The New Republic

Isn't the bigger problem here the assumption that private companies don't ever make lemons? Ford didn't need any government aid to make the Pinto.

- Simon Greenwood

August 2, 2010 at 3:48pm

I believe electric cars should be promoted as a second, or local, car; they will not replace the combustion engine for long haul trips, and promoting them as such will only disappoint consumers and discourage buyers. Get consumers in the electric car first, then deal with long haul trips. It may come as a surprise to some, but most Americans don't have access to transit for local trips, instead relying on large combustion engine SUVs. That's the easiest to convince consumers to replace with an electric vehicle. For long haul trips, get Americans out of the car and into transit - such as high speed rail. My point is that efficient and clean (relatively) transportation doesn't have one solution but several.

- rayward

August 2, 2010 at 4:16pm

If I had an outlet, I'd likely buy or lease a Volt as my only car. I think this is a great idea. The Leaf is only $8,000 less and it can only go 100 miles at a time? Also, it's a puny little thing. No, this is far superior, not in the same league. One doesn't want to be afraid of losing juice without being able to fill up quickly and easily. Popping in a gas engine backup solves the problem. I'm not wild about the Volt's styling, but this is such a worthy product -- made in the U.S., no less -- that I would overlook that matter of taste. The only problem is that I don't have an outlet. I park on city streets. Even if I were to rent space in a garage, no garage I'm aware of nearby is offering juice. If that changes, I might reconsider, but I'd rather not have to pay for garage space. So a Volt is probably not in my near future, but, boy, do I endorse the concept, and if it works as advertised, it should be a winner.

- JakeH

August 2, 2010 at 6:03pm

"The Volt, in this view, is a boondoggle that no sensible company would have developed into a product if the government, determined to push fuel-efficient technology, hadn't forced it to do so." I understand this is the impression of some people, but it's dead wrong. GM had the Volt product plan in place 4 years ago. Even at that time, Bob Lutz - perhaps the greatest living (muscle) car man - felt Volt would change everything for GM. They invested in a Volt marketing campaign a good two years before it was available to purchase. In other words, GM was committed to Volt long before the feds stepped in. In fact, you could conclude that the federal government showed foresight in allowing GM to bring it to market.

- rancilio

August 3, 2010 at 9:46am

This article does not respond convincingly to Niedermeyer's argument.

- philipreed

August 3, 2010 at 10:12am

Cohn writes: " The Volt, in this view, is a boondoggle that no sensible company would have developed into a product if the government, determined to push fuel-efficient technology, hadn't forced it to do so." Johnathan, you do know the development cycle for new cars is 5+ years. There is no way you bring a brand new car to market in 2011 without starting on it 2005. So, if you think the Volt is visionary, then you should give credit to the guy Obama axed. I think Limbaugh sees the Volt as a victory dance. I have a few friends that believe the "Who killed the EV1" movie clearly spells out the auto/oil company symbiotic relationship. But none of them can tell me why a car maker would NOT want to put in an electric motor + batteries IF it worked better than gas. Their belief if that electric cars should be super cheap and drive for hundreds of miles. And if they aren't, then it's a conspiracy. Got that? Not a technical problem. Not a gravimetric energy density problem. A conspiracy. In fact, the Volt simply shows that alt technology isn't and never has been ready for prime time. Here', we get the best know-how combined with an administration that is keen to make this work, and we end up with a dud. And to top it off, GM goes and hammers the car with butt-ugly styling. Actually, to me, it's a pretty good first effort. Price is way out of whack. But not bad otherwise.

- seattleeng

August 3, 2010 at 10:39am

"This article does not respond convincingly to Niedermeyer's argument." Part of the problem is that Niedermeyer's argument is dishonest. As rancilio points out, the Volt was way down the development pipeline long before any government involvement. He also attributes all of the $50B "bailout" along with every other related subsidy and tax break he could find to the development costs of the Volt. Whether it is a worthwhile car or not will be determined as time goes by, but it doesn't warrant condemning an admirable effort before the first car has been sold.

