GM reaffirms commitment to build Volt by 2010, refuses to commit to date
In the wake of General Motors Chairman Richard Wagoner's comments last that the Chevy Volt may not make it to production by 2010, GM executives and communications staff are madly trying control the story. Here's what the boss said during the GMNext launch event:
Lyle Dennis-GM-Volt.com:
How important is the Chevy Volt E-Flex program to GM's future, and how confident are you that the car will hit the road in 2010?
Rick Wagoner:
The Chevy Volt, and the E-Flex system, are really important for GM's, and I think the whole industry's, future. With the growing demand for oil, we need to diversify the sources of power for autos, away from our traditional 98% reliance on oil. As to when the Volt will hit the road, we continue to put massive resources into production as soon as possible. 2010 would be great, but can't guarantee that at this time. We'll keep you posted regularly on our progress.
Read on after the jump for an explanation of all this.
[Source: General Motors]
The problem is that Wagoner is the Chairman of a huge public company. As such he has to be very careful about making public commitments to anything. When a product program is still three or more years from production and contains technology that may or may not work, he has to equivocate. People buy and sell a lot of stock based on statements from executives like Rick Wagoner and Bob Lutz. When the things they say don't come to fruition, lawsuits often result.
Wagoner is by nature more conservative than Lutz and has his own style. But even the outspoken Lutz has never actually said that GM "will build" the Volt by the end of 2010. That's the target date and they are putting in all the resources necessary to make it happen. Car makers never actually publicly commit to a Job 1 date until the tooling is delivered and they building pilot vehicles which is usually within twelve months of full production and often much closer. If they were to commit to a November 2010 launch and it slipped to March 2011, everyone would be all over them even though such a scenario would be not all unexpected in such a program.
All that being said, everyone below that level at GM still seems supremely confident that Volt will enter production on or about that time. Jon Lauckner, VP for Global Program Management, GM spokesman Rob Peterson and many others continue to say they expect the car to launch around the end of the decade. Depending on what happens between now and then the Volt be produced "on time" or not, but you won't hear it officially until much, much closer to that time. In the meantime, Lutz also has his say on the GM Fastlane blog.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
rgseidl 10:42AM (1/08/2008)
I don't think it's wise to commit to a hard date when the core technology - the new Li-ion chemistry cells and packs - are barely out of the lab. I don't doubt that GM is more or less betting the farm on this as it's the only thing they've got in the works that can blunt Toyota's edge in the market.
Still, it would be a good idea for Wagoner and Lutz to get on the same page wrt public announcements on the product development timeline.
Reply
kert 11:19AM (1/08/2008)
::the new Li-ion chemistry cells and packs - are barely out of the lab.
No. The particular chemistry used by A123 for example has been out for something like two years now, and by "out" i dont mean labs, but in consumer products. The DeWalt power tools. And they arent just cells in there, these are power packs for quite demanding applications. Not to speak of all the RC Hobbyists taking the maximum out of the packs and cells, and doing their own evaluations, cycle testing, load testing, safety testing and whatnot.
As for car sized packs, well why were they sitting on their asses for this integration for that long ?
Also, nobody FORCES them to use lithium ion, NiMH would be just fine, as demonstrated by GM1 own EV1 series hybrid prototype. NiMH has only marginally poorer specific energy and specific power than lithium phosphate chemistry.
Of course we know that batteries are convenient scapegoat, if GM f*cks up, its battery technology's fault. They need that party line. But doesnt mean that we need to believe their BS.
Reply
Whopper 11:58AM (1/08/2008)
Oh my, there’s that evil old General Motors deliberately holding technological advances up! Get over it kert! DeWalt power tools and RC modelers a source for product testing an automotive product? You can’t be serious!
Perhaps you aren’t old enough to remember the Chevy Vega. Pushed through to compete with the Japanese imports, the accelerated design cycle made the consumer the test fleet. They rusted like crazy in the northern states and the engine burned oil and overheated. And this was just an evolution of existing technology.
Designing a vehicle to live in all climates and drive on all roads and meet the dozens of safety and EPA regulations while making a profit is no easy task and takes time. The first time a Chevy Volt fails to start in a Minnesota snow storm you guys will be all over GM for selling a faulty vehicle. A successful DeWalt drill-driver is no design guide.
