GM: Volt will survive our bankruptcy
by Sebastian Blanco on Jun 1st 2009 at 2:11PM 
2011 Chevy Volt - click above for a high res gallery
Let me introduce you to the most-called phone number in America right now: 866-405-4005. This is the number that GM is giving out to customers who have questions about this morning's official announcement that GM has filed for bankruptcy protection. In a letter to customers, GM describes in a few clear words how the bankruptcy affects the company and future products, including the much-anticipated Chevy Volt. It shouldn't surprise anyone who's familiar with this car that GM says the expensive plug-in car is not going away. The "new GM" will have a number of key vehicle launches in 2009 and 2010, the letter says, including the Chevrolet Camaro, Chevy Cruze, and "the revolutionary Chevy Volt, an extended-range electric vehicle that can travel up to 40 miles on battery power alone."
You can read the letter after the jump. For more thoughts on the future of the Volt, check out the comments on this post. Thanks to Dean for the tip!
Gallery: 2011 Chevy Volt
[Source: GM]
GM LETTER TO CUSTOMERS:
What does this mean for GM's current customers and future car buyers? For our current customers, GM will succeed and win by taking care of you every day. There will be no interruptions in GM's ability to take care of our customers and honor customer programs, warranties and provide replacement parts. In fact, GM has asked the court for specific orders authorizing GM to honor customer warranties and programs as it always has. You should have total confidence that:
- Our products are safe and sound;
- We will honor your existing warranty;
- GM dealers will have the same access to replacement parts as they always have;
- Customers of discontinued brands or dealerships that have closed as part of GM's viability initiative will continue to be supported by other GM dealerships;
- Customer promotions and incentives will continue without interruption;
- You do not need to do anything differently regarding your warranty;
- There is no impact on OnStar service; your OnStar subscription will remain in place
- GM continues to have a nation-wide network of Goodwrench technicians trained to
- perform maintenance and repairs on your GM vehicle
Will New GM honor customer warranty claims?
Yes. GM will succeed and win by taking care of our customers every day. New GM will assume the obligations to support the express warranties issued by GM to its customers.
Can we expect to see new products and technologies in GM's future portfolio?
Yes. GM will continue to make a significant investment in future products and new technologies. The New GM will have a number of key vehicle launches in 2009 and 2010, including:
- Chevrolet Camaro, a dramatic, moderately priced sport coupe with highway fuel economy of up to 29 mpg
- An all-new Buick LaCrosse premium midsize sedan
- The luxury midsize Cadillac SRX crossover and CTS Sport Wagon
- The Chevy Equinox and GMC Terrain, midsize crossovers with class-leading highway fuel economy of 32 mpg
- The Chevy Cruze, GM's new global compact car
- The revolutionary Chevy Volt, an extended-range electric vehicle that can travel up to 40 miles on battery power alone
Replacement parts are, and will continue to be, available to service and maintain GM vehicles. Customers can be assured that GM and our dealers are open for business and are committed to meeting the service needs of our customers now and well into the future.
Did my GM Card earnings program change? Are my earnings still valid? We intend to continue honoring customers' GM Card earnings. In its first day motions GM asked the Court to maintain the GM Card program. Customers can continue using their GM Card at more than 18 million locations where MasterCard is accepted.
Who can I contact with additional questions?
CUSTOMERS WITH QUESTIONS MAY CALL: 1-866-405-4005
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Greg Blencoe 2:13PM (6/01/2009)
Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles with small batteries are the solution to the oil crisis. They are the only technology that can scale up globally and meet customer needs for driving range, fueling time, cost when mass produced, and trunk and passenger space. While the hydrogen to power these vehicles will initially come from natural gas, this is only a bridge to hydrogen from wind power and then hydrogen from solar power.
Therefore, GM should instead focus on advancing their hydrogen fuel cell technology at an even faster rate. GM has said that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will be at dealerships in 2015.
While I appreciate all efforts to solve the oil crisis, people really need to learn the facts about every technology.
Therefore, I highly recommend reading the following article where Bill Reinert from Toyota brings up the cost, driving range, recharge time, durability, and environmental problems with plug-in battery vehicles and said the market for them is limited in testimony to a National Academy of Sciences panel on May 18th.
http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/bill-reinert-from-toyota-discussed-cost-driving-range-recharge-time-durability-and-environmental-problems-with-plug-in-battery-vehicles-and-said-market-is-limited-in-testimony-to-national-academy/
Greg Blencoe
Chief Executive Officer
Hydrogen Discoveries, Inc.
"Hydrogen Car Revolution" blog
Reply
guyledouche 2:58PM (6/01/2009)
I love how Hydrogen advocates just pump away on their tech and put down obvious answers like BEV's. Hydrogen is riddles with flaws as an alternative fuel source and from what I have read and heard, it is certainly NOT the answer.
