Ford had to scratch and claw it’s way out of a bad reputation with this car. If the Volt stumbles, it’s the only small Hybrid GM has to it’s name. They were planning on dropping the name and decided instead to reinvent it again. Actually, they’ve gone back to the drawing board on a number of cars. They Mustang alone represents 2 new engine/transmission combinations. their new diesel truck engine represents a tremendous investment in technology.
My point is that they are building stuff that people can afford and they are building hybrids that are cost effective. When batteries make sense they will be in a position to work them into their lineup.
GM is playing with other people’s money at a time when they don’t have a single small hybrid in the stable. They’re building a rocket to mars before they get to the moon.
I’m really trying hard to not just respond tit for tat but certain comments do deserve responses.
Would building a regular small parallel hybrid to try to compete with the Prius, and Honda’s hybrids, and all the other small hybrids, been a better tactic for GM? One suspects that whatever they built in that market segment would have had a very difficult time competing. Just another Prius wannabe. They would neither sell great nor do anything to enhance the brand as anything other than a company trying to catch up but still behind.
Instead GM has devoted the regular hybrid attention to the vehicle for which it actually makes the most sense, the large ones: the Yukon Denali, the Caddie Escalade, the Chevy Silverado, the Chevy Tahoe, etc. In these vehicle hybrid technology actually saves a significant amount of gas. For example, using the Denali as an example, 15K city miles a year would use a bit more than 10,100 gallons of gas in the regular version, and 7500 gallons in the hybrid version. Over 40% more gas to ride the non-hybrid version. 260 gallons of gas difference. Yes, at a $5K premium it still won’t pay in dollars and cents at the current cheap $3/gallon until 6 or 7 years out, but obviously faster if gas prices go back up. And those who are willing to spend over $50K on a vehicle may not sweat a few extra bucks to feel like they can both drive the big vehicle they need and still do some small part of helping this country be less dependent on foreign oil. In comparison the Civic hybrid saves only about 70 gallons of gas a year compared to the regular Civic and at a $7K premium. The Camry saves about 230 gallons going hybrid (all city driving 15K/yr) but at a similar $6-7K premium.
And the Volt? If it becomes a desired car, if other major makers come out with their own PHEVs or EREVs, they’ll be the ones trying to catch up with GM in the public’s mind.
Yup. Others are on the moon already. Better not to waste resource putting another base there. The glory, the success, will be in getting to Mars. I wish them luck. Me, I want a simpler car, a pure BEV.
… but ‘value’ does not equate to commercial success, which seems to be how you interpret the ‘bad track record’ of the COTY award. I don’t believe that it has ever been treated in that manner.
In related news, the Nissan Leaf has been named the European Car of the Year.
Um, batteries totally make sense. Let’s not have yet another thread about the Hubbert Curve at this time, but unless you are posting from a planet with better oil reserves than Earth, batteries are worth subsidizing.
Yes, you’ve repeated it many times, the Volt doesn’t pay for itself in gas savings, and that’s partly because of the battery. But please factor in what is happening in the world of fuel right now, and be realistic about the future potential of batteries in an economy of scale situation. Gas-free cars can’t wait, and batteries appear to be the best alternative.
There is nothing realistic about the Volt’s price or production numbers in relation to the Hubbert Curve. Making a hybrid that sold in numbers to make a difference would have made more sense to GM but they’ve decided to make a flagship car at a time when they can’t afford to do it,
One of the most common complaints about American auto makers is that they are always behind the curve on innovation and anticipating trends. The Volt may very well be a complete failure, but I think trying something bold that could be highly influential is a good strategy. Time wil tell, of course.
There is truth to what you’re saying but it’s a little more than not fronting the newest technology. American companies have traditionally deferred to market conditions. A classical example is commercial aircraft. The Concorde was a wondrous aircraft in every respect but it wasn’t profitable. American companies dropped their version for that reason. The 380 stands to be the next Concorde. It’s a difficult plane to make money with.
