GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Electric Car Site

The two most closely guarded secrets about the Chevrolet Volt have been its price and its fuel economy while running in generator mode.

Now that we know the price, how about the other secret?

It turns out we may never see an official announcement from GM even after the car launches into retail deliveries.

GM has insisted, rightly so, the Volt should not be compared to other cars, and that its in a class of its own. Without doubt for the majority of drivers during the majority of their drives the Volt will use no gas at all. And although gas will burn at a certain rate while the generator is running, its contribution to overall fuel economy may be minimal.

When GM announced last Summer that the Volt could get 230 mpg on average over time, they took into account nightly recharging and typical driving patterns. It was an illustration but not fact.

The fact is the EPA is still trying to determine the best method for creating a consumer sticker for the Volt. Recently ratified SAE J1711 standard will be used to measure the car’s efficiency and still takes use over time into account.

Because the typically slow-moving bureaucratic EPA still hasn’t concluded what label the Volt will have, GM admits they might not even have one from them come November when the car reaches showrooms.

“Its possible the EPA still won’t have a label when the Volt goes into production,” said GM spokesperson Rob Peterson. “They’re just trying to do what’s right.”

Instead GM may issue its own detailed chart label to go with the car illustrating typical fuel usage in a variety of scenarios that will serve temporarily.

“The VOLT will have a label for launch with a lot of information to assist the customer,” says Volt vehicle line director Tony Posawatz. “It will not be the final label beyond 2011 MY.”

The eventual EPA label “will have a lot of info including a fuel efficiency number if you never charge your VOLT,” he said.

As for who will release that generator (CS) mode MPG, it “wont be GM,” said Peterson. We won’t then likely get fuel economy in generator mode estimates until the cars is driven for extended periods by early buyers and the media.

There has been much discussion over the past three years about the battery of the Chevrolet Volt. We watched LG Chem and A123 compete for almost two years to win the affections of GM to supply them with cells; a battle eventually won by LG in January of 2009. Then the discussion switched to the actual cost of the cells inside the battery pack that would be built by GM themselves in Michigan.

For a time, the number thrown about was $1,000 per kWh, until Jon Lauckner (GM Vice President) was asked about this price point estimate, to which he responded that GM was paying “many hundreds of dollars less” than a thousand.

Then a study put out by Deutsche Bank in early March of this year seemed to pinpoint exactly what that ‘many hundreds’ less worked out to be, citing the average cell price per kWh in 2009 was $650. It also put out forward looking estimates of a 25% reduction in that cost over 5 years, and 50% over 10 ($325 per kWh in 2020), with some companies seeing bids at around $450 for 2012.

Adding to GM’s cost of the cells is the fabrication of the pack itself, along with the advanced temperature management system, which GM is doing themselves at a assembly plant in Brownstown Township in Michigan.

What had been forgotten over time was whether or not the initial decision to purchase 3rd party cells over producing them themselves was a good one. It has long been GM’s stance to produce a very small quantity of cars at first, then bring on new production (and eventually models) as demand is validated. Obviously, by consciously making a decision to limit your exposure to this new segment in case of failure, buying 3rd party cells seemed like the prudent way to go.

In a recent interview by the Times of London, Nissan senior vice president, Andy Palmer (who is responsible for the company’s global EV strategy), dropped a bomb on the rest of the industry, by being the first to put a dollar figure on the cost of the battery, by saying the Leaf’s battery costs £6,000 ($8,950 USD) to produce right now.

At 24 kWh per pack, that comes to around $370 per kWh, out the door, finished product. This is quite simply a stunning revelation, and Mr. Palmer was not done there, he continues by saying that “our battery is good for 100 miles and will soon be good for 200 miles,” alluding to the next generation which is reportedly due out in 2013. Just for fun he adds that Nissan will make money on the Leaf from day 1, saying, “We not going to lose money on this. I don’t have a boss who would endure that.”

It would seem that Nissan’s decision to partner with NEC to form AESC – Automotive Energy Supply Corporation (of which Nissan owns 51%) back in April of 2007 to produce their own batteries was the right way to go and is delivering a huge competitive advantage.

