GM: Charging Forward with the Volt? 16 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
By Michael Kanellos
The Volt is the Future of GM. Or it’s dead. Whatever the case, GM is getting a rumor community that would even make Apple (AAPL) envious.
The ailing Detroit automaker, which has consistently been losing money and looking for ways to cut costs, is expected to announce important changes tomorrow. Reuters, citing sources close to the company, says GM will push ahead with the Volt and continue to invest in hybrids, but it will cut back in other areas.
Jalopnik, meanwhile, has a report that GM will put the Volt on hold indefinitely. The source is an unidentified nephew of an engineer. It’s a bit out there, but within the I-am-your-father’s-uncle’s-roommate standard first unfurled in Mel Brooks’ “Spaceballs.”
Personally, I’m betting on Reuters. GM has bet everything on the car, the company knows the future is in fuel economy. And our future president (not Dick Cheney; that skinny guy) wants to give people tax credits for buying fuel efficient cars. Besides, a significant portion of the engineering is done.
If GM didn’t have the Volt, all the company would have left in terms of assets are delivery vans, scrap metal and old Grand Funk Railroad eight-track tapes left in the lockers of employees laid off in the ’70s.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
TraderMark
-
2
Don Dion
-
3
Cliff Wachtel
-
4
Mike Havrilla
-
5
James Quinn
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 16 comments:
Other options currently in the marketplace -- like the $20,000 worth of bundled laptop batteries for the Telsa -- are not practical.
The plain fact is that GM doesn't want to produce a serial hybrid EV.
The VOLT is a 40-mile-range EV with a range-extending genset; there are thousands of home-build lead-acid EVs with more than 40 miles range.
So GM is a liar, and/or Lutz is ignorant; so what's new about that.
How else did GM get into its current fix, pathetic and pitied, from its former dominance...it was bonehead crap like delaying the VOLT, and crushing the EV1.
Running a bit overboard, are we? Let's be realistic. Yes, GM needs to cut costs. Its business is much too big for the current volume of products it sells. But realistically, it sells thousands of vehicles a year. Chevy, Pontiac, Saturn, Buick, Cadillac, these are all extremely viable brands. Costs just need to be brought under control.
On Nov 07 10:54 AM User 279697 wrote:
> There is no need for battery technology; GM demonstrated the PRECEPT
> in 1998, a serial hybrid like the VOLT in 1969, and had a 110-mile-range
> all-electric EV in the 1999 (and 1997 with upgraded PSB batteries)
> in the lead-acid EV1.
>
> The plain fact is that GM doesn't want to produce a serial hybrid
> EV.
>
> The VOLT is a 40-mile-range EV with a range-extending genset; there
> are thousands of home-build lead-acid EVs with more than 40 miles
> range.
>
> So GM is a liar, and/or Lutz is ignorant; so what's new about that.
>
>
> How else did GM get into its current fix, pathetic and pitied, from
> its former dominance...it was bonehead crap like delaying the VOLT,
> and crushing the EV1.
On Nov 07 10:54 AM User 279697 wrote:
> There is no need for battery technology; GM demonstrated the PRECEPT
> in 1998, a serial hybrid like the VOLT in 1969, and had a 110-mile-range
> all-electric EV in the 1999 (and 1997 with upgraded PSB batteries)
> in the lead-acid EV1.
>
> The plain fact is that GM doesn't want to produce a serial hybrid
> EV.
>
> The VOLT is a 40-mile-range EV with a range-extending genset; there
> are thousands of home-build lead-acid EVs with more than 40 miles
> range.
>
> So GM is a liar, and/or Lutz is ignorant; so what's new about that.
>
>
> How else did GM get into its current fix, pathetic and pitied, from
> its former dominance...it was bonehead crap like delaying the VOLT,
> and crushing the EV1.
OMG, still whining about the EV1!
Look, all the batteries needed to be replaced after 30,000 miles, with a mean life of 12,000 miles even restricting use to warm states. Each battery replacement cost GM more than the total of all the lease payments, never mind the cost of the whole rest of the car.
If the EV1 was still out there, and the customers had been allowed to buy them, the rant would be how GM ripped them off. They would have been right.
Face it, as hard as it is for you to swallow, GM did the responsible, right thing by taking every last one back and scrapping them.
The question is not "who killed the EV1?" but "Who did not kill it before it was born?"
I understand the short-term effect posed by the intertwined risk-chain of the financial firms, but the long-term effect of the 6-figure job losses were GM (and/or Ford) to fail would be far more dangerous.
