AutoblogGreen

What this reflects is GM's willingness to lose money on the Volt, just like it did on the EV1 for the greater good.

Reply

GM isn't going to lose a single red dime for the greater good, no company is in business to do that. But they don't intend to lose the race to be first in peoples' minds when they go shopping for a plug in vehicle in the next few years either. No doubt watching Toyota stake out so much of the hybrid territory for themselves so effectively has gotten a lot of attention from all major manufacturers. GM may lose money, sure, but they would consider it an investment in future market share. Frankly, that kind of far forward thinking would be refreshing from an American auto manufacturer. Toyota is where they are now with the (admittedly still small) hybrid segment because they started planning for this exact situation years ago. They diversified technology instead of putting all their eggs in the high-profit low-efficiency vehicle basket (ask Ford how that's working out for them).

Reply

> "fnc"

Preach it brother ! :) =D

Great post ! Bullseye !



Also like to give

CRED TO Jeremy Korzeniewski FOR THIS ARTICLE ! Thnx !

Reply

The "plug-in" Saturn Vue presumably will use the GM Dual Mode hybrid transmission, which is capable of EV operation at low to medium speeds - IC engine still needed at high speeds.

Depending on results of battery testing, the plug-in Vue may arrive with a smaller battery than the Volt, for a cheaper price but a shorter EV range.

Reply

Like seriously if the volt goes for as much as 40,000 order me up 2 . I probaly ill be one of those early adopters because quite frankly im tired of paying sky high gas bills and watch the middle east get rich off of my hard earned money

Reply

Apply the KISS principle,make efficiency the watchword,lose the weird styling & I,ll buy it.
Does the generator really need that large engine?

Reply

@ fnc-

EVERY manufacturer loses money (thousands) on each hybrid vehicle they sell. When manufacturers develop products (this goes for any industry) they need to sell a certain amount of any product in order to break even. There are NO manufacturers that have reached that point yet, not even your beloved Toyota. As far as your misguided hate towards Ford...Ford happens to be a leader in hydrogen fuel cell technology and many other far reaching technologies. Research it before spouting off, it makes you look like an idiot and adds nothing to the discussion. Hybrids, as we know them today, are not a viable option to ween us of foreign oil, let alone fossil fuels altogether. 45 mpg will not get it done.

The problem with hybrids today is that the brainwashed population is going berserk over the buzzword and demanding that these exist. Manufactures are forced to bring these to market or else be subjected to ridicule and lose market share. This takes focus and dollars away from the real need and goal to free ourselves from the vicious cycle we are currently faced with. Again, 45 mpg will not get us there.

@ TomtenT-
Remember the scarecrow? "If I only had a brain"

You are the brainwashed public I am referring to. Why don't you take some time to develop some thought for yourself. Waiting and wanting others to speak for you is the exact reason why we are faced with so many problems in this country. I would like to see your future comments reflect more of your own opinions and how they directly relate to your situation and that in turn would benefit the rest of us.

I challenge any and all to actually become part of the solution, not the problem. Bitching, complaining and brand bashing are not going to get it done.

Reply

#'mericans R Brainwashed (#7)

1) Every manufacturer DOES lose money on the first cars they produce until set-up costs [tooling, r&d, etc.] and component costs reduction due to scale are taken care of. Bob Lutz said "closer to $48K” when he was talking about initial build cost as volumes increase. He also said that GM was willing to “take a loss for the first several years” on the Volt.

His boss Rick Wagner is also saying that GM is willing to sell it at under $30K with a loss on the initial units in order to build economies of scale so that later units will be profitable. They have made the Volt a Chevy because that is their “main stream” line and they know that Chevy’s must sell for well under $30K to remain in the main stream.

This strategy will buy BACK much of green credibility that they have let slip to Toyota and will also raise their fleet MPG average. Since E-Flex will be used across MANY different GM product lines and large format battery manufacturing will be rapidly increasing thus lowering costs, the amortization of the initial costs (losses) should pass quickly.

GM is finally thing ahead instead of focusing on just the past and the present.

GM, keep you eyes, ears, minds and budgets open to new technologies and look to the future. Be brave, be bold and be successful!

2) Hydrogen is a TERRABLE [electron] energy carrier and Fuel Cells are way too expensive and fragile to EVER be used in mainstream automobiles. Batteries are 4 TIMES more efficient and that technology is progressing much more rapidly. A-123 Batteries are the lid on H2’s coffin and EEStor [if it’s real] is the last nail.

3) We don't NEED a 400 mile range given that 78% of us drive less than 40 miles each day and 92% of all One-Way trips are less than 40 miles with a plug at each end of the trip. Most people would recharge every night while they slept instead of visiting a gas station once per week.

http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/12/06/how-did-gm-determine-that-78-of-commuters-drive-less-than-40-miles-per-day/

The Volt is an Electric Car for 92% of ALL daily trips. It will get unlimited "mpg" because it will use electricity from the grid or your home solar PV except for those FEW times where you need to go further than 40 miles between opportunity charging. The primary reasons for the range-extender are (a) so they can use smaller, cheaper & lighter batteries until that technology improves and (b) eliminate range-anxiety. It will take time for people to realize that charging a little each night [like their cell phone] is MUCH easier and cheaper than going to a gas station once per week.