- appleton

August 3, 2010 at 10:42am

The Volt may be valuable as a ground-breaker for the American market, but that doesn't make it a good deal or a good product. If you assume 25 MPG for a $17,000 gas-powered car (the Cruze apparently gets 40) and drive 15K miles a year, you spend $1800 a year on gas (at $3 a gallon). It would take you 10 years to make up the difference between the price of the gas-powered vehicle and the tax credit-reduced price of the Volt if you never exceed the battery range. And that's if the batteries last that long. Expectations are they'd have be replaced – costing thousands - after seven years. Rush may be wrong, but he's not insane on this one.

- emccded

August 3, 2010 at 10:54am

- It's never about who Rush is against (Obama, a $7,500 federal tax credit or mitigating climate change). An unfit straw man doesn't stop his attack because he needs to unite a psychographic who is looking for someone to blame & he only needs to keep them addicted to his cocktail so they return the next day for another dose. His target selection need only be viable until his next show. If proved wrong, no matter, he has new list today and his listeners will show up tomorrow for an injection of why they're really OK. If they listen to him. It's Crowd Manipulation 101

- michaelg

August 3, 2010 at 2:55pm

Seattle: "[I]f you think the Volt is visionary, then you should give credit to the guy Obama axed." I'm BHO all the way, but I laughed out loud on this one. "[T]he Volt simply shows that alt technology isn't and never has been ready for prime time ... And to top it off, GM goes and hammers the car with butt-ugly styling. Actually, to me, it's a pretty good first effort. Price is way out of whack. But not bad otherwise." I have not seen the design, but alt cars, do have a tendency to look like toys. My thought is that people's idea of what is "convenient" might need to change, coupled of course, with technology that continues to improve. I might be willing to lease said car if meant that a majority of my monthy driving requires no trips to the gas station. (I only have a 10 mile commute) I think you're spot on that technology even approaching the convenience of gasoline cars is just not here, but I do also think, that it's not apocalyptical to think that people might need to change their views on what is, as I said, "convenient."

- jmarshall

August 3, 2010 at 5:30pm

1) The Volt's shape is the way it is for improved aerodynamics, period. There's a reason the Prius has a similar shape: cheat the wind as much as you can. 2) The Volt is the "no-compromise" hybrid electric. The first true plug-in hybrid, no modifications needed. The engineering is impressive, can be used as a pure electric if you wish unlike the Prius, won't leave you stranded with no way home like the Leaf. You also get all the creature comforts you're used to, like power accessories and AC, among other things. It's not a bare bones vehicle in the least. GM has a game changer with the Volt. Anyone in the engineering field understands this. Do some reading from any credible car reviewer that's gotten seat time with it and they all thought highly of it. It's the first of it's breed and gives up nothing in it's design to what you're used to in an every day car. Limbaugh has his head up his ass with his pronouncements as usual, full of bullshit and lies. And the moron NYT editorialist has a serious case of cranial-rectal inversion to say what he did, as he always does in his reviews on his own web site. He's considered a joke in the car business. Is it expensive? Yes, but the target market at first are early adopters, those who will pay dearly to be the first. It won't be a mass market product but GM already has orders for the vehicle. GM's execs, notably Bob Lutz, said the price before incentives would be about 40k. And it wasn't anyone 'Obama axed' that pushed for this vehicle. The "Obama axed" guy is likely Rick Wagoner, who needed to go ages ago. The one that pushed the Volt was Maximum Bob, who retired recently (or you could say was pushed into it from the new CEO). Wagoner was convinced to okay the project but it wasn't any vision from him that got the ball rolling. Rancilo is right in everything he says, this vehicle was set in motion way before the economy fell off a cliff. My guess is the vehicle will be a hit but will not sell in large volumes like a Cruze or Focus. It took Toyota over a decade to make the Prius the vehicle it is and was rumored to be losing a lot of cash on each sale until 3-5 years ago,and it still is a low volume vehicle to this day.

- tnmats

August 3, 2010 at 8:50pm

tnmats: I think you might have sold me. You don't work for GM do you?