The Volt is not another Concorde because it stands to be a viable car in the future. I don’t see it as a particularly bold car from a technological point of view but is is a challenge for GM because they don’t have a track record for hybrids to fall back on. It’s a major effort on their part to bring forth a car that won’t make money for them. All the other car companies who have solid hybrids in their inventory can easily transition to plug-ins when batteries dictate their viability so I don’t see where GM gets anything but a pat on the back when the market dictates the car.
I think you’re wrong when you say “from a production (investment) point of view it is the reconfiguration of the basic Prius concept with more batteries added.” You don’t really acknowledge the basic difference between the Volt and the Prius with this assessment. GM will sell you an ev which doesn’t suffer from the ev range problem. Toyota won’t. Yah ok, maybe they will produce a Prius with a 5kwh battery that delivers 55mpg. Ok, that really is cool. Really But GM delivers an electric car. GM is in a position to engineer its 2012 and later models as responses to the “critique” offerings of their competitors. In effect, they are in the lead, despite the perspective that they are also the bad guys.
Magiver, while I am fairly sure that a nationwide roll out will happen within a year or so, fortunately for drivers of the Volt, drivers of PHEV/EREVs don’t need to plug in along the way. Nah, the Cracker Barrel move is aimed at supporting adoption of the Nissan Leaf in particular. Why? Well the fact that Nissan is building a 1.3 million square foot facility that will produce lithium-ion batteries for the LEAF and employ over 1300 workers in the process may have something to do with it. When your whole state’s population is under 6.3 million and the economy is in still slow, supporting that is smart PR. Still, interesting to see that even with a 100 mile range, EV drivers in Tennessee will be able get around most of the state they want to get to just fine. This isn’t tree hugging Calfornia. It’s a state that gave McCain a 15 point margin over Obama, one of the most conservative states in the nation.
Meanwhile, another fun EV related update. Remember the discussion about how trucks with defined routes may be a market for EVs? Well I have no idea of the cost or return on investment analysis but they are indeed going to try it out with garbage trucks in France.
Yes, I acknowledged the difference between the two cars but from a design POV they are the same layout. Add 2 electric motors, some ICE and a few batteries and you have a Volt/Prius. When the cost comes down Toyota will upgrade the size of the primary motor and add more batteries.
Indeed the ability to size the battery pretty much to the exact need makes a positive ROI more possible, especially if one exists in an environment in which the carbon emission is monetized.
Another update, from a report about the possible future increase in production, this aside about E85:
The back track is already afoot. You’ll not be seeing an E85 Volt.
How do you monetize a carbon emission electric car that’s fueled by coal fired electricity? Should it be taxed by the mile along with road taxes? These are expensive questions to answer when EV’s become a reality and not a novelty.
An Atkinson cycle engine wouldn’t care if it is fed by E85 fuel. To my understanding E85 is a little more corrosive than regular gas so the material in the fuel system has to be able to handle it.
Please supply facts to defend your bare assertion that the trucks “don’t make sense because of the weight and distance they travel”. This is starting to feel like a knee-jerk talking point on your part. The batteries are 250kwh- what do you want? It’s a garbage truck that goes 70km/hr- what do you want?? Let me remind you the biggest goddamn vehicle in the world, the USS Ronald Reagan, is an electric vehicle.
Nah. The Prius has to start over to become an ev with a gasoline generator. Again, one car is driven entirely by an electric motor (ok, 99% of the time). That requires specialized control systems and gearing to handle the kind of output you get from an electric motor. Meanwhile, the other gar gets its momentum primarily from gasoline.
Distinction: Momentum from electricity VS momentum from gasoline.
It is a retreat and a change of subject on your part every time you gloss over this.
But GM delivers an electric car. GM is in a position to engineer its 2012 and later models as responses to the “critique” offerings of their competitors. In effect, they are in the lead, despite the perspective that they are also the bad guys.