GM: by 2015, one-third of our US car sales will be hybrids, and the V-8 engine will quasi-disappear
What will you be driving in 2015? If you only drive GM vehicles, there's a one in three chance it'll be a hybrid, according to a report from Bloomberg. GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said, "around 2015 we're going to have to sell a ton of hybrids whether people want them or not." Lutz added, "it's basically going to result in the quasi-disappearance of V-8 engines." Lutz explained that the increase in sales of hybrids will be due to the new CAFE standards signed into law late last year that require car companies to make cars that, on average, get 35 miles per gallon. GM is well on its way to a having third of its U.S. cars sales being hybrids, just recently introducing their second generation mild hybrid system and promising to introduce a hybrid car every three months for the next four years.
[Source: Bloomberg via Detroit News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
jim 9:44AM (3/19/2008)
Makes sense. In a decade all this harping about the advantages of this or that technology will be dead and buried. Hybrids make sense for auto manufacturers, the technology is proven and subject to easily adapted incremental improvements so they can begin product planning. It doesn't rely on the development of distribution of other fuel sources such as hydrogen. The ICE engine can be flex-fuel capable to take advantage of bio fuels where they are available.
Plug in hybrids will be an option, but I'll bet nice dinner that very few will be plugged in consistently. But its a nice idea.
Reply
BoomBoom 9:46AM (3/19/2008)
The last line of this article is a crock of *(&*&(. GM sold 30 hybrids in February 2008. They've got nothing worthwhile on the market. GM needs to get cars on the road, cars with better gas mileage (not the pathetic Aura and Vue). Lutz is just blowing smoke and who ever wrote this article is sucking it right up. He's right about the CAFE standards, but GM isn't smart enough to get out in front of the impact.
Reply
Trev 10:19AM (3/19/2008)
I hope to god that by 2015 allot more than one third of cars sold will be hybrids, and the new CAFE standards don't seem very earth shattering, we need to work hard to move forward. It can't happen without pushing from the government, which prolly won't happen, so i guess it will be something like one third, which is pathetic.
Reply
Tim 10:22AM (3/19/2008)
Hey Bob! I have a question about eFlex...
According to GM’s own research, 78% of ALL trips are less than 40 miles, 85% are less than 50 miles, 90% are less than 60 miles, and 93% are less than 70 miles!
http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/12/06/how-did-gm-determine-that-78-of-commuters-drive-less-than-40-miles-per-day/
Why would I want to buy, carry around and service a "range-extender" in my 70 mile range electric car if I would only use it for about 8% of my trips? That's DUMB (unless you are still trying to keep profitable parts, dealer service and oil alive).
Tell you what…
I'll buy the first 70 mile range 4 seat NORMAL electric car priced under $25K which can cruise at 75-mph that hits the market no matter WHO makes it! (no golf carts or NEVs)
Now, make a 70-mile electric car that will reduce our oil addiction by 93% and you’ll sell millions. Common, GM knows how! You’ve done it before.
We'll then rent or borrow "smokers" or take mass transportation for those occasional long trips. All the fuel savings with my BEV-70 would make these rentals FREE!
Reply
Dave 11:04AM (3/19/2008)
Tim, you and I are dreaming of that day to get a NORMAL BEV that gets 70 miles range for less than $25K. I'm there with you, but as of yet, my hopes are with the MiEV or something close to it... Too bad they're ugly cars we're stuck with that don't look NORMAL.
Reply
rgseidl 11:08AM (3/19/2008)
@ Tim -
the Volt will do 30-40 miles on a 16kWh pack with 50% depth of discharge to ensure long life and cost between 30 and 40k. At this time, 70 miles is a tall order in packaging terms alone, never mind the price point.
Plus, wind resistance at 75mph is 1.6x that at 60mph, so driving an EV fast will be a sure-fire way of running out of juice much sooner than anticipated.
Reply
Tim 11:08AM (3/19/2008)
Dave, looks like we'll have to make our own.
