Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Revenge" of the Electric Car

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    "Revenge" of the Electric Car

    Hey Terr,

    I'm curious what your reaction to this is:


    By TOM KRISHER, AP Auto Writer
    Tue Sep 16, 4:55 PM ET

    DETROIT - On its 100th anniversary, General Motors workers cheered as the company revealed the electric-powered car intended to make GM a vehicle technology leader. But after all the hoopla surrounding the Chevrolet Volt, executives also say a government loan package and access to credit are important parts of GM's next century.


    Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, speaking to reporters at Tuesday's centennial celebration inside GM's world headquarters, said the recent turmoil in the financial markets should not affect the loan package now before Congress.

    The $25 billion in loans were approved last year as part of an energy bill and should now be funded to help the industry build next-generation automobiles and meet government fuel economy standards, Wagoner said.

    "Really a relatively small fraction of the investment the industry will have to make to achieve these improvements was to be provided for by direct loans," Wagoner said. "We're just asking that those loans now be funded and that the rules and procedures to be able to draw against those loans be finalized promptly."

    General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC have been working to get Congress to fund the loans after months of tight credit markets, tepid sales and high gasoline prices.

    Fritz Henderson, GM's chief operating officer, later told reporters the company may have to make further cuts if the loans don't come through and the U.S. auto market doesn't recover.

    "We could have to do some more things for sure," he said. "Do I have my game plan laid out today? No."

    GM, which has lost $57.5 billion in the past year and a half, has a liquidity plan that calls for $10 billion in internal cuts and raising another $5 billion through asset sales and borrowing over the next 15 months.

    The company may have to cut more costs if the credit markets remain tight, Henderson said. While he expected GM to meet its liquidity targets, Henderson said he could not predict what will happen in the credit markets, which affect consumer as well as corporate borrowing.

    At the celebration, Wagoner showed off the production version of the Volt, which will be able to go 40 miles on a single charge from a home outlet.

    "General Motors' second century starts right now," he said as Vice Chairman Bob Lutz drove the four-passenger sedan onto a stage.

    Lutz told reporters that GM will be able to develop products like the Volt even if it doesn't get the government loans, but the company would prefer to have the financing as it faces a difficult balancing act between spending to meet government regulations and developing new products.

    "Obviously it's clear that government loans would take a lot of the stress off," he said.

    Wagoner said GM has been testing the Volt's lithium-ion battery packs and is confident in their performance. GM said it will cost about 80 cents to fully charge the Volt at 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is about the national average rate. After that, the batteries will be recharged by a small gasoline engine that allows the car to travel hundreds more miles.

    "It's proof that the century-old General Motors is alive and well and that it intends to lead in reinventing the automobile," Wagoner said.

    GM hasn't announced the Volt's pricing, but it's expected to cost between $30,000 and $40,000.

    The Volt is due in U.S. showrooms by November 2010. The director of GM's Adam Opel AG unit said Tuesday in Germany that Opel wants to sell a car based on Volt technology in Europe in 2011.

    Lutz said in an interview that the Volt won't be sold before late 2010 because of the complexity in building an entirely new powertrain.

    "This is all-new technology, a lot of very complex software on the interaction between power electronics, piston engine and so forth," he said.

    The Volt, he said, will know a person's normal route home, and if the driver veers from it, the car will calculate whether it needs to start the gasoline engine and how long the engine needs to run.

    The Volt even converted one of GM's biggest critics, director Chris Paine, whose 2006 documentary film "Who Killed the Electric Car?" accused GM of conspiring with the oil industry and the U.S. government to cancel its 1990s EV1 electric vehicle.

    Paine, invited by GM to attend the centennial, took part in a panel discussion about the future of transportation. GM paid his expenses, he told reporters.

    "My film wasn't supposed to be a grudge match with GM," he said. "It was about why we weren't able to begin to transition to a new automotive generation 10 years ago when we could have."