None of the domestic auto makers followed Nissan’s move to invest in producing the batteries themselves, with Chrysler tying up with A123, and Ford forming a strategic alliance with Magna to produce EVs, with packs supplied by Johnson Controls-Saft.

The only other company to strongly commit to prduction of a complete battery is Mitsubishi, and like Nissan, has a joint venture of their own, with GS Yuasa Corp to produce cells under the name Lithium Energy Japan.

It is thought Mitsu’s pricing position is not nearly as strong as Nissan’s, because they have the minority ownership stake in the company, which is also much smaller than AESC, with a capacity of around 18,000 packs for 2011, and up to 68,000 for 2012 when their main plant comes online in Ritto City, Japan.

While no estimates on the cost of the 16 kWh pack that sits inside Mitsu’s i-MiEV has been given, under pressure from Nissan to be competitive, Mitsubishi spokesperson Maurice Durand at the New York auto show last month confirmed that not only would the i-MiEV be on sale in the US in April of 2011, but also that they “we’re targeting sub $30,000 (msrp) for the U.S. when it launches” before rebates.

GM now finds itself in a bit of a problem dealing with two companies that not only have in-house battery production, but also huge amounts of scale to bring costs down, while GM themselves are left to deal with the problem of a existing contract being in place, and the markup of a 3rd party supplier.

To GM’s credit, the Volt extended range concept may insulate them for a time against the cost advantages of the two other competitors on the market in 2011, as the limited range and lack of recharging infrastructure behind BEVs hurts adoption. But as companies like Nissan bring 200+ mile ranges to market in three or four years, they could be in some real trouble.

And what if demand is strong for the Volt when they announce pricing and start taking deposits this summer? GM is not bringing full production online until 2012…what is to stop Nissan from developing their own extended range vehicle over those same 18 months to compete with GM if the Volt is met with a strong order book?

As Bob Lutz put it in his exit interview with GM-Volt, “I think what we all (at GM) want to do is to let us see how this works…let’s see how customers react” before we move forward.

With Nissan being as aggressive and optimistic as they are, and if GM’s attitude is still wait and see at this point, why get into the business at all? Regardless of the Volt’s reception, it seems like it is turning into a lose-lose scenario when you look into the future.

If I can steal part of one of Bob Lutz’s last quotes at GM to us here, hopefully his “successors at GM would (will) say ‘hey maybe its time to expand’” the program right now, while the opportunity still presents itself.

Its hard to forget the intense buzz that GM’s 230 mpg announcement brought with it on that warm August day last summer. It was GM-Volt.com’s highest traffic day of all time with over 100,000 visitors hitting the site, and this author actually flew out to Detroit for the press conference.

230 MPG is what then-CEO Fritz Henderson said the Volt would achieve in highway driving.

The announcement brought a lot of controversy and some vitriolic complaints but in fact its calculation was simple and practical.

If the average driver used the Volt over a fixed period of time, say a week, and drove less then 40 miles per day most but not all days, recharging at night, he would use a certain amount of gas. That number is then divided into the miles driven over the same time period. In that scenario, 230 is what the average driver according to national statistics would achieve.

That approach is different than how MPG is conventionally calculated, and hence the controversy. However, considering the unique operational behavior of the Volt, the method, which was under preliminary consideration by the EPA at the time, seemed reasonable.

However, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal, the public backlash has caused the EPA to reconsider.

Citing anonymous sources, WSJ writes “the agency is in the midst of finalizing that formula in a way that will deliver more down-to-earth mileage ratings.” GM-Volt high level sources also confirm the 230 MPG rating is expected to change.

“We’re working with EPA staff on testing of labels that will provide meaningful information to the consumer,” GM spokesman Greg Martin said this told the WSJ. “What we’re finding is that the Volt and electric vehicles defy conventional mileage labels.”

An EPA spokesperson said a final decision on how electric vehicles will be rated has not yet been made.

So what will the final number be? We’ll have to wait and see, but somehow I don’t think this post will receive 100,000 readers.

Source (WSJ)

The Opel Ampera is the sister car to the Chevy Volt, sharing the same powertrain, interior and basic sheet metal, but with unique styling cues germaine to GM’s European brand.

