Archives

GM to Make Announcement Tomorrow on Business Plans (Update1)
By Greg Bensinger

July 14 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp., battling a 16 percent decline in U.S. sales this year, said Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner will hold a news conference tomorrow to discuss plans to adjust to ``current market conditions.''

Detroit-based GM didn't provide further details in a statement released today on PR Newswire. The press conference will be held at 9 a.m. local time.

GM has already announced job cuts, plant closings and a shift in production to smaller cars and crossover sport-utility vehicles this year as rising gasoline prices and a deteriorating housing market erode consumer confidence.

GM's U.S. sales decline through June has exceeded the industry's 10 percent fall. Its sales of pickups, SUVs and minivans, which it re

I hope they came up with the right decisions.

They- GM- need to cheap the Volt down . It doesn't need a 40 mile plug in range ,and it doesn't need a freakin' turbocharger.

Give the early cheap model -under $30,000 - the NiMhy batteries and maybe 30 mile range. Also just use a 40 hp generator motor -1000 cc or whatever. 40 hp should be at least 30 hp at the wheels - top speed of 80-85 mph in ice dead battery mode.

Later on release a Li battery 40 mile -Turbo generator bells and whistles one for high rollers.

Like WG has said -the Volt is just a Cobalt with an electric motor, battery pack ,and a ice powered generator -subtract the original ice and trans . Why should a $13000 car cost $45000 just to stick and electric motor -simpler than an ICE -and battery packs in it??

Charlie

Actually, I really hope they don't reduce the range. That sucker still needs to perform with good range in cold weather and through heavy rain. Besides, my commute is 44mi and I could stretch a 40mi AER to cover it but doubt I could do the same with a 30mi AER. :p

I hadn't heard about a turbocharger on the Volt? I think I heard about a turbo ICE at one point but that was just so that they could make the displacement even smaller.

I do tend to agree that the VOLT really doesn't need to be that expensive. I also happen to believe that GM should just bite the bullet and sell for a loss at the *right* price so they can get back on their feet with economies of scale using a really good product. As far as I'm concerned, the Volt is just the start of a whole range of vehicles on the platform.

Right lane cruiser- sure 40 miles would be great , BUT GM is betting they can get the Li battery pack "right" on a very tight time schedule . They also imply that the LI pack is the reason for the BS $45000 MSRP claim. 30 miles would be ok with me because it is your ox being gored. My son drives about 22 miles to school , I drive about 32 miles to school , so we would be fine with 30 miles.

The original claim was the GM was going to be able to use 3 types of ICE all turbo charged for better FE and lighter weight ( TDI ,spark turbo , spark turbo 85% ethanol). All I see with a turbo is COST!! Heck ,all the Turbo 4's we have in the USA get CRUMMY FE. Granted they are preformance "tuner" type cars like the WRX , but we haven't ever had a turbo 4 that actually improved the FE much. I think it is because they have to over richen them to get away with 10-15 psi of boost. They could probably get away with 5 psi( 33% increased power) without the high octane or over rich condition , but is that really worth the $2000 the turbo and turbo controls would cost .A better solution would be to decrease their hp requirements and have their 3 cyl 1000 cc produce about 40 hp at 4000 RPMs at WOT. Granted it would certainly limit drained battery aceleration, but so what?

At $45000 the Volt is DOA


Charlie
PS Exploding battery packs mean DOA also. I had a Li battery blow up one night in a flashlight -terrible acrid stench , bluish flame, and a heck of a way to wake up.Cheapo Chinese flashlight and battery of course.

You can bet Volt will be expensive and built like junk.

Charlie, I see where you are coming from but if their goal is to cut gas out completely for most commuters, 40mi is a great number to target. If you can charge at your destination, that helps but the best scenario is charging only at home in the middle of the night when we have cheaper prices (due to excess, unused capacity).

I agree about the turbo as far as looking at what is available to drive right now... but I think they are targeting a specific hp requirement for reasonable charging -- it would have to be more than just enough to do pass through energy transfer to the motor -- you'd need to have enough to charge the battery as well or you wouldn't be able to handle the situation where you use up the battery on a steep hill. There are conversion losses as well... I think they figured out the limits for acceptable battery management under a large regime of conditions and came up with the hp using that. Once you have the hp, there are only so many ways to produce it. We had an article here a few months ago about using turbocharging to improve fuel economy. A turbo charged 4 can give the same hp as a larger engine while using a bit less fuel than that larger engine. If the load goes down, you can then drop out of the turbo boost and use even less fuel.

