Lutz: Volt Battery supply deal a "horse race," finish line moved.

In commenting on the battle royal taking place on the testing benches at GM between two contending battery suppliers, "Maximum" Bob Lutz said Tuesday it was a "horse race. An apt analogy in a sense because the two teams, Continental Automotive Systems, using cells from A123 Systems Inc., and Compact Power Inc. who are using cells developed by its parent, LG Chem seem to be neck and neck in performance. No one has stumbled as the two sprint down the final stretch to the, oh, what's that? The finish line has been moved? O rly?
Apparently, GM feels the need to hold off on making the final battery supplier decision, that had been announced for April, as it continues to weigh the pros and cons of each product and conduct more testing. In light of the postponement of mule day, I suspect there is something they aren't telling us. Regardless of the exact timing of the conclusion of this contest, we are now taking bets in the comments section.
[Source: CNN Money]











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3-20-2008 @ 8:58AM
phil easler said...
I would say keep both battery vendors. Its always more competitive too have a least two vendors supplying the same product. More competitive pressure to hold down possible future price increases. Both vendors together can also supply GM with more battery packs = more Volts.
Reply
3-20-2008 @ 9:04AM
rgseidl said...
GM may be playing for time because its own engineers have run into problems with meeting the all-electric range targets under high hotel loads (A/C etc).
On the other hand, if both suppliers are delivering roughly comparable performance, the decision comes down to quality assurance in high volume, price and warranty obligations and, government incentives.
GM is already angling for tax incentives along the lines of those currently offered for hybrids, CNG vehicles and clean diesel - but those are due to run out in 2010. Perhaps Congress would be more generous if the core technology - the cells - were manufactured by a US company.
The other option is that GM chooses one supplier for the initial E-Flex model in the US and the other for the next one in Europe or Asia. Exclusivity deals, if any, will only be temporary. If GM fails to hand out a consolation prize, one of its competitors (not Toyota, someone else) will gladly take advantage of all the heavy lifting that's already been done.
Reply
3-20-2008 @ 6:11PM
TG said...
** Lutz, is that you? It*s us, your good buddies Exxon and Chevron. Yeah, hold off on that damn Volt. We had no idea the public would put up with our latest price hikes.
Looks like we*ll have all those new auto credit card pumps paid off soon and enough for a refinery too. No need to cut into our 42 Billion$ profit reserve.
This is golden goose time here, Lutz. You hold off on that electric vehicle production and we*ll give you a real break on our battery patents.**
Seriously though, It*s a wonder GM doesn*t use E-Moli Energy batteries from Maple Ridge British Columbia with plants in Tiewan and China.
E-Moli started on R&D from University of BC and supply power tools and motor vehicles for years with Poly-Lithium batteries.= TG
===========================================
MolicelĀ® has been a recognized industry leader in the research & development of manganese based lithium-ion cells for the past decade. Using lithium manganese oxide (LiMn2O4) in the positive electrode of the new IMR26700 cell allows for a Li-ion cell with higher discharge rates than ever before. The IMR26700 cell can deliver currents in excess of 100A.
By eliminating cobalt from the IMR26700 cell it is possible to produce a much larger cell, while providing exceptional safety characteristics. Further developments of the IMR26700 cell will provide fast charge capability, allowing cells to be fully charged in as little as 15 minutes.
http://www.molienergy.com/
http://www.molienergy.com/Press%20Releases/release040117.htm
==================================== E-MoliEnergy
= TG
Reply