Yes, I agree are brainwashed in a lot of areas including the role of government, the use of fiat currency, the true meaning of freedom and free markets and their belief in the media, but we have a simple supply of a limited resource vs its demand problem. The socialists in congress while pandering to their special interest base have not let a single refinery be built in the US since 1976. Our automotive fleet has grown exponentially since that time while our supply has not. Now we have to compete with China and India for the crude and it will take 5 years to get new domestic supplies online IF we started drilling RIGHT NOW.

Most experts expect $7.00 regular gas within the next 24 months. We’re in trouble!

Reply

"I challenge any and all to actually become part of the solution, not the problem. Bitching, complaining and brand bashing are not going to get it done."

So what then is the solution you are proposing? Spewing vitriol and insulting you fellow bloggers? Well that sure is fun, not quite sure how that helps.
Ford's ostensible technological prowess in fuel cells? Er. I think Ballard is responsible for most of Ford's innovation, and its still not clear how fuel cells will get us off fossil fuels (or address global warming, since H2 is a pretty darn potent GHG.

Also, if Toyota hasn't paid of the development costs on the Prius after selling more than 1,000,000 of them, then they really are as dumb as you suggest, but I'm disinclined to believe you. They are in business to make money, and they are investing heavily in expanding hybrid production, even though they already wear the green crown.

Reply

I love all this. The main point is that we have started the journey and there is no turning back. We can do anything if we just decide to do it. Who knows which route is the best at this stage.

Old Guy

Reply

#7 "'mericans R Brainwashed"

I agree with fnc, TomtenT, Tim, GoodCheer. I will state agreement when others clearly and in a civil manner state what I believe. Call me lazy, not brainwashed.

Take your own advice to do more research and also participate in a course on civil discourse, emphasis on the civil.

Reply

Toyota absolutely makes a profit on every one of those Prius they sell. Maybe they didn't the very first year, but you can be damn sure they are making money now.

Sure, they don't make as much money per vehicle as GM and Ford did on their Escalade or Navigator a couple years ago, but a whole lot more than those guys do now!

It's just like what Cramer says, bulls make money, bears make money, pigs get slaughtered.

Toyota has been a bear, GM and Ford started out as bulls, but then turned into pigs, now they are getting slaughtered.

Reply

"mericans R Brainwashed" has been brainwashed by the stupid hybrid myths. If all the hybrid makers were loosing money on hybrids, why have Toyota and Honda been making record profits during the hybrid boom, while GM has been loosing huge sums in all those years with no GM hybrids?

It's "Brainwashed" that hasn't done the research, Toyota paid off all the hybrid development costs by 2003, and have been raking in a handsome profit ever since, with over a million hybrids sold. Toyota has been adding to their hybrid lineup and steadily ramping up production, something that would not have happened with a "money loosing" design.

It is the H2 fuel cell cars that have been the big money loosers. H2 storage and H2 fuel cells are far too expensive to sell to the general public, instead, there are only a limited numbers of prototypes built for corporate promotion. With the rise of plug-ins running on far less expensive electricity, H2 will never be economically competitive as an automotive fuel.

I agree that 45 mpg hybrids will not be enough to wean us off imported oil, but it is a step in the right direction. But the use of plug-in technology will dramatically reduce fossil fuel consumption, and improvements in batteries (already demo'ed in labs) could cut liquid fuel consumption enough so that electricity and modest amounts of biofuels will be sufficient to wean us off petroleum fuels.

Reply

$7 gas will wring the truth out of which products/technologies are best. $12 gas will wet pants and $12 gas + gas rationing will quickly pry most everyones head out of the sand. $4 gas is waking up a lot of normal, practical thinking people who would have otherwise remained sleeping. That is a good thing because we will only begin to win this battle when the "experts" who got us into this mess have faded to the back.

What companies like Honda don't yet understand is that soon people will climb over each other to get a car able to go as little as 20 miles without burning gas.

As Old Guy states, "The main point is that we have started the journey and there is no turning back. We can do anything if we just decide to do it."

With about 99% of our transportation needs dependent on oil, the transition to non-oil transportation methods will be challenging to say the very least. This inevitable transition to truly renewable transportation fuels will be made all the more daunting by the wrenching pain of high priced and scarce oil supplies but that is apparently what is needed to get us all off of our collective asses and "just decide to do it".

Reply

Somebody's been brainwashed all right, but it's not the people waiting for an electric vehicle that's capable of meeting over 90% of our transportation needs (short intra-city trips).

Hybirds may not be a long term solution, but are a step in the right direction. No, they are not suited to every application, anyone who has actually researched them instead of spewing vitriol because they are popular will tell you that. A vehicle that does a lot of stop and go driving can recapture a lot of the energy invested in the previous launch of the vehicle and use it on the next launch. And it's not just about putting batteries in a car. I'm particularly excited to see hydraulic applications of this (hydraulics systems are inexpensive and well understood).

