How GM is Making Electric Vehicles Relevant
Our vehicles are an extension of our independence. No matter how far the route, whether it’s 10 miles or 1,000 miles, we depend on our vehicle to get us there. An EV must give drivers the confidence and peace of mind that they won’t be stranded when the battery charge is depleted, and GM’s Voltec propulsion system solves this psychological problem of range anxiety.
When the battery’s energy is depleted from driving in pure electric mode, the engine generator produces electricity to extend the Volt’s driving range to more than 300 total miles. And if you don’t have access to public charging or time to wait on a recharge, all you have to do is fill-up with fuel and continue driving electrically. The beauty of an E-REV is you have that choice without sacrifice because the engine generator provides the flexibility. E-REVs become an enabler to making electric vehicles affordable because they aren’t dependent on anything else – all your equipment is on-board.
With the Voltec system, the 16 kWh battery pack will accommodate the driving needs of 80 percent of American drivers, whereas other battery electric vehicles have a battery 2-3 times the size of the Volt’s. Smaller battery size equals significantly less cost, and that translates to greater affordability for the masses.
-
- Chevy Volt
All these factors make it possible for us to easily ramp up for mass production.
If our experience with the EV1 taught us anything, it’s that customers love driving electric so much that they want to be able to plug-in wherever they go, and with both 120v and 240v capability, they will. We’ve also gone to great lengths to standardize the vehicle receptacle in North America so plug-in vehicles don’t end up like laptops and cell phones with different charging cords for each manufacturer.
And what would an electric vehicle be if it wasn’t fun-to-drive?
An appliance, that’s what. With its instantaneous torque, the Volt will take many six-cylinder vehicles off the line, and can go 0-60 mph in under 9 seconds. And even though most of us should never drive this fast, it has a top speed of 100 mph.
I firmly believe electrically-driven vehicles are the way of the future because they have the ability to displace petroleum and eliminate emissions with no sacrifice in performance, size or features. But in order to be truly relevant, an EV must be available to regular people at a reasonable price – not just to celebrities. At a time when our industry is undoubtedly struggling, we’re backing that commitment by allocating the necessary company resources to start putting the Volt in driveways by the end of 2010.
While I admire the technological prowess and tenacity of the smaller start-up companies, GM is better equipped to deliver electric vehicles in large volume globally. After all, we have been bringing relevant vehicles to consumers for more than a century.
I look forward to reading your thoughts.
More on Plug-in Hybrids and Electric Vehicles:
- Bob Lutz Responds to Elon Musk on David Letterman Show [video]
- Henrik Fisker Debuts Karma Plug-in Hybrid in San Jose [+pictures / +audio]
- Better Place Unveils First Solar-Powered Electric Vehicle Battery Switching Station
- GM Invites Journalists for Volt-mule Test Drive
- Car Companies Standardize Plug for Electric Vehicles
I agree with everything you said but I believe there are other issues.
Having two motors on a car vs. one invites an opportunity for one to suffer from inefficiencies. With two motors the energy required to obtain gasoline, convert it to electricity and then make the car move is not as efficient as merely using electricity to move the car only.
While you point out well that the Volt overcomes any range anxiety issues, and reduces battery expenses, an improved battery will someday in the future clearly overcome these obstacles and ‘replace’ the range extending vehicles. It also is preferable for several reasons to have one motor, not two.
Until that happens, the Volt is an excellent car and I would be thrilled to own one. I consider the Volt a great bridge technology.
I’m all for anything that helps the US use our own abundant natural energy resources: coal, natural gas, hydro, solar and wind (biofuels would be nice too, if we could make them economically competitive).
I’d prefer if we could have a higher percentage of solar and wind right now in our electricity generation, but the electric car could very well be the vehicle (pardon the pun) that drives the market in that direction. After all, the more electricity your lifestyle uses, the more quickly you will get a return on
investment from going solar.
Weber makes an excellent point that the Masters Of the Universe/Hollywood Starlets valet-parking their few thousand Fisker and Teslas aren’t going to really make any difference at all when it comes to the real issues confronting our nation and planet: oil consumption and atmospheric carbon production.
It’s foing to be the rest of us who need to get to work and bring the kids to birthday parties who will save the planet. For this, as Weber says, we need a “normal” car with an advanced propulsion system. Thanks, GM for staying in touch with the needs of real people.
Read the latest on lectric vehicles at Carlectro (http://www.electricarpub.com/)
Frank, I like your enthusiasm but personally I find it a little hard to give GM much of my trust. The overt destruction of the EV1s as documented in “Who Killed the Electric Car” makes it clear that GM’s priorities are a little suspect.
You write: “While I admire the technological prowess and tenacity of the smaller start-up companies, GM is better equipped to deliver electric vehicles in large volume globally. After all, we have been bringing relevant vehicles to consumers for more than a century.”
The EV1 was relevant long before today and the economic crisis. I know we should look forward, but seriously, I have a hard time viewing GM’s efforts right now through anything but a greenwashing filter.
Having seen the Honda Clarity in action, I wonder why GM is wasting its time on this path, unless this is just a bridge car. The Clarity as a hydrogen car is THE platform to get us off foreign oil for our cars, and we have all the hydrogen we need right here. All we need is infrastructure for the filling stations. Honda has these cars on lease in California here, and they are HOT. GM should be putting their resources into this as an ultimate solution, or Honda will whip them again in the long run. GM=no long term vision.
This is all well and good. I am all for getting us of petroleum but I have some questions:
1) Every summer, here in Ontario we are asked to not run our home air conditioners etc. because the electrical grid is over-worked as it is. Will the wholesale switch to electric cars not simply further burden an already overtaxed electrical grid? How will we generate all of the extra required electricity? How well will the batteries last in frigid temperatures?
2) Don’t you think that the government is going to want to make up the tax dollars that it won’t be getting from the sale of fuel? Where will that money come from?
We may wind up spending the same or more as we do now for petro fuel. (Likely more)
I’m not suggesting we stay with petro products in any way. Is electric cars really the answer.
I agree with Levi. I’m skeptical of GM’s commitment to electric vehicles given the company’s history with the EV1.
No mention of it is made in this article. Are we supposed to ignore it and pretend that it never happened? Or that it was other people at GM that were responsible and they have nothing to do with the current EV endeavor? That’s a bit hard to swallow.
And if you want to make electric vehicles relevant for consumers, how about eliminating the need for a proprietary cable to plug the thing in? Why not design it to use a standard extension cord?
GM deserves to fail, and fail miserably. But in the end, the government will bail GM out in some fashion, and, sadly, they will learn nothing from this “close call.”
I think GM has been beaten up for too long about the EV1 project. Yes, they scrapped it. Yes, it’s too bad that they weren’t able to break into the market with a disruptive technology that was ahead of its time. You can’t expect a company to spend itself into the ground to prop up a program like that.
Even now, electric vehicle technology is barely (or not) able to compete without major subsidy or what some would call crazy new approaches (like battery exchanges).
The true test, which will prove whether this is hype or reality, is whether GM can stay afloat while producing a $40,000 electric car ($32K after tax credit). If GM is successful at that they’ve really accomplished something.
Wow, a GM rep selling GM propaganda - quelle surprise. My only question is why is gas2.org publishing this GM advertisement as an article? Having a small disclaimer under a picture that most would assume is just a description of the picture itself doesn’t really cut it. Adding this place to my list of propaganda regurgitators.
@adam: We’re not going to apologize for facilitating a discussion. You are welcome to your opinion and choice of sources.