Reply
jmspearman 11:12AM (3/19/2008)
I love GM's attitude in general, which goes something like this: "Sure, we'll build cars that get better gas mileage and do less damage to the environment, but only because dad (the federal government) told us to." Sounds a bit like my reluctant sister of years past. My sister and I get along fine now, so maybe there's a chance that Captain Bob will come around and not complain so bitterly about being responsible.
Come on in Bob, the water is fine. Wait a minute, no it's not, it's full of pollutants that you guys put there. Oh well.
Reply
GoodCheer 11:15AM (3/19/2008)
I will speculate that by 2015 the CAFE legislation will not make that much of a difference.
Anybody want to guess what a gallon of gas will cost in 7 years (what did it cost 7 years ago?). Reduction in demand in America will have very little effect on price as China and India move up from current ~3% car ownership rates.
Obviously any such guess is purely speculation, but I wouldn't put my money on it being less than $5/gal.
Reply
Tim 11:35AM (3/19/2008)
#6, reseidl Wow!
I hate to beat a “buried” horse, but the Gen 2 EV-1 with Panasonic lead-acid batteries could go 75 to 150 miles AT 70-mph and that was almost 20 YEARS ago.
It's naive to think that GM could not make a 4-seat BEV-70s MUCH better and FAR less complex and thus less expensive than E-Flex when using the new electronics tech and A123 or even cheaper firefly lead acid batteries. They just don't WANT to!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1
Reply
Nicholas 12:28PM (3/19/2008)
Bob Lutz is one hell of a joke! How the hell could anyone trust him?
Reply
KarenRei 12:31PM (3/19/2008)
"Tim, you and I are dreaming of that day to get a NORMAL BEV that gets 70 miles range for less than $25K."
The MiEV does that. What's wrong with it? If you think all aerodynamic designs are ugly (I certainly don't; I think they look nice and modern, the antithesis of "boxy"), then you're just going to either have to wait or spend more money. Bad aerodynamics means you need more batteries to get the same range, which means more cost, and until the batteries are mass produced, they're going to be expensive.
"I hate to beat a “buried” horse, but the Gen 2 EV-1 with Panasonic lead-acid batteries could go 75 to 150 miles AT 70-mph and that was almost 20 YEARS ago."
1) The Gen 2 EV-1 was ten years ago, not 20.
2) The Gen 2 EV-1 used NiMH, not lead-acid.
3) NiMH is charge-leaky and only 50-70% efficient. I.e., not very good for the environment.
4) The EV-1 was never designed to be economical. The lease, which corresponded to a purchase price of over $40k, was heavily subsidized by GM.
"or even cheaper firefly lead acid batteries"
Firefly batteries have very high *power* density, but not *energy* density, which is what we really need here.
Yes, GM *could* make a BEV. They've decided to pursue a range-extended EV instead. I can't really fault a company that's leaking money like a sieve for only wanting *one* risky venture at a time. If you don't want a PHEV, there are plenty of other manufacturers working on BEVs.
"around 2015 we're going to have to sell a ton of hybrids whether people want them or not."
Don't sound too enthusiastic there, Bob.
Reply
Lou Grinzo 1:17PM (3/19/2008)
Once again: Bob Lutz speaks, so there is comedy.
I'm convinced now more than ever that the number one thing that needs to change at GM is some of the people at the top of the management food chain. Why do we see Honda and Toyota, among other companies, leading the charge on more efficient, sustainable transportation, while GM (and Ford and Chrysler) have to be dragged kicking and screaming every inch of the way? Are the laws of physics different for them? Do they sell to a different America than those other companies? No, it's purely a cultural issue.
The Big Three still haven't completely accepted, down to their DNA, the immense changes that peak oil and global warming are forcing on almost everything we humans do.
I agree completely with the comment above that economics will far outstrip the CAFE bill in terms of pushing car companies to change. I suspect that by 2015 we'll see a lot of money being made in disassembling vehicles that cost far too much to run, so the materials can be recycled into PHEV's and EV's. Some of those vehicles destined for disassembly are on the road today, and many of them haven't even been built yet.
This is why I keep telling people: If you're forced to buy a less efficient vehicle for some unavoidable personal or business reason, seriously consider leasing. That way you won't be the one taking a huge hit on depreciation in four or five years.