Reply
Clark 12:30PM (1/08/2008)
Let's not confuse Dewalt power tools with the necessary specifications to power a car. The energy draw required, along with environmental and safety issues are far more intense (and different). A123 has a promising chemistry, but the testing required is significant.
I thought reaction to the comments made by Wagoner were completely blown out of proportion. It makes perfect sense what he said! The volt has been the single best thing GM has been behind in a long time. This has created PR buzz, resulting in huge branding gains. The fact is that GM is going to do everything in their power to make this happen but that still doesn't mean they can guarantee that this will happen by 2010 (their target). What's new about that?
Reply
Ron Fischer 1:34PM (1/08/2008)
GM may not be entirely certain that the battery technology is ready for mass deployment in consumer vehicles, but they are surely keeping an eye on the potential effect of a recession on oil prices and public interest in hybrids. If we are just starting a recession now will there be much interest in plug-in hybrids in two years? This is almost exactly what happened during the oil shocks of the late 70s, 80s. GM is being careful about release dates for MANY reasons, not just technology.
Reply
Wiz 1:33PM (1/08/2008)
Whopper do you know why GM has a bad reputation? They can gain SOME trust back with the Volt but even then it's still shady until they actually execute it to production.
GM fires thousands of workers when they are running into financial problems, which in turn, cost more money due to union contracts and pensions. They do this every time they are doing bad which is more often than not. Why do you think there was a huge strike last year?
They made the leading modern EV in the world and CRUSHED it. NO business that has the leading technology goes and CRUSHES them when all of them were in demand to be bought. BAD PR MOVE.
As you should know from this green blog that there are many EV startups or concept cars that are springing up. Why doesn't GM just restart their production for the EV1 with NiMH? It still performs far better than any comparable EV out there.
In 2007 2.4 percent of all car sales were hybrids, or 355,680 hybrids. I'm sure at least 10,000 or less than 3% of hybrid buyers would want to buy that EV1. Many hybrid owners buy hybrids because there is no EV. The Rav4EVs that has been auctioned off in the past 3 years have tagged prices much higher then their buying price. In essence it's so much in demand that the cars don't depreciate.
So like Kert said why don't they just produce the Volt with NiMh. I would say that they can buy 2-3years time before they get the li-ion as a second generation upgrade without any design problems or dysfunction. No new technology starts out perfect and at the low end when it's still expensive. Li-ion is expensive and not necessarily a have-to in order to sell the Volt at this point. NiMH already has great performance and can do an effective job.
Why does GM start out with the expensive li-ion batteries for a 30K car?
When cell phones and air conditioners first came out no one sold them on a mass produced scale because it would have made it too expensive to do business. So you leave it as an option or a later upgrade when it is FEASIBLE to make a profit.
If you already have an existing model that works like the EV1 then why do you have to start ALL OVER from scratch? That within itself doesn't make sense when you can save massive costs.
The Volt is still a two door like the EV1. It's not even a sedan. So all the more reason GM doesn't seem viably credible at this point and time.
Reply
kert 2:12PM (1/08/2008)
::Let's not confuse Dewalt power tools with the necessary specifications to power a car. The energy draw required, along with environmental and safety issues are far more intense
Lets not confuse basic electronics with something else. The battery cell is a battery cell, regardless of what draws power from it, whether its a drill bit or something else.
What matters is the load on cell level, the amps drawn, cycling depth and frequency, temperatures and charging amps. Its quite obvious that in 40PHEV application the individual cells will actually be under more benign loads than in power tools, where they are subjected to basically maximum power draw and maximum discharge _ever single cycle_, with obviously far less sophisticated battery management electronics than its possible to put in a car-sized pack.
As for the comment regarding "evil old GM", i never said anything like that. I pointed out that the chemistries are in fact quite mature, nothing like "just out of the lab" as claimed above. Lithium phosphate chemistry was "in the labs" something like ten years ago.
Reply
Whopper 3:48PM (1/08/2008)
Wiz, name me a company, large or small, that doesn’t shed employees when their financial situation turns sour. The “huge” strike was very short by comparison and it was over health care cost. GM handed the UAW a bundle of money and responsibility for the retiree health care cost. The issue wasn’t about whether it would happen or not, just how much cash the UAW was getting. Are you saying you don’t buy a GM car because of the way they treat the UAW? How about Ford or Chrysler?