But let's face it--which high-level Treasury department (or any cabinet level department for that matter) employees are from the auto industry?None. How many are from the financial industry? Dozens.
Now do we understand why the banks were bailed out while GM has to beg?
Under Bush or McCain, GM would've been left to die. Under Obama, I believe they'll get a shot in the arm--enough to bridge this gap until the pent up demand brings customers back.
--Jim
GM factories were put to work rolling out tanks in WWII, and Ford was rolling out the iconic Jeeps.
As a country we cannot allow the bastions of our manufacturing base to be lost. If we allow it and our country needs them again in time of war, we are pretty screwed.
GM wants to make this right, for a change IMO, the first time, and I appreciate that.
On Nov 07 10:54 AM User 279697 wrote:
> There is no need for battery technology; GM demonstrated the PRECEPT
> in 1998, a serial hybrid like the VOLT in 1969, and had a 110-mile-range
> all-electric EV in the 1999 (and 1997 with upgraded PSB batteries)
> in the lead-acid EV1.
>
> The plain fact is that GM doesn't want to produce a serial hybrid
> EV.
>
> The VOLT is a 40-mile-range EV with a range-extending genset; there
> are thousands of home-build lead-acid EVs with more than 40 miles
> range.
>
> So GM is a liar, and/or Lutz is ignorant; so what's new about that.
>
>
> How else did GM get into its current fix, pathetic and pitied, from
> its former dominance...it was bonehead crap like delaying the VOLT,
> and crushing the EV1.
If we look at the amount of oil we spend for automotive (Air transportation will have to rely on oil for the indefinite future) and ask ourselves if we'd rather have those future billions go to Canada, Venezuala, Iran, and Saudi Arabia OR...the USA in the form of battery/automotive technology instead of oil, I think the answer is simple. I'd rather see the US filled with wealthy "battery shieks" than send our money abroad making someone else rich.
It's worth our investment--and I don't care if it's my tax dollars going to fund a publicly traded company's R&D--I just want the energy technology of the future to come from the US, and not Japan, China, Korea, or the other ones who put their state dollars towards beating us to the punch on this. And I very much don't want the future to be oil. We've got to get it clear that oil is on it's way out.
If we're not careful, what will we have in the future as far as industry?
We've been ably to fake it by in the last 30 years in which our former backbone--manufacturin... shrunk. We've faked it by borrowing and selling our bad debt and now it's come home to roost and it's pretty scary to see that we don't really lead in a whole lot of industries.
If we're the leader in wal-mart greeters, does that entitle us to the "wealth" we think we have? I think the answer is clear now that we see that that wealth was false. We can't sustain this huge a country on flipping burgers and having big-box stores that are simply cash-funnels sending our money directly to China and Korea.
Whew...that was a fun rant.
-Jim
In the meantime, GM should concentrate its efforts on things it CAN DO NOW to survive as a going concern. Like sell their popular high mileage European compacts in the U.S. All they need is to load them on freighters until they can retool domestic assembly lines to produce them here.
Or offer NGV's to consumers, which cost 40% less to refuel than the identical models running on gasoline. They built them here between 2000-05, and sell 19 different models in Canada today.
The government shouldn't give these struggling companies a dime until they take such steps to try to help themselves.
It seems to me that GM is way way behind the curve here and needs the taxpayer money to catch up.
The current 30 mpg being promoted is pathetic... I purchased an Opel GT over 30 years ago that gave 34 mpg... the Opel was a sub-line sold thru GM Dealers. Then for some odd reason, the entire line was taken off the market. You figure out why... it was a great car with great features and great gas mileage = why take it off the market???
I purchased an Opel GT over 30 years ago that gave 34 mpg... the Opel was a sub-line sold thru GM Dealers. Then for some odd reason, the entire line was taken off the market. You figure out why... it was a great car with great features and great gas mileage = why take it off the market???
The reason the Opel was taken off of the US market is that it didn't sell very well here. Toyota today uses the same 4 banger they did in the 70's with a few updates. The 72 Corolla I had got 32 mpg highway with a manual transmission and a 1800 CC motor (1800 CC = 1.8L). The 2001 Century I have now gets 30 mpg highway with a 3.0L V6 and 4 speed automatic. Oh yeah that's cause GM invented the throttle body and went back to using overdrive.
All the gushing over Toyota's hybrid makes me sick. The system was invented by EPA labs. All Toyota did was copy the drawings once the EPA patent expired. EPA labs have now put a hydraulic hybrid system together that is 75% efficient vs 25% for the electrical hybrids.