As far as hydrogen goes, it may sit at the starting line never even making its way into the race the way battery technology is going. If you burn it, you're automatically behind the game. Burning any fuel is just going to a lot of expense to heat up the area under your hood. From what I've read fuel cells aren't going to approach the price of batteries for some time. And even if they do, you will still have to GET hydrogen from somewhere to put in there. There are methods available that essentially come down to using a fossil fuel as the source of hydrogen, which completely fails to address the problem that started this search in the first place! Electrolysis can produce it, which means you're using water as a fuel (bad idea) and losing energy in the conversion process when you could have just put that energy into a battery and used it directly for greater efficiency (and make no mistake, going forward efficiency is going to be at the forefront of design of systems instead of an afterthought).

As far as "bashing" brands, yeah, I was giving Ford some knocks for failing to plan for a future that should have been obvious (cheap crude can't last forever) and then investing in technologies that are too expensive and far off to fill the gap as we transition to a mix of fuel sources. It was a dumb move from a planning standpoint that was clearly focused on only the next quarter's profit, and that's generally not a good way to run a company. I actually don't like to complain about Ford, it's a great American company that moved America forward in the past, and I've driven some great Ford vehicles, but it has tried to hold on to profiting from a tendency to pointless excess that I think is an American value we would do well to leave behind. GM hasn't been a whole lot better, they've reaped lots of profit from selling gas guzzling SUV's, but embracing a technology that people are actually excited about, committing to make it affordable, and being somewhat transparent about the development process has gained them some credibility in my book. Will it pan out as they hope it does? We'll have to wait and see. But it's better than giving us the same old thing and a bunch of promises.

Reply

Posting totally sans vitriol:

1. The CEO's name is Rick, not Jim
2. Having been involved in various car product launches over time I would say that, while experience varies across OEMs (some produce new models as easily as making toast, for others it is always a heroic thrash to the finish line), the Volt launch run-up is more chaotic than most, but not more chaotic than one would expect given the massive changes needed for Volt: it is VERY rare to change so much at the same time (powertrain, chassis, bodywork, etc.)
3. Toyota will probably never 'fess up re true profitability of the Prius BUT my discussions off the record with Toyota people would indicate (nothing more than that) that the car makes a profit at the operating level (that is, with a portion of the hybrid R&D budget charged to it, but not all).

As another poster mentioned, it is in part a matter of cost allocation: if one develops a new engine for $1 million, then you could "charge" the first car you sold $1 million.... or the first two $500,000... or assume you will build one million of the puppies, and assign $1 to each. Given that Toyota has said repeatedly that hybridization is useful step regardless of which end game one bets on (fuel cells, EVs, hybrids, CNG, you name it) then they are probably charging the Prius a relatively small amount, expecting to amortize the R&D budget -- eventually -- over millions of cars.

So my guess (a guess) is that the Prius as a vehicle line is pulling its weight on a variable cost and operating margin line basis, and only goes negative if one whacks it with the entire hybrid R&D tab run up to date.

(Re the valuable role of hybridization regardless of end game, I mean things like regen braking are valuable almost regardless of what you use to make the car go, and things like advanced power electronics are useful even if you go to pure EV. Remember even a fuel cell car is likely to be a hybrid, as it is darn hard to accelerate and decelerate a car by adjusting the fuel cell stack directly, versus running it (at least partly) through a big honking battery).

While I am blathering on, I do have to say that the single biggest disappointment I have as regards the green car movement is the "sectarian violence" that wracks it. How do we expect to convert the average Joe to enthusiasm for anything greener than his duallie F-250 if one faction frags the Prius for not being a PHEV, another tells him PHEVs are just a smokescreen to delay introduction of the one true answer (fuel cells), and another says if he buys ethanol he will starve babies in Africa. Sheesh, if the energy spent in fragging each other's opinions was diverted to actually buying better cars and developing better technologies, we'd be free of Saudi Arabia by Labor Day!

Reply

I'm in publishing, and the amount a new book changes in concept, packaging, and price point during the development is huge. And that is just a book! So if GM wants to change its mind on something they told us last week, or last month on how this new product is going to roll out, I understand completely. We are at least a year and a half away from Y2K+X, and there will be at least that many changes in plan...

Reply

Glenn why should the whole R&D budget for hybridisation be charged to the Prius alone ?

I mean the Lexus LS600H,GS460H and the RX400H sell in such small numbers they will probably be a dead loss for a very long time. Do Prius profits pay for them too ? Bear in mind that these Lexus models take the HSD even further into hybrid territory with their two traction motors Their R&D costs would be more than just a power upgrade on the HSD like we've seen with the Camry Hybrid.

I would be interested in seeing Toyota's business model for profitability with Lexus hybrids. I just don't see how you can justify making flagship products and then turn around and dump their R&D costs on to the Prius. Then in the same breath say the Prius wouldn't be profitable if it had to support the full cost of hybridisation. Well I guess not, if you are willing to throw money around on frivolous projects. If you want to risk burning money I would have thought that going the other way and developing a two cylinder Yaris with HSD would have been a more worthwhile route for this technology and a greater chance of making money. Lots of green PR there too, instead of conspicuous consumption.
T2

Reply