Reply
DT 2:06PM (3/19/2008)
A couple of thoughts on Lou's post:
Give Toyota credit for bringing the hybrids mainstream (and taking advantage of a huge amount of free PR from celebrities, media all jumping on the only-green-thing-is-a-hybrid bandwagon), but....
Why is there never any mention on the fact that Toyota has a full-size truck and 6 SUV/CUV's (4runner, FJ, Highlander, Landcruiser, Sequoia and RAV4)? Aside from the RAV4 and Highlander hybrid, none are what I would call sustainable, efficient transportation. Any guesses on the sales volume of these compared to the Prius, Camry hybrid and Highlander hybrid? The new Tundra was 100,000 units by itself last year.
Honda, Toyota and the other imports came from a different direction than the domestics, which partly explains the current situation. Going back to the nineties, the imports brands were for the most part all small to mid-size models which are obviously more efficient. These models were their base from which they developed and even though they have developed to more of a full model range, the perception remains that they are makers of small, efficient cars.
The domestics, on the other hand, have been full model line manufacturers for decades. They become SUV-centric beginning in the nineties and through the first part of this decade because that's where the money was. The margins on these vehicles could support the crazy UAW benefit packages. It was simple economics - make money on high margin vehicles. Why focus too much effort on small cars when they cannot be manufactured and sold in the US for a profit paying union wages and benefits?
The domestics now obviously need some more efficient options, but this came at a time when their profits were reduced and pension and healthcare costs were skyrocketing. That takes money. It also takes money and time to develop more efficient engines, transmissions, new vehicle platforms, etc. Things don't happen overnight. Development on vehicles coming to market now started before oil prices started going nuts after Katrina.
Reply
Whopper 4:51PM (3/19/2008)
Ford, GM and Chrysler are in business to make money. Well, OK, Ford and GM are; Nardelli is in it for his own profit and ego. To suggest they don't build EV's because "they don't want to" is naive. They don't want to build what they can't sell, which is what governments typically force on them. They know that the cyote ugly things the EV builder-pretenders offer are only going to sell to a small minority. Sure, Tesla offers something that looks pretty good...at a price .01% of the market can afford to pay. Not the path to success. GM and Ford will be slow to get there, but it will be a decent product when they do. And they'll be dancing on Tesla's grave.
Reply
Wildgoosechase73 5:00PM (3/19/2008)
You can count on most small non-hybrid cars to be made in China. The UAW workers will be working at Walmart.
Reply
T2 6:02PM (3/19/2008)
"It's basically going to result in the quasi-disappearance of V-8 engines."
Not a particularly courageous statement from a leader. Either the V8 will disappear or it won't. Which is it ?
We know that advanced V6's with the added efficiency of the FWD transaxle are able to replace a V8 if fuel economy is the aim. Although I say that with the proviso that the V6's will be getting the same tall final gear ratio as the V8's . I hope we don't see any more of that nonsense where in the past some V8 vehicles, Corvette comes to mind, were given extra high ratios in overdrive to 'green' them up against the V6's.
For the Asian manufacturers "the perception remains that they are makers of small, efficient cars" This is a fact not a perception. The global market outside demands large numbers of this type of vehicle which they obviously are geared up to make.
The problem for North American based manufacturers is that scaling down their larger cars doesn't make them any cheaper to produce. The amount of expensive machining is around the same whereas the primary ingredient, steel, is cheap. I can understand that the larger vehicle will support a greater profit margin but that is no reason to completely abandon the small car market to the competition as the domestics seem to have done. In the event the domestics have practically lost the whole car market to the Asians.
You have to admire the sneaky way it was done with a car such as the Honda Accord being successively enlarged over a number of years until it was able to engulf the mid-size market. That is the sort of long term strategic planning Bob Lutz is up against.
Dropping the V8 is not where the focus should be. GM needs to get going with both a 2 cylinder engine and a boosted version for the entry level small car market just like Fiat is doing in Europe. They need this type of engine as a cost differentiator against the 4 cylinders. Such engines will also provide a double edge sword against the fuel economy of a Prius and a hedge against the introduction of diesels from abroad.