If you are going to blab about the "FACTS" regarding all of the available technologies, why don't you actually do just that?! Instead of only posting biased and largely untrue/vague "facts" about the benefits of Hydrogen, why don't you also talk about its many faults and commercial viability problems. While on your fact finding mission why don't you also dig a bit deeper into other technologies such as BEV's and NGV's, which are not only possible and viable, but are actually available TODAY.
If all you are going to do is post hydrogen pumping biased garbage and not actually look at other viable possibilities regarding new vehicle tech, please do us all a favor and STFU!
paulwesterberg 3:35PM (6/01/2009)
You are not interested in people learning the real facts about hydrogen you are only interested in spreading hype and propaganda while disregarding real data based on hard science.
Stew 5:00PM (6/01/2009)
Gary Smith from Toyota in an interview which is available for download at evworld.com said "I guess we built too good of an electric car" about the RAV4-EV, so who's right?
Stew
polo 5:26PM (6/01/2009)
Stop spamming the board with this nonsense.
I'd love to see the cost figures for "scaling up" production of hydrogen fuel cells that like to eat up platinum....let alone the costs for transporting and properly storing hydrogen. And why the hell would you use hydrogen derived from wind and solar energy?? You could power three EVs with the energy it would take to power one HFC car. Not only is the tech (and infrastructure) simply not their to make these things even remotely economically viable, but they cannot compete with the efficiency of pure EVs. In 7 years or so, when the average EV costs as much as any comparable ICE car and gets around 200-400miles+ on a charge, hydrogen will lose the "range...and then what will be left to justify building an entire new infrastructure for something that requires triple the energy as an EV? There really is no argument to support wasting money on hydrogen.
Chris M 6:34PM (6/01/2009)
Well, Blencoe, your H2 puff piece is a bit off target. It would be silly for GM to "instead focus on advancing their hydrogen fuel cell technology", considering that the Volt will be ready for sale next year, and H2FC vehicles are more than 6 years away from introduction. Not only that, but costs for H2FC vehicles remain stubbornly high, much higher than for plug-in hybrids like the Volt - the H2 fuel storage tank alone costs more than the Volt LiIon battery, and the H2 fuel cell several times more. Also, all H2FC vehicles rely on batteries to run the car until the fuel cell can start up, store regenerative braking energy, supplement the fuel cell, and allows the use of a smaller less expensive fuel cell. It isn't suprising that both GM and Ford have switched their H2 introduction plans to plug-ins with a H2 fuel cell "range extender", as "driving electric" costs a lot less than driving on H2 fuel.
The Reinert article is from another H2 promoter, but ironically doesn't really promote H2 so much as to try and put down plug-ins. It is a sort of false dichotomy - assume there are only two choices, then denigrate the "other choice" and pretend that your favored choice is the only option left. It's a common technique when your favorite choice isn't doing so well. Ah, but there are more than two options...
Snowdog 7:05PM (6/01/2009)
Polo (EV), Jharlan (Diesel), Blencoe (H2) and Carney (ethanol) zealot cage match?
BlackbirdHighway 7:35PM (6/01/2009)
Ok, great, I'll go buy one of those Toyota Hydrogen cars and see for myself.
Whoops, Toyota doesn't HAVE a hydrogen car. They are ALL TALK and NO CAR. Go to any Toyota dealer and there are no hydrogen cars.
I already have an electric car. It works great. I don't have all those problems that Toyota says I should have. I can't see how their hydrogen car is better since THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE ONE.
Hey Toyota: PUT UP OR SHUT (TF) UP! Either start selling those us those hydrogen cars, or stop telling us how great they are and crappy electric is.
How I hate this self serving corporate BS.
jerryd 1:15PM (6/02/2009)
Only one building H2 Fool Cells would say such a fool thing.
Fast charging Li is already here and costs much less than H2 foolcells. I can buy EV size LiFePo4 now for under the cost of sealed lead acid batteries and the price is dropping still.
And H2 costs are many times more than electricity for fuel.
You can go 4x's as far on an EV than on a H2 powered car from the base energy to make the electricity or H2.
So prove me wrong, how much does your Fuel cell cost, size?
How much does H2 cost? Where can it be bought?
Tim 3:06PM (6/01/2009)
Will the "new GM" be as successful as the "new coke" was?
Reply
downtoearth 3:26PM (6/01/2009)
Volt rulez.
Reply
martin stevens 3:30PM (6/01/2009)
Hydrogen cars are excellent to own, until you need to fill one up. The infrastructure for these cars to be feasible will take many years to come to fruition. We need a viable alternative now. GM should be making all their vehicles flex fuel instead of certain ones; that way people who buy American cars can also fuel American.
Reply
polo 5:29PM (6/01/2009)
Doesn't hydrogen go for $5 a gallon. Why would anyone choose to double the transportation bill? ....then again you can't even buy a HFC, and won't for the foreseeable future so its a mute point.
Chris M 6:44PM (6/01/2009)
Polo, it isn't sold by "the gallon", it's a compressable gas. Instead, it is measured by mass, in Kilograms. 1 Kg of H2 has about the same energy as a gallon of gasoline, so is considered a "Gallon of Gasoline Equivalent" or GGE.