Just guesses but I think that's where that portion is going in terms of logic behind the decisions.

Jeff, I'm not so sure. It is pretty hard to mess up what is essentially an EV with some other generating stuff tacked onto it. By all accounts (the ones I've seen anyway!) the EV1 was excellent quality throughout. GM has certainly had their bad areas (I long ago decided I wouldn't purchase a GM because of QA issues), but they've been improving recently. Interiors and body panel fit have gotten very good lately. What is left is the powertrain and electronics... and EV requirements are significantly less complex than a CI and all the associated emissions, controls, and cooling are.

Color me overly optimistic, but I think they actually have a reasonable chance of producing something that is definitely not "built like junk!"

As for price, I just pray they don't shoot themselves in the foot again. I happen to like the Range Extended EV design much better than what I see from current hybrid designs. To me, if feels like the right solution -- one that expects you to mostly drive using batteries and only occasionally need something else. All other hybrids simply augment a different primary powertrain with the electric side. I want to see them succeed because I think they have the right solution and I don't see anyone else offering it.

Give the early cheap model -under $30,000 - the NiMhy batteries and maybe 30 mile range. Too bad that can't happen, thanks to Chevron/Cobasys.

Rightlane - I see your point -40 miles would probably cover 95% of most folks daily mileage. I'm just a bit scared that GM will rush the testing of the Li BP in the hopes of hitting the 40 mile plug in range .

Psyshack -I'm a lot more optimistic in respect to GM . In 40 years of buying cars I had only bought on GM - A Chevy Prizm -and it was built in the same plant ,same assembly line as the Corolla (the joint GM Toyota plant in CA -UMMI ?? I think it is called. Obviously the Prizm was more Toyota than Chevy. The Japanese (one Dodge ) vehicles I owned were winners . Well a year or so ago we developed serious $$ problems ,so we sold the Honda Pilot ($15,500) and bought a 98 Suburban with 195,500 miles on it for $2950 . For $2950 I expected it to be a POS, but I figured I could keep it running around town ,and keep it running well enough to get 100 miles N of New Orleans . The main point in buying the FSP was to be able to evacuate all of us -3 adults , 4 cats, 1-2 leggy dogs ,and lots of stuff when we had a Katrina repeat. In general there is an evacuation about every 2-3 years here outside NOLA.

The Suburban would also be a second car for getting to school/store/doctors when my son had the Prius.

Long story long , the Suburban has been an extremely pleasant surprise . It hasn't broken down , and it gets 21 mpg at 70 mph with the CC on.I'm just not sure why it gets such good hy FE (good being relative of course) .I expected 17 mpg at 70 mph . I do use the CC , use syn oil ,pump the tires to 43-45 psi , but that is it for hypermiling on long trips. I have replaced the radiator($155, water pump($55) ,belt tensioner(25) , brake booster($130) -cost just $400 for all the above new -(booster was rebuilt) parts. Of course , it would have been $2000 at a repair shop and maybe $3000 at a chevy dealer.

Still ,Im impressed with the reliability and FE of this ancient seemingly crude GM product. It gets about 16-18 mpg city with motor on P&G and shutting down at lights.

GM did have severe QC problems , but that is probably 10-15 years ago. Of course , it will take them a long time to win back customers they lost in the 70's,80's,90's when they produced some lemons ,and Toyota/Honda produced winner after winner.

Sorry to run on. I like GM swinging for the fence(they are screwed if they don't) , but maybe they should choke up just a little.

Charlie

PS I'm not suggesting folks buy Suburbans - their city FE is poor -10- mpg -if you just "drive" them ,and with mild hypermiling on very short trips(2 miles) the FE is just 12 mpg. They are great when used as covered long bed pickups , but cheaper now and more useful than a pickup! Paired with a tiny far more expensive FE car they aren't the worst choice you could make. If we didn't have the potential evac with all the animals we would go smaller - a used minivan maybe , but the Honda and Toyota are very expensive even used..