Mark,

Both the Prius and the EV1 look like they were shaped by thier movement through, and elimination from, the lower colon.

GM was right to start with a more conventional looking design, because part of the market acceptance problem was due to the non-conventional look of these vehicles. The Prius' current "success" is due ONLY to its being alone in the marketplace - once the Volt and other vehicles show up, people will flock to those instead.

You miss the point. I'm asking for an explanation of why GM started over FROM SCRATCH. Changing the shape of the body without making ANY substantive changes under the skin is something the auto industry has done since its inception.

Dr Mark

I disagree with the general statement that GM made a mistake not building a hybrid vehicle back when Toyota did. Here are my reasons why:

1) Had GM dove into the water at the same time as Toyota, then they probably would have invested heavy in a lousy configuration, like the Prius, which wouldn't have been plug-in, and it would have had expensive, heavy NiMH batteries - leaving GM "stuck", just like Toyota, having tooled up a dead-end product line. By staying out of the race, GM was able to evaluate other approaches, allowing them to dive in with a far better plug-in hybrid approach that uses light and powerful Li-Ion batteries for great performance/weight.

How about the EV-1 serial hybrid as shown at the 1998 Toyko autoshow? GM already had it right and threw it away. It did use NiMH batteries but they are not that much heavier than the lithium they are planning to use for the Volt and the Prius sales figures would not be where they are today. It would naturally be a plugin because the EV-1 was a plugin and would probably have used the same charger. The lithium batteries are more expensive than the NiMHs where then and the cost of NiMH batteries is down to $500 /kWh. The cost of raw materials alone will never allow that kind of drop for lithium batteries.



2) Until GM and the UAW solved their long-term liability issues, there was no point in chasing any longterm future configurations, as their ability to serve future markets remained uncertain at best.

But they managed to continue making cars and trucks that got less than 25 MPG.



3) Environmental/mileage demands weren't known. Fortunately, many things converged to allow the to government write CAFE standards to help US automakers leap over Japanese gains, which their current configurations couldn't attain.

The only downside to GM's inaction was a prolonged image of being environmentally unfriendly, which GM's current actions are erasing. If one simply looks at all that was set against GM in the past, and how, when those things were removed, GM quickly became the most environmentally friendly of the big 3 US automakers, one would see the poor image is underserved.

Environmental demands were known. CARB set those demands in 1997. GM spent more money fighting the demands than producing cars. Had GM built more than the 11XX vehicles at that time, they could have taken over one spot of most 2 car garages in the U. S. by now.

How about the EV-1 serial hybrid as shown at the 1998 Toyko autoshow? GM already had it right and threw it away. It did use NiMH batteries but they are not that much heavier than the lithium they are planning to use for the Volt and the Prius sales figures would not be where they are today. It would naturally be a plugin because the EV-1 was a plugin and would probably have used the same charger.

That vehicle wouldn't have earned GM any credits with California, which is why California now gives partial credit to hybrids with various levels of all electric range.

The car still could have been adjusted to a 20-30 mile rang EREV and had the potential to grow into a market, much like the Prius. Don't kid yourselves into believing that GM had no say in how the CA mandates were changed. No conspiracy, this was just a deal between CA, the feds, and big auto to pick a better route. GM could and for their own sake, should have lobbied for range extended vehicles to be part of the deal. This was a huge opportunity lost, and GM admits it, but it was their opportunity to lose. Se la vie. They're developing the Volt now and if they hit 40 mile AER, 50 mpg range extended, and under $38K ;) it's all good.

As willdryden said, GM did get involved before Toyota with the EV1 project. They just didn't hang on to it long enough. I think that was the mistake. Hanging on to it just 4 more years would have paid off for GM. All those Prius sales could have been theirs.

That vehicle wouldn't have earned GM any credits with California, which is why California now gives partial credit to hybrids with various levels of all electric range.

Perhaps the big mistake is GM needs to stop pandering so completely to the CARB. California is only one state, while a large one, there are 49 others. They had the idea, to say that doing it because of the CARB is stupid. After the CARB ZEV requirements were reduced, NOTHING stopped GM from developing the EV1 or the EV1 Serial Hybrid concept except for GM management. They made the ultimate decision. They may have believed that the market would not be there for the vehicle or that it wasn't cost effective to make it, but no regulation or governmental agency prevented them from making it. Even if they killed the pure BEV EV1, they could have still continued with the EV1 Serial Hybrid. They did not see the direction the market was taking and when Toyota came out with their hybrid they could have pulled out all the EV1 designs and reevaluated them. Did they? Lutz apparently did and it took him 3 or more years to finally get GM management to listen to him. So GM Management DID make a huge mistake in hindsight which could have been prevented with a little aforethought.

The car still could have been adjusted to a 20-30 mile rang EREV and had the potential to grow into a market, much like the Prius. Don't kid yourselves into believing that GM had no say in how the CA mandates were changed. No conspiracy, this was just a deal between CA, the feds, and big auto to pick a better route. GM could and for their own sake, should have lobbied for range extended vehicles to be part of the deal. This was a huge opportunity lost, and GM admits it, but it was their opportunity to lose. Se la vie. They're developing the Volt now and if they hit 40 mile AER, 50 mpg range extended, and under $38K ;) it's all good.

Back when gasoline was cheap, such a vehicle really wouldn't have sold very well.

Perhaps the big mistake is GM needs to stop pandering so completely to the CARB. California is only one state, while a large one, there are 49 others. They had the idea, to say that doing it because of the CARB is stupid. After the CARB ZEV requirements were reduced, NOTHING stopped GM from developing the EV1 or the EV1 Serial Hybrid concept except for GM management. They made the ultimate decision. They may have believed that the market would not be there for the vehicle or that it wasn't cost effective to make it, but no regulation or governmental agency prevented them from making it. Even if they killed the pure BEV EV1, they could have still continued with the EV1 Serial Hybrid. They did not see the direction the market was taking and when Toyota came out with their hybrid they could have pulled out all the EV1 designs and reevaluated them. Did they? Lutz apparently did and it took him 3 or more years to finally get GM management to listen to him. So GM Management DID make a huge mistake in hindsight which could have been prevented with a little aforethought.

CARB was the only government body insisting on ZEV's, and since they held the key to the largest automarket in the US, they were calling the shots.

Energy Storage Options for the Chevy Volt
Li-ion: $350/kWh; 0.20kWh/kg
NiMH: $225/kWh; 0.08kWh/kg
PbA: $150/kWh; 0.04kWh/kg
EESU: $62/kWh; 0.28kWh/kg


I would like to know where your prices and power figures came from. With 16 kWh of proposed Volt batteries weighing in at 400 lb, that is .088kWh/kg for lithium. The lead and NiMH figures are close.

The quote I got from Altairnano was $2100./kWh for their lithium batteries. NiMH for this type of application is not being sold but lead is correct for some vendors. Who or what is EESU?

Back when gasoline was cheap, such a vehicle really wouldn't have sold very well.

That is why I stated grow into a market. It would have been appealing to a lot of the early Prius adoters. Most of them weren't buying for financial reasons alone and a car that had 2-infinity times the mpg would have had "enough" appeal even if it was $10-12K more. To be sure, it would have been a much slower ramp up than what is epected for the Volt but I believe would have worked if done right.