    Paine said he still believes GM was wrong in killing the EV1, and he concedes that taking part in the centennial could give the appearance that he's part of the GM public relations machine.

    But he was intrigued by the Volt and a resurgence in electric car interest.

    "The corporation isn't always wrong. If they're doing this and it's more than press, then I want to be here to cover it," said Paine, who is making a new documentary about the "revenge" of the electric car.

    "The fact that they invited me says a lot," he said. "Maybe we're mending fences if we're doing this now."
    So you're a fish out of water...
    Keep swimming.
    What else can you do?

    #2
    Originally posted by Shard View Post
    Hey Terr,

    I'm curious what your reaction to this is:

    I'll give you my opinion and the much of the facts that support it.

    In summary: The industry doesn't need help to "built the next generation of automobiles" because they already had consumer ready versions of vehicles that exceed the specs of "the next generation of automobiles" that they refused to build and could put to market today if they wanted to.

    If you're not convinced, then read on.





    In the 1990s, our government gave the big three over $200 million to design and develop a market-ready 80 mpg midsize car that incurred no significant cost penalty to the consumer and no reduction of performance or luxuries compared to the cars then on the market. The big three developed the cars and they met the specs. GM designed the Precept and demonstrated a market-ready one-off in 2000. The Precept got 80 mpg. This was a full size car that could seat 5 adults, accelerated from 0-60 mph in 11.5 seconds, and reached a governor limited top speed of 85 mph. It achieved this by reducing the drag coefficient to 0.16, it used composite body materials to reduce weight to 2,593 lbs, and it used a 100 horsepower diesel-electric hybrid powertrain. There was a catch; the big three never actually had to offer the cars to a public willing to buy them. This car met all of the safety standards of the early 2000s, and would require little or no modification to meet today's standards. It's been designed and thus no more government handouts are needed to design it. GM can put it to market today with little effort in contrast to building a whole new car, and well exceed the 35 mpg by 2020 CAFE demand without having to develop another car.

    The Volt is a joke when compared to the EV1. The EV1 of 1998, using NiMH batteries, could go 150 miles per charge at highway speeds, over 200 miles driven conservatively(an example did 225 miles on a charge in a Tour De Sol rally), and if driven very agressively, can still exceed 100 miles per charge(John Wayland, owner of the "White Zombie" Datsun 1200 that runs 11 second 1/4 mile drag races once rented an EV1 on a trip in California, and frequently used the car's full acceleration capabilities and frequently drove on the highway at its governor limited top speed of 80 mph, and still got a real world range of 130 miles on a charge). It did 0-60 mph in 7.5 seconds, and an example with no governor and a modified gear ratio reached 183 mph at one of GM's proving grounds. GM at one time even had all of the machine tools built to mass produce the EV1. It met all NHTSA safety standards of the time(it would meet today's standards with fortified side-impact beams and little else, not requiring any significant changes to the design). GM could produce the EV1 today, without requiring a government handout for more R&D. They literally have the completed, market ready design in their posession. A 4-seater version of the EV1 was even designed, but never leased to consumers, so that is also viable with little additional work or funding needed in case a more practical vehicle is needed. The Volt is expected to cost $30,000+ according to the article. The EV1 was projected to cost the same amount with much lower production volumes than the Volt is expected to see!

    Compare the EV1 to the Volt. The Volt uses two drive systems, which in volume, will make it more expensive than either a pure-electric or a pure-gasoline car. The Volt only has 40 miles all-EV range, necessitating a battery pack that lasts 3,000+ full discharge cycles, when a pure EV with much longer range only needs a battery that lasts about 500 deep discharge cycles because its pack will not routinely see deep discharges(shallower discharges will net far more cycles; NiMH battery packs in Toyota RAV4 EVs with only 100 miles range have exceeded 150,000 miles pack life with no loss in range or performance yet); this means the Volt will require a more expensive battery in order to remain economical. The Volts aerodynamics are nowhere near as good as they could be. I've seen two conflicting sources claiming the Cd of the original Volt concept to be 0.43 and 0.31 respectively; an EVworld article claims that the production version of the Volt will have 30% reduced drag from the concept version, meaning the Cd is either 0.22 or 0.29. A 0.29 Cd is par for the course when compared with today's new cars, while a 0.22 Cd would be better than anything offered to the U.S. by a major automaker but still far above the GM Precept's 0.16 Cd. A higher than necessary drag coefficient means that a larger battery pack will be needed to maintain the same range per charge in all-electric mode, further increasing costs. To boot, the Volt needs more money for R&D to complete, while the EV1 and Precept do not.

