Bob Lutz: 30K E-Flex cars in Europe in first year, 1M worldwide by 2020
Now that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has pledged some £90 million for the development of clean vehicles in the U.K., General Motors is seeing plenty to like about the European market for its E-Flex vehicles. The automaker has already reversed its stance on building the electric cars in America and shipping them overseas, with the Ellesmere Port plant now being considered for Opel and Vauxhall EVs. Just how many electric cars could GM sell in Europe? According to Bob Lutz, plenty. In fact, GM believes it could move as many as 30,000 units in the first year of availability, with the worldwide figure of one million by 2020.
While those sales targets are pretty ambitious, so are the goals of Gordon Brown. If the Prime Minister has things his way, all new cars sold in Britain by 2020 will be electric. Oh, and built in the U.K. (editor's note: FAT CHANCE!), which could become a small step closer to reality if GM decides to go with the Ellesmere Port factory.
Gallery: 2007 Opel Flextreme concept
[Source: Times Online]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Turbofrog 12:22PM (7/28/2008)
If the E-Flex platform delivers anywhere near the potential of its specifications, I'd say that 1M by 2020 is a serious lowball estimate. The technology is just going to keep getting better, and the practicality gap between REEVs/BEVs and conventional ICE vehicles will be gone by then.
Reply
Vadim 12:38PM (7/28/2008)
GM should seriously consider Israel as a primary market for the e-flex concept - with new tax cuts aimed at "green" vehicles an E-FLEX vehicle will get 10 % purchase tax instead of current 78% percent.
this would make at least in israel this specific car competitive with mainstream top sellers such as MAZDA 3, Toyota Corolla and Hyundai and others at that price level - while considering the low term benefits.
Opel has been producing really low sales in Israel - and this could push forward GM as both futuristic, not ridiculously overpriced, environmental and leader in the field while getting rid of the DAEWOO reputation quite efficiantly.
all this obviously is if they indeed keeps this price of 30$ k and if they can manage of squizzing at least 200 miles of battery capability without using an internal combustion engine aside.
(oh and, the segway crap gotta go - it is useless usage of space and weight, good for PR but nothing more - thats my opinion anyway)
Reply
axiom 12:56PM (7/28/2008)
GO BANKRUPT ALREADY!
Toyota will have have that many prius-types and plugins probably by 2015, maybe sooner.
I seriously think GM is holding up progress at this point. Ever seen one of those movies where the army recruits are all running and there's the one fat recruit everybody has to slow down and cheer on so he doesn't give up and fall out. That guy is GM. They need to be left in the mud so the industry can advance to its full potential.
Reply
stevefazek 1:22PM (7/28/2008)
Really? Really? Toyota is heavily dependant on large gas guzlers. Just about every car company is fight CO2 and CAFE regulations. GM has the higher CAFE rating compared to other American automakers. Chrysler is in a worse state then GM even ford is.
You know what would happen to any of the big 3 if they failed? Several million jobs would be lost. You think only employees of the big 3 would be affected.
It would affect everyone from tire manufactures to steel producers. The car dealerships. and the thousands of other vendors who rely on the big three.
be careful of what you wish for
Serge 2:15PM (7/28/2008)
Bankruptcy does not equal "failure" or "liquidation."
Chapter 11 is a reasonable option for companies who are in too deep of trouble to move forward on their own.
With that said, I don't see how GM is "holding up progress." They do not control a unique technology or design. Progress will happen with or without them.
me 1:58PM (7/28/2008)
GM sure is giving the press a lot of info on the Volt these days. It reminds me of the dot com era when analysts and CEOs would one up each other in their press releases.
So just today they announce the Volt will have a 1.4L instead of a 1.0L turbo. And 1 year from now this car is supposed to be in production ? Interesting. I think this car is a long way from production, let alone 1 million units a year.
I think GM is in deep, deep trouble and I think the whole company is bet on the Volt pulling them out. Lutz is in the media daily or weekly with press announcements how great this thing is going to be.
For GM's sake, I hope this works out, but I am very, very skeptical.
They might deliver a car with the Volt name, but I suspect it is going to way underwhelm.
Reply
taser 2:27PM (7/28/2008)
Switching to an engine that is will be in mass production this winter (for Spring 2009 Cruze release) is bad how?
Richard 2:03PM (7/28/2008)
So if one of the big three goes under, does that mean those that wanted to buy that mfr's car is NOT going to buy one afterall? Or do you think they are going to look at another mfr? Sounds kind of silly that millions of people are going to lose their jobs, no? If one of the big three goes under, it's going to be because the car they sell isn't fuel efficient, and they couldn't sell one of those huge SUV or trucks. If GM goes under, it's because their cars don't go farther on a tank of gas, not because the tank is bigger, like they are currently advertising! That is the worst marketing I've seen since claiming incredible efficiency on their highway MPG and city MPG is pathetically low!
Reply
Dave 2:37PM (7/28/2008)
If the stock prices for the three US automakers continues the downward spiral I think they will all be good buy out candidates unless the union has to go with the deal. If that is the case then they won't be bought out by anyone IMO. I think Chrysler will go out first, then we'll see what happens, maybe their factories will be pruchased for penny's on the dollar.
Reply
Throwback 2:45PM (7/28/2008)
richard if one of the Detoirt 3 goes out of business thousands of people will lose their jobs. Do you think any other company will hire those folks, or buy closed factories in union heavy states? If a company as large as GM goes under all Americans will feel it, some more than others.