- jmarshall

August 3, 2010 at 9:42pm

@jmarshall Not even close. I'm an electrical engineer, I design power management ICs, don't work for the auto industry at all. I'm a certified gearhead though. :-) Combine the power electronics with my love of cars and you've got something that I had to find out all I could. The electrification and increasing semiconductor content of vehicles is something that excites me professionally and personally. I've been reading technical journals for a few years now about the engineering involved with this vehicle, articles that would be typically beyond the understanding of those not in the profession. The engineering involved in the vehicle is impressive as is the attention to detail. GM engineers I know call this their "Apollo moonshot", that they've got one chance to get it right. Having your back against the wall and a gun to your head tends to focus the mind. The money and effort they've put into it has really startled many industry insiders. If GM gets this right it'll be a game-changer (and I think they will). Already Nissan was caught off guard with the 8 year warranty GM gives on the battery pack (Nissan had to up the Leaf's warranty after they heard GM's announcement; that doesn't bode well for how Nissan engineered the battery pack in their car). I personally cannot buy a Volt since it won't be sold in my area. The vehicle will initially be sold in limited markets at least for the first year. At $350/mo. for a lease it is a tempting thing but a moot point due to where I live.

- tnmats

August 3, 2010 at 10:49pm

Jmarhall: Re-reading your comment about the gas station: you'll still have to go there occasionally in a Volt. GM designed the engine to self-start and run for a period of time (I think 10 min.) on a periodic cycle just to use up some gasoline to prevent it from turning bad (yes, gasoline can go bad sitting) and to burn off any residual moisture in the engine oil. The tank is specially designed to minimize air in the tank to extend the life of the gas too. This is an example of the attention to detail I was talking about. Like I said, this vehicle is very well thought out and pretty much a no-compromise design (and the price shows it). It's pathetic the likes of liars like Limbaugh have to trash something they know nothing about or just lie for spite.

- tnmats

August 3, 2010 at 10:56pm

tnmats: I live in Chicago, so am now curious as to whether I could find one here. I simply can't afford to go $30K + yet, but I have been sitting here for about 2 hr (off and on) contemplating whether leasing one wouldn't be a bad idea. I've got a 20mpg truck that I wouldn't feel remorse parting with ...

- jmarshall

August 3, 2010 at 11:10pm

It seems to me too that this is a piece of American science and engineering achievement that all these soi-disant conservative "patriots" ought to be cheering.

- ironyroad

August 4, 2010 at 12:03am

Irony and tnmats, hear hear. This is a no-compromise real car that doesn't need a drop of gas for most driving situations. Well, as tnmats says, maybe a drop or two to keep things working. That's revolutionary! Low 30s is not bad. $350/mo. lease is even better. (I pay just a bit less than that to lease a VW Jetta.) The styling is hard to love, but it's better looking than the Prius, which screams "eco-car." The Volt has big wheels and a sleek, tough-looking front end. With its wheels and weight, I would expect a substantial feel and a real-car ride. The Prius has a lousy ride, as I can attest having ridden in Prius cabs. Also, the Volt's all-electric drivetrain means big low-end torque and the feeling of vast power off the line. The same can't be said about the Prius, which, with its trick transmission, often sounds and feels like it's struggling. Also, did I mention that you don't need any gas? This will be the first series hybrid, where the drivetrain is electric, and the engine, when needed, only powers a generator. It's the same principle as diesel locomotives, except that they don't have batteries and always need that roaring engine. Here, the engine will only be needed on occasion. But even if your batteries were dead, it would be a more efficient way to power the car, and the diminutive engine won't roar. All in all, this is a very exciting product, leaps and bounds ahead of what anyone else is doing. I only wish that GM hadn't committed some typical GM-ish mistakes. They design concept cars that are fantasies but that convey the styling "language" they're going for. The problem is that that language often doesn't translate to the practical production vehicle, and fidelity to it ends up making the final product look awkward. The real-world shape needs to be determined first of all, and the styling language conceived to make the best-looking version of that actual car. Otherwise, you end up trying to fit the concept's round peg into the real car's square hole. Note, for example, the fussy piano-black panels around the windows. The other typical GM mistake is to make unnecessary fuss with the instrument panel. The touch-screen like "buttons" are pointless and will be abandoned, I'm sure, in the next generation. For a notoriously conservative company, GM has a tendency to make ill-considered leaps in design. These are minor issues, though. Overall, this should be cheered.