Though we have seen several Chevrolet Volt preproduction vehilces on the road, only now are the first Amperas hitting the pavement.

The car is expected to begin series production in late 2011 for sales in Europe.

The Geneva Auto Show is set to open in Switzerland on Sunday.

GM is launching a real-world road trip of an Opel Ampera leaving from Opel’s headquarters in Russelheim Gernmanay, and travelling non stop 370 miles to Geneva. The first 40 miles will be purely electric, and the remainder covered by the gas generator.

AutoExpress claims the car will complete the trip from Germany “producing around 40g/km of CO2 and managing 176mpg economy.” Not sure how they came up with that, unless recharging is planned along the way.

“I am really looking forward to putting a lot of “miles” on our first Ampera prototype during this maiden test on public roads,” said Opel/Vauxhall Director of Electric Vehicle Implementation, Gherardo Corsini who will be at the wheel. “With 370 Nm of instantaneous, electric torque under my right foot, it promises to be an interesting and almost silent drive to Geneva.”

I aked Opel spokesperson Andrew Marshall whether they expeced to cover the distance on a single tank of gas.

“The drive to Geneva is a first for us in every way,” he replied. “We don’t know exactly what to expect.”

Sounds like fun. The car embarks on Sunday at 930AM CET. We’ll be watching.  You can follow them here.  Its a small world after all.

I suspect Nissan won’t be trying this trip in its Leaf EV.

Source (Opel)

According to an opinion piece by Jerry Flint, Forbes’ senior automotive editor it will.

He writes, “The question isn’t whether the world is ready for the Leaf. It’s whether the Leaf is ready for the world.” He then continues that the Leaf is “is more likely to be a sales failure than a sales success” because of 5 reasons.

Range – it doesn’t have the range of a conventional car
Recharging stations – the lack of them is clearly a problem, and most will be west coast
Recharging time – “eight hours or so for a full charge from ordinary household current, much less with stepped-up voltage at charging posts that don’t exist”
Price – he is “guessing the price will be closer to $40,000 with the batteries”

There was also something else about “it doesn’t have the top speed,” which I thought was a little jejune to the argument; it goes 90 MPH for goodness sake. Tell me the truth Mr. Flint, you just googled an old article that estimated it topping out around 75 didn’t you?

For these reasons, he states “I’ll stick my neck out. The Leaf will get all the favorable publicity in the world but be blown away in the market.” Mr. Flint then goes on to quantify what ‘blown away’ represents in actual yearly sales; a few thousand, or maybe 10,000, or maybe 20,000, ok well no more than 30,000.

In the advantages column he states, “electricity costs less than gasoline” /you don’t say

I guess the Leaf really has very little going for it then. I guess freedom from foreign oil, or a healthier environment/better future for our kids doesn’t come into play here then?

To be fair, I usually end up on the same side of the coin as Mr. Flint. He was ahead of his time warning of trouble with the domestic automakers. He pointed out the dangers involved with their massive legacy costs, and has had a lot of other good insights, all the while being the very best ‘cranky old dude’ that he can be. I can respect that.

However, sometimes he is so committed to his own position, to viewing the auto industry only through Detroit-colored glasses, that he goes completely off the rails.

He has put out such whoppers as the only reason Korean car maker Hyundai has done so well improving on sales of late is because of the currency swap (even though Hyundai offers thousands less in incentives that of their Detroit brethren)…but just you wait, that failure is still coming (because they are over zealous and want to be number one. How dare they!)
— just check back in three years to see he was right.

/yeah, we will all bookmark your article on that one and check back in 3 years (Hyundai success is totally not because of smart/timely product planning at all)

I feel Forbes’ senior automotive editor is putting out another ‘Hyundai’ story when he reflects on the Nissan Leaf’s future prospectus. In fact Mr. Flint has been pretty much negative of a electric future for quite some time now.

A year and half or so ago he was “skeptical about how quickly manufacturers will solve the lithium-ion batteries’ problems, such as overheating,” and questioned if they would “be able to put the batteries into mass production.” This kind of fear mongering is not restricted to just the Leaf and pure EVs, he has suggested that the Volt itself may fall prey to “rebooting at 60 miles per hour,” which could mean “crashing into a highway post.” /oh no!