Neither you or I “know” what GM learned from the EV1 experiment. If there was any information regarding durability, safety etc. made public, I never heard about it. ALL auto manufacturers crush prototype/experimental cars. If they learned some valuable information they certainly wouldn’t want the competition to get it. I’m sure there were some liability concerns as well.
Wiz, 2.4% of 15M vehicles doesn’t even constitute a niche market. Realizing they would only get a piece of this market is not much of an incentive. GM can sell 36,000 Corvettes and make money, or sell that many EV1’s and lose. Losing money means layoffs – see my first comment.
Kert, you are looking at one aspect of the battery application, the electrical loads and charging etc. Today any manufacturer will have to consider operation from -40 to +120 ambient temperature, shock and vibration, customer missuse, long term durability, results of an accident or roll-over, and what to do with the battery when it is done. I'm sure I've missed dozens of other concerns that GM has. With all of the world watching, if the Volt has any flaw at all, GM's investment will be lost. And we all know there are those, other than Toyota, who will dance with glee should GM stub it's corporate toe.
Reply
kert 5:29PM (1/08/2008)
::Today any manufacturer will have to consider ...
All your concerns apply to any mass market application of the battery. Vibration, customer misuse, accidents, temperatuers etc. are as much of a concern for power tools as they are for cars. Maybe even more, as car frame at least offers some protection from bad accidents involving batteries, and can provide for more comfortable thermal and cushioned environment for batteries.
And now go and look what conditions the RC guys subject their batteries, and theres a reason to cringe in horror.
Reply
Whopper 10:08AM (1/09/2008)
Kert, I agree that whatever battery is applied it will have to withstand the rigors of automotive application. But it is for that reason that I think this process will take to at least 2010 and maybe beyond. I don’t doubt that RC modelers work their equipment hard and I know, from first hand experience, how abusive construction people are with their tools. But the automotive industry is facing a 100,000 mile, trouble free, expectation. While some “green” folks will be more tolerant, the general public will expect the same durability that they see in IC engine vehicles today. I don’t believe the modelers are doing the equivalent of 100K miles worth of wear and tear.
Reply
kert 11:16AM (1/09/2008)
::I don’t believe the modelers are doing the equivalent of 100K miles worth of wear and tear.
Well, start believing or read up.
The important variables here are cycle life and calendar life of the battery cell.
Lots of RC folks do several full discharge cycles on their battery packs a day, while a PHEV car will rarely see such load. Some folks have cycled the A123 batteries north of several thousand times already.
Taking an average 20-mile commute at battery 50% DOD for 40PHEV, 100K miles would mean 5000 daily cycles, or 13 years.
In essence, RC guys are in some cases wearing their batteries more and way faster than PHEV ever will.
Now if you want to talk calendar life and want to make absolutely sure that your battery pack will last the life of the car, the only way to test it is to use the pack for the life of the car, i.e. 10 years or whatever. There is no way to accelerate time flow. Other tests will only give you rough approximations.
Which inevitably means that you can only safely build and design cars with at least ten years old battery tech in them. And if you start to adopt the tech late in the game, like GM, then even older.
With the speed of the advances in battery tech, this will leave you in the dust, sooner rather than later, while competition is taking the calculated risks and going with newer technology.
Of course, there is NiMH fallback, with all the potential problems well characterized and proven to last the required 100K and more miles by RAV4EV drivers, Priuses, and 2nd-gen EV1s to smaller extent. But GM elected not to use it, banking on newer technology ...
Reply
Whopper 4:28PM (1/09/2008)
Kert, driving a 300 or 500 watt motor Vs a 40,000 watt motor...there has to be a difference in the impact on the battery. I know, it is a series of cells, but there must be a difference in the heat generated. One always must be careful when "scaling" up from a model to full size. In theory the principals are certainly the same. In practice it is another story.
Reply
kert 10:23AM (1/10/2008)
::there has to be a difference in the impact on the battery.
No, there isnt. From the cell perspective there is no real difference, if there are ten or ten thousand cells in the pack. Generated heat is a function of a power draw on cell level, and dissipation is dependant on the pack design, not the cell design.
Reply