- JakeH

August 4, 2010 at 3:25am

Jmarshall: GM is introducing the vehicle in the following markets for now (quoted from a GM press release I found on their web page): "Chevrolet is adding Texas, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut to the launch markets for the Volt, Ed Whitacre, General Motors chairman and CEO, announced today. Whitacre said the company is expanding the initial launch of the groundbreaking electric vehicle in response to intense interest in the Volt from customers across the country. Today’s announcement brings the initial Volt retail markets to seven, including California, Michigan, and Washington, D.C. The retail launch in Texas and New York will begin with Austin and New York City in late 2010. The balance of Texas and New York, as well as New Jersey and Connecticut, are scheduled to begin receiving Volts in early 2011." Sorry, but Chitown ain't on the list right now. What I've read is GM is trying differing climates to gauge how the Volt does. No amount of lab testing can ever fully predict what happens in the field. Believe me, there's no way you can fully predict what customers will do with your product. I've learned that the hard way over the past 20+ years designing products. Plus the plant is slated to produce no more than 10,000 units in year one, which isn't a big volume.

- tnmats

August 4, 2010 at 9:48am

Jake, any car company is griped at when the product is different than the show car but then bitched at when there are shortcomings in the final product when it IS like the showcar. The Volt and Camaro are perfect cases in point. The public was screaming to keep the Camaro as is, and the production vehicle is just like the sleek showcar. But, now you hear gripes about the gun-slit like rear windows and big C pillars in the Camaro. The Volt is a much more livable car but definitely not as as sleek as the show car, which I'd guess would have had some serious ergonomic issues. You just can't win with millions of arm-chair quarterbacks always knowing better. Until you've been in the trenches and have to make REAL decisions you just don't know how difficult a job can be (gee does that sound familiar...).

- tnmats

August 4, 2010 at 9:55am

Here here Irony. The Volt is a great piece of systems engineering, one that the faux patriots should be cheering as a minor modern moonshot. Instead, they pan it. I don't get it. I applaud it as it also says we still have some stuff to strut technologically. But, when I hear the bullshit snipes at it, either from the jackass brain-dead chest-thumping right or the "imports are always better" idiot left, it just reinforces my belief the US is on a supersonic path of decline and decay.

- tnmats

August 4, 2010 at 10:01am

"The Volt is a great piece of systems engineering, one that the faux patriots should be cheering as a minor modern moonshot. Instead, they pan it." It's because of the cost, and a few points off on styling. The Leaf has achieved $300/kwh on the battery, which means the Volt's 16 KWH might add around $5K to the cost of the car. OK, that's fine. But still, $41,000? Electric motors aren't expensive. Drive electronics don't have to be expensive. If this came out at $35K, and the subsidy brought it down to $28, it'd be impressive. Likely they can get it there, but they are keeping prices high initially to limit demand and uptake.

- seattleeng

August 4, 2010 at 10:38am

- Not much green technology has been able to take advantage of economies of scale or economies of scope. Individual products, product lines along with marketing and distribution haven't seen to positive effect demand will have upon price. Cheaper as demand and production increase? Bet on it. Or maybe few readers have purchased a hard drive or flat screen TV in the last five years. You could buy a lot of horses and wagons for the price of the first cars. I think electric motor + batteries could decrease the price of an automobile (compared to an IC engine) but it won't happen till production and sales drive the benefits of these efficiencies.

