GM responds to Carnegie Mellon study
Click above for a high res gallery of the 2011 Chevy Volt
After reading through the recent study from Carnegie Mellon University that suggested the best compromise between price, performance and environmental benefit would put a 3kWh battery in plug-in hybrids – enough for about 7 miles of electric-only travel – Jon Lauckner, GM's Vice President Global Program Management, decided that he should weigh in with his own analysis of the situation.
The big problems that GM has with CMU's study are its suppositions on the cost of large-scale battery packs and the omission of the federal tax credits that plug-in hybrids like the Volt will be eligible for. A vehicle that only allows for a 7-mile EV range would not qualify for any credits while the Volt would earn the full $7,500 allotment due to the capacity of its lithium ion battery. What's more, GM says that CMU is overestimating the cost of the pack that GM will be using for its Voltec powertrain.
The Chevy Volt's 16 kWh of capacity should provide an electric range of about 40 miles, which GM believes will be sufficient for nearly 80 percent of the population to get to work and back on an average day. If the Volt were primarily driven under this 40-mile limit, GM says drivers could recharge the car at night when electricity is cheap and plentiful. After already holding back on hybrid technology once due to cost considerations, GM's not about to make that mistake again.
Gallery: 2011 Chevy Volt
[Source: GM Fastlane]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
paulwesterberg 11:30AM (3/05/2009)
The CM study is based on finding the optimal battery size in order to produce an affordable car that an be sold at a profit. Toyota did their own study years ago and back then the optimal size was 1.3kwh. I think that 3kwh would be better - and that size would be easy for Toyota to do if they switched to a lithium battery.
A range of 7 miles is too small to get people to plug it in every night. The volt with its series drive train must have a larger battery in order to provide full power acceleration when in battery only mode.
I think that GM's msrp target of about 40+k is a too high even with incentives. I think using the chevy badge on the front to denote "affordable" wont mean much when people see the sticker. But that may not matter if GM goes belly up in the next few months.
Reply
andrichrose 11:42AM (3/05/2009)
Just taken delivery of 16kwh of lithium cells to build a 300volt
pack for a conversion , this is the same size as the pack in the
volt , shipped with all taxes paid , $10000 including charger and
BMS .
This is a one off price to an individual, so I guess the OEM price
for this size of pack must be around $5000 !
Reply
GoodCheer 12:37PM (3/05/2009)
Sweet!
a) Who's your supplier?
b) Would you please keep us posted... I'm sure the editors would love to post any story/pictures you send in to them.
Good luck on your project.
usbseawolf2000 11:56AM (3/05/2009)
The 40 mile range will cover 80% of the trips however, how many actually need 40 miles full electric range? How about for those need only 30 miles, 20 miles, 10 miles? They will not be willing to pay extra ($5k-$10k) for the range they don't need.
Reply
fred schumacher 12:00PM (3/05/2009)
The big problem is the lack of recognition of the right shape for the vehicle to accomplish the primary task of automobiles today: to move one person a limited distance on a daily run between two primary end points, with minor stops along the route. It doesn't require a 4,000 pound machine to accomplish this. Once one gets away from the 4,000 pound, multi-purpose vehicle as the default morphology, the task of designing a cost-effective battery powered vehicle becomes nearly trivial.
$40,000 for a daily 40-mile round trip commuter makes no sense. At that price, even with government subsidy, it will not rapidly change American driving culture. A 1,000 pound, 2-seat, machine with a 4 kwh battery pack for 40 mile range and a 5 hp genset for back up and costing less than $10,000 will change driving culture. Keep the 4,000 pound machine in the garage for special use, and buy two commuters for the price of one sedan for the daily commute of a mom and dad.
Reply
jake 1:15PM (3/05/2009)
If they can hit the $10k price point AND meet all the safety requirements then maybe so, but I highly doubt it. You can't hit the $10k price point even with a normal car, how can anyone expect to hit it with the addition of batteries, electric motors & a generator, even with the smaller genset?
With the safety requirement, even the lightest car in the US (the Smart) hits 1600lbs, and as it appears the light weight doesn't necessarily translate to double the fuel efficiency, especially with the way most Americans drive. So the 4kWh will likely get near 20 miles rather than 40.
If you skip the safety part, then what you have is a highway capable NEV with a generator. You probably can build one for around $10k especially if you import it from China, like many NEV makers are doing. Of course this requires a change in safety regulations to get it on the road, and people may not go with it anyways especially with the lower quality these vehicles represent.
Also just to maintain highway speed, you will need at least a 15-20hp genset and you might want some overhead for acceleration because of how small the battery pack is.
It appears in reality, to build a car of your specs it'll either require lax safety regulations or it'll result in a car nearer to 2000lbs, with 20 mile range, and the cost can easily be $20-30k or more (think of how much a normal hybrid costs, and building a smaller one doesn't necessarily lower the costs much). At that point it would make more sense to add two extra seats and you'll end up with something like a smaller, lighter Volt.