Currently, H2 is selling retail from $8 to $10 per Kg from the cheapest source, steam reformed fossil fuels. Burned in an internal combustion engine, that would be the equivalent of $8 to $10 gasoline - but with greatly reduced power and performance.
H2 fuel cells are about twice the efficiency of internal combustion engines, so get about twice the fuel efficiency. Thats still the equivalent of $4 to $5 a gallon gasoline.
Driving Electric, on the other hand, has a per mile cost about 1/4 as much as driving gassers.
The future is electric.
chef 3:30PM (6/01/2009)
So... when GM was doing well, it killed off its successful EV-1. It produced a hundred or so for people to test drive and gather data on. People loved the cars. GM then demolished the EV-1's. Literally.
Now that GM is in the gutter, they insist on pushing the Volt. What's going on here? Vaporware? Conspiracy? Incompetence? It's like GM lives in bizzaro land. Something is really wrong with GM.
Reply
Dave 4:14PM (6/01/2009)
The EV1 program was not successful. It lost money. Lots of money. And it would have kept losing money.
GM built the EV1 because losing money on the EV1 was the price they thought they had to pay in order to continue selling other cars in California.
If the EV1 were profitable, GM would have continued to build it.
The electric RAV4, Ranger, Solectria, etc. suffered the same fate for the same reason.
GM is like any company. They exist to make a profit. Just like the company that made the very profitable but ridiculous movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?"
I wonder if someone will make a movie about the Honda FCX Clarity in a few years entitled "Who Killed the Hydrogen Car?"
chef 4:32PM (6/01/2009)
Any emerging technology wlil "lose" money at first. It's called an investment. Investments are money that has gone away in the belief that it will return in greater amount as profit.
The EV1 would have been successful and profitable. It would have been a niche product, but one that was and is absolutely necessary. The EV1 was hampered by limited range due to its use of lead acid batteries, yet almost all the EV1 testers could live with the range for commmuting purposes. Battery tech has advanced since then and increased the range considerably. What was a small niche market for local commuters back then would have expanded to more and more people as range has increased. It was a bad business decision to forgo that investment in favor of gas-guzzling monster SUVs. Maybe the EV1 wasn't the car for you, but there are plenty of people who would have bought them.
Toyota took the same leap of faith with the Prius. There were naysayers everywhere, yet it has become a phenomenal success.
guyledouche 4:41PM (6/01/2009)
Dave,
Where do you get your info from regarding GM and the EV1?
Although I agree, the EV1 was not profitable right off the bat, it could have been if it were given the chance to aquire economies of scale and be mass produced. Every one of those cars were assembled by hand and were done using high end components that were ordered in VERY small quantities. It was more of a project than a product. The fact is that GM never wanted it to succeed. Electric cars are bad for business plain and simple. They make you lose out on all kinds of revenue streams. They require less maintenance and parts, they require less man power, they make you lose out on all those kick backs and perks that big oil throws your way, and they make all of your other cars and trucks look bad.
The EV1 was done before it ever started which is a shame considering how well it performed. The same goes for the RAV4, Ranger, and Solectria vehicles.
It says a lot that they are not even available for fleet users who are an obvious and very financially able market for EV's.
Oh and where did you get your info on the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car???"
That is the biggest load of horse shit I have ever heard someone spew onto this site.
That movie wasn't rediculous or profitable captain clueless.
Do yourself a favor and do some more due diligence before you start blabbing and talking badly about things that you clearly have no clue about. It drives me nuts when I read posts like yours.
polo 5:35PM (6/01/2009)
"The EV1 program was not successful. It lost money. Lots of money. And it would have kept losing money."
The EV1 was also hand-built. Had it gone into mass production costs would have gone down significantly. Why do you think GM wants to extend the Volt's e-flex to other models? Because the increased economies of scale will make it profitable. Had they done the same the EV1, and continued to work on and develop the tech, they would have drawn a profit, gained invaluable knowledge and know-how about the drivetrain which will be leading the auto-industry for the next decade, and would be highly competitive right now instead of playing catch-up. Even the Pruis wouldn't have been able to compete.
mister nomer 7:58PM (6/01/2009)
guyledouche says: "Electric cars are bad for business plain and simple. They make you lose out on all kinds of revenue streams. They require less maintenance..."
I got to say I'm real skeptical of this GM-killed-the-EV1-because-they-wouldn't-make-money-on-maintenance argument.
If maintenance was such a big revenue stream, don't you think that car makers with the most reliable cars would now be in bankruptcy?
In fact the opposite is true. Toyota and Honda make some of the most reliable cars you can buy and both are very successful.
Also, if maintenance is such a big revenue stream - why are some car makers giving it away?
BMW, MINI, SAAB, VW, etc. all provide free maintenance.
http://www.helpfindacar.com/content/which-automakers-provide-free-car-maintenance/