- michaelg

August 4, 2010 at 11:06am

Geez Seattle, the Volt has TWO power sources, the Leaf has one. That's the big expense difference. The Volt is vastly more sophisticated than the Leaf. That's obvious to most. The Leaf can leave you stranded after the battery conks out, but the Volt *will not*. Obviously the "eng" part in your name doesn't mean "engineer" since you don't get that. Drive electronics for a car aren't the crap put in a iPod or similar consumer electronics that are meant for cheap and mass market. Completely different build quality and the stuff for auto isn't cheap, more built to mil specs (sometimes harsher). Same for the motor; it's not the build quality in most any other product you buy. It's industrial quality, high rel and high duty cycle. Those motors are expensive. Again, any engineer worth his salt understands this, a regular consumer or others that know nothing about the technology don't understand it.

- tnmats

August 4, 2010 at 12:16pm

tnmats, they couldn't make the Volt like the concept, not because doing so would make the car less livable, but because doing so would mean it wouldn't be sufficiently aerodynamic to achieve the hoped-for efficiencies. Also, the concept had those weird windows that jutted out at the beltline and couldn't possibly go up or down. The actual car has a vestigial remnant of that -- the solid black plastic that takes up the lower part of the window area -- but it doesn't work as a vestigial remnant. It just looks like a mistake. That's what I mean about tailoring the design from the outset to the actual car you can build, rather than trying to cram the design cues of a fantasy into a totally different car. The Camaro is different. The production car *could* look like the concept, and it does. The Volt never could look like the teaser, so why bother with the teaser? Start with what the car will *have* to look like -- the basic shape, and so on -- and then make that look as sharp as you can. Says this armchair quarterback.

- JakeH

August 4, 2010 at 1:31pm

Jake, I believe I stated that earlier (although not directly), that the Volt wouldn't be aero enough to hit design targets hence the change from the original to final design. Sorry I wasn't clearer. GM's mistake with the Volt was being too up-front about what they were doing. I'd have preferred they keep their yaps shut and then spring it on the market as a surprise. Some of their products are shown off for so long that when they finally hit the market, even though they're not late, they're already 'old news'. The Volt and Camaro fall into that category (and the Cruze does to a certain extent). I still think the vehicle is a game changer and not expensive when leased. It is NOT expensive when you take that route, and likely most customers will take that route. If you think of it in terms of leasing, it is well priced, not any more $$ than a Leaf (and a lot more flexible a vehicle to boot). If the rel is there, GM will definitely get some halo effect from it the way Toyota does with the Prius.

- tnmats

August 4, 2010 at 2:24pm

- The Remaining Three will only survive by competing in the world market. Ford sells nearly half outside the US and needed about 85% of the Focus' parts will be common to all regions. Pleasing Asia, Europe and South America is a higher priority for GM than making Rush gush. He's not only not a futurist, he only champions that which has already proved not to work. If he did like the Volt, that might be reason to worry.

- michaelg

August 4, 2010 at 4:36pm

tnmats, agree about "game-changer" -- very positive attitude toward this car. I just wish it were prettier.

- JakeH

August 4, 2010 at 5:46pm

tnmats, the second power source is just an engine. No transmission. Its optimized to run at a set RPM. Extra stuff, yes. But doesnt' explain the sky high price. Auto parts are usually no different than the parts used in consumer products. They are just de-rated accordingly, and sometimes packaged in more robust (larger) packages. There's no magic there. Like all motors, the motors in electric cars are copper wound around a core, likely electronically commutated. There is nothing complex or expensive about these. They are wound on automated machines that are plentiful in China. Making good motors is something China has done for a long time. Motors for nasty environments--much harsher than what cars experience --is again old hat. No magic there. Why not just admit that the volt is a heck of a lot more expensive than it needs to be to attract the mass market. The movie "Who killed the EV1" had a money quote from a guy that nailed it (paraphrasing): "Electric cars are asking the consume to pay $15,000 more for car that has a ton of limitations compared to conventional cars....they just won't do it". Once the gravimetric energy density of batteries doubles or triples again, the equation will flip and electric cars will pound conventional cars in most metrics. Adn then people will crave them. They will be addicted to performance. An electric motor on each wheel, acceleration and cornering that rival motorcycles, super smart software to keep the car tracking (based on measuring wheel slip, and controlling each motor accordingly). These are things that you cannot do today easily in regular cars. Electric cars can easily do it.