I imagine GM might want to release a car like that for next gen, when they have mass production of most of the EV components to bring down cost, but probably not this gen because they don't expect to sell a relatively expensive car like that in great volume initially, and for that kind of car to succeed it'll need to sell at high volumes almost at start. Since the amount of money going into research and development of such a car would be around the same even if it is a smaller car, by releasing a higher price car with more content, they can have better margins and not worry too much about selling lower volumes initially.
jpm 1:38PM (3/05/2009)
Ah, common sense. I wish the carmakers and politicians could think like that. Oh wait, our culture is full of excess and waste, so a small 1000 lb, two seater would be preposterous.
jpm 1:38PM (3/05/2009)
Ah, common sense. I wish the carmakers and politicians could think like that. Oh wait, our culture is full of excess and waste, so a small 1000 lb, two seater would be preposterous.
fred schumacher 6:18AM (3/06/2009)
A 1,000 pound 2-seat vehicle would be a three-wheeler, tadpole shaped for better aerodynamics, therefore, it would be registered as a motorcycle, with a different set of regulations to operate under.
If Americans think they will be able to transfer their existing driving habits over to a battery vehicle, they will be in for a rude shock. Driving habits will have to change. Batteries just don't have the high power density of liquid fuels that have allowed us to become sloppy drivers.
A back-up genset is absolutely essential for today's highway conditions. If you think traffic jams are a problem today, just think what they will be like in a battery powered future, with stalled cars all over the place and no way to limp home. Ergo the simple get-home genset.
Parallel hybrids are an evolutionary dead-end. They provide no economies of machinery, requiring a full mechanical drive train and full electric. Serial hybrids are a much better concept, allowing for simplification of systems.
The whole shape of a vehicle needs to be rethought for battery operation. Simply converting today's morphologies into battery power results in expensive, heavy vehicles with limited utility. One area that gets little attention today is thermal insulation. A battery powered vehicle, relying on its batteries for locomotion and HVAC functions will need to have much more effective thermal insulation, including windows, than today's cars.
The key is parsimony, and the example of that is the Tata Nano, which will be available in European form and pass all Euro regs with an estimated price of 5,000 Euros. $10,000 is certainly an achievable goal. The first company to hit the street with such a vehicle will sell a ton of cars. Ask my son. He'd buy one in an instant.
UH2L 3:35PM (3/05/2009)
jpm,
It's not just about common sense. It's about vehicle compatibility in an accident versus a 70,000 lb semi truck and trailer. People care about their well-being as well as the environment. It will take gradual fleet downsizing until a 1,000 lb vehicle will become palatable to the average consumer.
Reply
Randy S 5:00PM (3/05/2009)
I think if a car company is going to make an electric drive car, the best economics are to go pure electric and completely elimiate the extra weight and cost of the ICE system.
Otherwise go pure ICE and no electrics so save on the costs and weight of the electrics.
One way or the other, but not both.
I'm speaking from a business perspective trying to make money, (novel idea for GM), and provide the consumer choice.
Once there is a large percentage of BEV's on the road, the price of oil and gas should fall or remain steady, then we can start taxing it to continue to wean us off it.
Reply
tom 5:36PM (3/05/2009)
The B0 has a 30 KWH battery weighing 300KG with a 155 mile range and will be out before the VOLT as will Mitsubishi's eelectric car and Ford's electric Focus. The extra cost/weight/structure needed to carry an ICE engine in the VOLT shows why the VOLT is a decade late and no savior for GM.
A123 is not the only battery company that has been working on battery chemistry. GM was not smart with making themselves dependent on a battery company without the needed battery already developed yet.
Gm just doesn't cut it in almost every way.
Reply
fred schumacher 6:58AM (3/06/2009)
The IC engine in the VOLT is entirely too large. A get-home genset is not a take you down the highway at normal speed engine. It's a get off the road and take you home at city street speed powerplant. The VOLT is too large. It's supposed to be a commuter car, not a go on a family vacation car. The shape of the VOLT is no change from present morphology. GM had a great idea in its "skateboard" chassis but carried it no further. For battery powered cars to be cost efficient, their shape has to change to optimize the vehicle for battery use. Morphology is primary.
No vehicle can match up against a tractor-trailer rig. You're dead whether you're in a 4,000 pound car, a 5,000 pound truck, or a 1,000 pound 2-seater. However, there are few people who crash into semis, but many who die in rollovers. Rollovers cause 40% of deaths but are only 3% of accidents. The vehicles that roll over are high center of gravity trucks and SUVs. Perhaps this is why U.S. death rates per mile are 50% higher than the European rate, even though Europeans drive smaller cars and they drive faster.
There are lots of 500 pound vehicles on the road. They're called motorcycles. They're not very safe. The impetus for the Tata Nano was Ratan Tata's observation of whole families riding on a motorcycle, and he thought there had to be a safer vehicle than the motorcycle but at only marginally more cost. The first market for a 2-seat car will be motorcycle riders, especially older ones who want the experience of a motorcycle combined with more comfort and safety.
Reply