As for premise of the article, I do agree that Nissan is being way too ambitious with sales forecasts for the Leaf in North America. I think if Nissan does come to market in the low-mid $30s, a sell rate of 20,000-30,000 copies a year sounds just about right.

Also, Nissan building a plant to produce 150,000 cars a year in Tennessee feels more like a DoE money grab than a sound business plan; unless of course they are exporting them to the rest of the world as well. /and there it is…the bigger picture

This is where Mr. Flint falls down, you see his version of success is measured only by its reception in America. If this piece was on the Volt, and he concluded that it was not viable in the US, then the project would then most likely be considered a failure. However, Nissan is not GM, and it is not banking on the US to be the measure of its success for its electric car. The Leaf is being built and marketed as a world car.

The Leaf will be coming to market as the uncontested leader of electric vehicles in many countries around the world. In the majority of these markets gas is much more expensive, a lot more people live on top of each other in big city centers, and the regulations/taxes and tariffs (that the Leaf will be exempt from in many cases) on gas powered cars are steep, making the prospectus of a BEV a different proposition entirely than say in…Nebraska.

The electric cars Nissan sells in the US are the gravy, not the potatoes. Sure they would like to sell hundreds of thousands, but every Leaf that Nissan does ship to North America next year, whether that be 10,000 or 30,000 is purpose sent…as a sale, or at the request of the dealer. There will not be 25 electric cars lined up outside a Nissan dealership because the mothership is forcing inventory down their dealer’s throats with $10,000 ‘red tag’ signs plastered all over them.

/the ‘world’ is larger than the North America Mr. Flint, times have changed.

The Ford Motor company has just unveiled its first commercial electric vehicle.  The Transit Connect Electric Cargo van will go into production in late 2010.

It is a small van weighing in at 3948 pounds with a wheelbase of 114.6 inches and a length of 1806. inches.  It can hold from two to five passengers and a 1000 pound payload.

It is a pure electric vehicle utilizing a Siemens 3 phase AC induction motor and single speed transmission that offers 235 Nm of torque and a top speed of 75 mph on flat ground and 60 mph up 3 percent grade.  It will do 0 to 60 in 12 seconds based on curb weight and 15 seconds based on gross vehicle weight rating.

Power comes from a liquid-cooled 28 kwh Johnson Controls-Saft lithium-ion pack that can be recharged in 6 to 8 hours at 240 volts using the industry standard J1772 SAE coupler. It has an 80 mile target driving range.

The vehicle is intended for commercial fleet use and is “well-suited for commercial fleets that travel predictable, short-range routes with frequent stop-and-go driving in urban and suburban environments and a central location for daily recharging,” said Ford in a press release.

The “Force Drive” electric powertrain is manufactured and integrated by specialty upfitter Azure Dynamics.

“We’re excited about the potential for our electrified vehicles,” said Praveen Cherian, program manager for the Transit Connect Electric, who added that today’s electric vehicle buyers are similar to early adopters of hybrid vehicles. “People were a little hesitant about hybrids at first, but now they accept it and embrace it. We expect the same will be true of electric vehicles.”

Ford says the vehicle will offer lower cost of operation than a comparable gas vehicle due to the low cost of electricity versus gas  fuel and low cost of maintenance.

The vehicle including the battery pack is designed for a lifetime of 10 years/120,000 miles.

The current gasoline powered Transit Connect van won the 2010 North American Truck of the Year.

According to Ford spokesperson Jennifer Moore pricing has not been announced and will be “primarily for commercial use.”  Ford  ”would not exclude retail sales,” she added.

Ford has not yet determined whether the vans will be leased or sold.

“Volumes will be low to begin with to determine how the emerging market shapes up,” says Moore.  ”Up to a thousand will be produced in the first full year of production.”

Ford also plans to bring out a pure electric Ford Focus in late 2011, and in 2012 they will produce their next generation C-class hybrid and plugin hybrid.

Source (Ford)