Reply
axiom 4:49PM (7/28/2008)
And? So?? They are a company. You act like they're some kind of life giving God and all our crops will never ever grow again if they are allowed fall under the weight of their own incompetence. The writing is on the wall. The Volt is a marketing scam, that they'll probably try to dangle at politicians when bankruptcy or liquidation appears imminent and they want a handout..er..bailout. Hopefully they won't get it, because apparently they don't get it.
GenWaylaid 4:13PM (7/28/2008)
Yes, the British have such a stellar reputation for building automobiles, the electrics in particular. I suppose as long as GM doesn't source anything from Lucas, they'll be all right.
Reply
innociv 6:11PM (7/28/2008)
Good to know you guys understand the difference between a Generator and a cars Engine.
(Yes, that's sarcasm to everyone whining about the switch to a 1.4l engine)
While basically the same, a Generator runs at lower RPM's where the engine is more efficient.
Has no one noticed that generators often never run over 3000rpm? Most engines are most effecient at 1.2k-3k rpms. See how good of fuel economy you get beating on a honda at 6,000RPM's compared to a corvette chasing it that is practically idling.
Cars, on the other hand, redline at 6000-8000 usually to make those numbers.
Those advertised hp numbers are PEAK horsepower. That's not the HP they make at 3k RPM's. HP is torque*RPMs/5252
So sure, you can get 75hp from a little 1l engine. But that hp is at around 8000RPM, usually.
The engine likely makes 25-30hp at 3000rpm, which the volts engine will do.
So it makes perfect since that they need the engine for people in hilly areas.
See the problems in the reasoning of people who have posted here already, and in the last volt post?
And have you never noticed how many manufacturers are sizing up their engines to get better fuel economy? It allows them to cruise at lower RPMS.
How much fuel is burned is NOT purely a function of RPMS. It's a function of LOAD vs. RPMS. The ecu isn't dumping as much fuel into the cylinders every single time!
Also this engine should reduce the cost since it's shared with the Cruze. Also it's lighter.
I might not buy that it's completely better. They should be able to just turn up the boost or rev higher on the smaller engine when more power is needed. Isn't the 1.4l naturally aspirated? But still, a lot of people have been saying very wrong things.
Reply
BillySharps 9:09PM (7/28/2008)
Uh...which manufacturers are sizing UP their engines for better fuel economy? Ford has Ecoboost, which downsizes and turbos for fuel economy.
Andy 9:13PM (7/28/2008)
And it took the highly talented automotive engineers at GM how long to figure that out....?
me 7:18PM (7/28/2008)
[quote]Has no one noticed that generators often never run over 3000rpm?[/quote]
Its not engine speed that matters, its piston speed ! Large industrial generators can spin at very slow speeds, like 600 RPM in some cases. What really matters though is piston speed and if you take the extremely long throw of the the large engines, you get a fast piston speed. Might even be the same piston speed as a small engine at a higher RPM.
I suspect they needed to go to the 1.4L engine to get enough power to get the car up long steep hills without detonation problems.
Reply
DJL 8:15PM (7/28/2008)
The reasons why GM would consider a turbo 1.0 litre three cylinder:
1) it is a smaller block so it can fit in the engine compartment better.
2. There is slightly less friction due to fewer components.
The reasons why GM would use a 1.4 litre four cylinder instead:
1) An inline four cylinder is inherently smoother running than a three cylinder.
2) A naturally aspirated engine generally uses a higher compression ration than a turbocharged engine, making it more efficient.
3) Eliminating a turbocharger and associated plumbing makes for a simpler, less expensive design.
4) The 1.4 litre engine will be produced locally for use in the Cruze. (There will surely by Volt specific changes such as cam timing etc. Possibly running Atkinson cycle?)
A small turbocharged engine is more fuel efficient at idle and part throttle because there is less throttling loss in a small displacement engine. A generator, OTOH, never idles (except possibly for a few seconds during warmup) and always operates at wide open throttle. So throttling losses are not an issue.
Reply
Randall Ferguson 8:34PM (7/28/2008)
If the closest competitor for the Volt is 2015, 5 years after the projected release of the Volt then I think that GM will blow away the competion for 5 years, that will be enough to really jump start GM to compete and beat the toyotas of the world. Part of it is that toyota is perceived to be a better value but the perception doesnt necessarily match the reality according to consumer reports. Either way when you simplify a system like this you will gain reliability and electric motors almost never fail.
Honestly those 5 years will give GM the kind of lead that the Prius gave Toyota.
Also it the optimum RPM varies depending on the Engine, it could be 3000, 2000, or 4000 RPM's it just depends upon what the engine curve has. Also that industrial generator you are talking about is most likely a diesle and an engine that size is not at all reprasentative or similar to a smaller engine.
Reply
GoodCheer 2:03PM (7/29/2008)
"If the closest competitor for the Volt is 2015"
Ah, that's a pretty big IF. Sorta nullifies the rest of your comment. The next generation Prius will almost certainly plug in, and will probably be in showrooms by the 100,000s a year before the first year's 10,000 Volts are. Maybe you don't consider that a competitor?
I'm not particularly advocating one over the other, but let's not get crazy with the hypotheticals here.
Andy 10:33PM (7/28/2008)
Bob Lutz is listening to his own fiddle while the Titanic is sinking. All this talk is dreamy dreamland about what he wishes would happen in the future. Frankly, it is typical of any businessperson rosying things up to keep share values from crashing. Look at the actualities to date: A design proceeding based on batteries that don't yet exist, engine choice still in flux, price still in flux, and that's about it. The rest are just announcements of design goals with nothing to back them up. Buy it up if you want, but when was the last time you remember GM making a marking leaping advancement? Why do you think they would start now, of all times, given that they are short of money?
Reply