    The Volt might be a step in the right direction, but it is a far cry from what is doable, and worse yet, what is doable has already been demonstrated and needs no government handouts. GM also wants to putout a new Hummer pickup truck that very few will want or can afford, even while asking for and recieving yet more government handouts.

    Not only that, but as far back as 1982 GM had designed the TPC, which got 61 mpg city and 74 mpg highway. It used an aluminum body to reduce weight to 1,040 lbs, yet had an unremarkable 0.31 drag coefficient. The engine was an inline 3 cyclinder that produced 38 horsepower. The car was a hatchback similar to the Geo Metro XFi, but exceeded its performance and fuel economy nearly a decade before it was built.

    In 1983, GM had an upgraded version of its Lean Machine concept. This one-seater could achieve 200 miles per gallon in normal driving conditions, did 0-60 mph in 6.8 seconds, was governor limited to 80 mph, had a 0.15 drag coefficient, and weighed 400 lbs. It used a 38 horsepower 2-cylinder Otto cycle engine. GM assest the market demand for this vehicle as satisfactory, repeated market surveys had proven consumer demand, BUT GM refused to produce it still.

    In 1992, GM demonstrated the Ultralite. 0-60 mph in 7.8 seconds, a top speed of 135 mph, 1400 lbs curb weight, 0.19 drag coefficient, capability to seat 4 adults with interior space about the same as that of a Volkswagen Jetta, and a 111 horsepower 1.5L 3-cylinder gasoline engine. It got 81 mpg highway and 45 mpg city. At the time, there was a cost penalty due to the price of carbon fibre being too high then(aerospace industry monopoly keeps price artificially high; search "Carbon Fiber Antitrust Litigation"), but now with the price of steel having risen dramatically, the cost penalty would now be about like that of today's Toyota Prius. Composite bodies are much safer than today's combination steel/plastic bodies, and getting this already designed car to exceed today's safety standards wouldn't pose too much of an issue.

    GM now owns Opel, and in 2002, Opel had a concept car called the Eco Speedster. It was a two-seater sports car that had a 113 horsepower 4 cylinder diesel engine, 1,500 lbs curb weight, and a 0.2 drag coefficient. It did 0-60 mph in 8.9 seconds and could top 160 mph. Best of all, it gets 94 mpg in U.S. gallons!

    GM doesn't need the money, and for the cost of no more government handouts, could put out products generations ahead of what they are willing to offer with the Volt. I rest my case.
    Last edited by The Toecutter; 09-17-2008, 08:25 PM.
    The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder." ~ Thomas Jefferson

    Comment


      #3
      Re: "Revenge" of the Electric Car

      from what ive read and heard i also think this announcement by gm is a poor way to save face. if the automakers acually wanted to make an electric car then they would of done so years ago. the technology was there, the development was even there, yet they didnt want to lose all the money they get from oil and parts.

      speaking of which, anyone know where that post is where we discussed this very thing?

      Thank you Ωbright for the sig fix!
      Card Three is released! You can find it here!

      Comment


        #4
        Re: "Revenge" of the Electric Car

        No idea. But just so you know, Electric Cars were around 100 years ago.

        Terr, I feel your pain and your rage. These money-grubbing bastards are retarding the advancement of the human race for their own gain and it sickens me.
        stodi no na ka cenba

        Comment

        Working...
        X