That's the way I see it.
T2
Reply
MikeW 8:22PM (3/19/2008)
When GM mean hybrid, do they mean their BAS system?
The current one is effectively a prototype system, lets be honest, it is terrible. Call it generation zero.
The next one still has rudimentary functionality.
The crossplane crank V8 could quasi-disappear for the 2010 model year. Keep diesel V8s, keep the near atkinson cycle V8 for the tahoe/yukon hybrid.
The Silverado 1500 could utilize their 3.7 I5, upgraded to 250hp, 250ft-lbs (basically variable intake valve timing is all it requires) with 6L50 for 4x2.
The 1500 4x4 could use their inline 6 engine (he it is a nice engine, keep it around a little longer), upgraded to 4.4 liters (using the 95.5mm pistons from the I4 & I5) adding variable intake valve timing for at least 300hp, 300ft-lbs, again 6L50.
The Canyon/Colorado 4x2 could get the 2.9 I4, 200hp, 200ft-lbs (add a second knock sensor, variable intake valve timing, and tweak the intake/exhaust manifolds) with 6L45.
The 4x4 could get the 3.7 I5.
GM's work van could get a V6 derivative of the LS3, 300hp, 300ft-lbs plus, coupled to the 6L50 or 80.
Heavier duty trucks would migrate from larger gas V8 engines to V8 diesels. The new 4.5 would make a good engine for 2500 series Silverados, the 6.6 would be the engine for 3500 models.
The large V6 or the I6 would be fine in the Tahoe.
Maybe GM will make an even larger V6? off the LS7, 5.3 liters 350hp.
Northstar? Push the 3.6 high feature engine to 3.8 or 4 liters (I forgot what GM said was possible if they remove the cast in liners) circa 350hp, or just twin turbo the 3.6 V6 to 400hp.
Corvette? Transverse mid engine V8. Evolve the engine so the the exhaust is routed in the center of the Vee, have a dual exhaust, but make is fire evenly on each exhaust system.
Make a dual clutch transmission, not using concentric clutches, but one on each end, and a limited number of gears on each end (4 on one side, 3+reverse on the other) and power is routed to a centrally mounted differential.
Maybe GM could make a 'halo' engine for the XLR-V, maybe an entirely new V10 (there is a big V10 party going on), or a V12 derived from the 3.6.
Reply
Laban 7:02AM (3/21/2008)
@Tim "Why would I want to buy, carry around and service a "range-extender" in my 70 mile range electric car if I would only use it for about 8% of my trips?"
You could reverse this and say "Why would i want to pay a large amount of money for a 36 kWh - 70 mile range battery (just an example) when i only drive 35 miles/day on a regular basis, and then 150 miles occasionally ?"
F.e, what happens when you come upon those 8% of the time trips, skiing in the mountains f.e ?
There are a also few things to consider when it comes to the range-extender:
1. low maintenance costs if you can run on electricity 90+% of the time.
2. it only needs to be able to handle the average power of what you use in the vehicle, so perhaps a 80 hp range-extender for a 150hp electric-motor car.
3. because of 2. small, lightweight. A 500cc 2 cyl 80 lbs engine can easily make 80hp. It would only run at high-output levels so there's no need for a big cc torquey engine.
4. could be a very simple engine, no need for any fancy stuff since it would only run in a high output range where todays engines are already pretty efficient.
Reply
Speedzzter 12:44PM (3/25/2008)
"It hardly seems fair to Detroit to compare its efforts in the hybrid arena to Toyota's. Chrysler's Press says when he was at Toyota, 'the Japanese government paid for 100% of the development of the battery and hybrid system that went into the Toyota Prius.'"
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to beat on GM (or other Detroit-based companies) when the playing field is hardly level.
Notwithstanding CAFE, V8s will disappear when the market for them is gone. Europe has been living with $5-$7 fuel prices for decades, and a few V8 models still exist (albeit reserved for wealthy auto-philes). What Lutz is really saying is that ordinary "Joe-six-packs" can kiss their chance at a V8 goodby.
Reply