- seattleeng

August 4, 2010 at 8:28pm

GM never built the 1st gen. Volt to be a mass market car. Neither were cell phones, nor were computers, nor the first cars in the late 1800s, the telephone, radio, television, etc. etc. So what? What's your point? I get it, you have none. GM is making money on the Volt at the price and volume targets. So, what's wrong with that? If the market will bear $41k or the lease payments, it isn't overpriced. That's how new products work, or do you not get the history of technological development? As I suspected, the "eng" in your moniker doesn't mean engineer. Your last post exposes you to anyone who knows the field. When you quote "Who Killed the Electric Car" as a "source", uses the word "gravimetric" the way you do, spew on about motors being always cheap to build or other garbage, then it's obvious you're easily fooled to but like to think you're educated on a subject. Using big words or concepts that you know nothing about can get you in trouble young man, especially when you're posing as an expert when you're obviously not. You don't even get basic economics apparently. And it shows in spades you're no engineer; a programmer or other code jockey, maybe, but not an engineer. Just stick with whatever you like to do (lie and obfuscation being the tops I gather), but for heaven's sake stay away from real engineering or the physical sciences. We have enough work trying to overcome nature and bean-counters.

- tnmats

August 4, 2010 at 9:16pm

P.S. The Chinese do not make good brushless DC motors, just ask anyone in the industrial field. Using their motors is a recipe for failure in hi-rel/high duty cycle applications. But you knew that, didn't you? Oh right, you didn't.

- tnmats

August 4, 2010 at 9:20pm

Tnmants, I can assure you I suffered through diffEQ and got my BSEE just as you claim to have done. You are not aware of gravimetric energy density? Did you search on it? It's units are kg/AH. There is also volumetric energy density. It's units are liters/AH. Are you a practicing engineer? Or a vacuum tube kind of guy? And brushless motors are even simpler than regular motors. There's no mechanical commutator. Now, the drive electronics can get tricky, as you are dealing with inductive loads, extremely high di/dt, and very high currents. But the motors? Sorry, there is nothing at all complex about them. Magnets, bearings, copper windings. That's it. The chinese have been makign them for a very long time. Go search on Alibaba and you'll see over 400 chinese brushless motor makers. You need to get the notion out of your head that China == poorly made. That's so 1990s'. And you do know the chinese have been making more electric cars per year than the west for several years now, don't you? Have you heard of BYD (warren buffet's company)? Have you been to Beijing or Shanghai and seen all the electric bikes?

- seattleeng

August 5, 2010 at 5:11am

I still have to laugh how you avoid things. You mean "volumetric", not "gravimetric". Newbie, you sound like you're watching too much Star Trek. You remind me of the greenhorn I used to work with, just out of college and thought he knew it all. He didn't. Don't bother describing to me anything about motor control nor motor design. That's my living, power and motor control. Plus 2 patents, one in power management (look up US patent no. 6,922,346). I don't care to be "taught" anything from someone who doesn't know the field nor the technology. You obviously don't understand that good motors aren't that simple to build to last year after year with no maintenance. My suggestion: go apply for a job a GM. You claim to be bright, show them how they're wrong and how they can chop the cost of the Volt since they don't get it.

- tnmats

August 5, 2010 at 9:02am

Jonathan avoids the obvious reason for Rush's criticism: Rush wants Obama to fail. In every way. Even tangentially like through his support for the Volt.

- greenmiles

August 5, 2010 at 4:39pm

Volumetric and gravimetric are separate things, tnmats. When I say gravimetric energy density, I mean gravimetric energy density. The world is surrounded by motors that run 24x7 in harsh environments. If you want to to try convince me something is difficult, then please at least pick something that at least looks difficult. If everyone can do it, and there are at least 400 brushless motor companies in China, then it's not difficult. BY DEFINITION. Just two patents in all these years? Only two patents? Even with the bounty Mot paid on patents you only managed two? I know Mot well. Too well. RONA anyone? No, I'm not impressed with one patent per decade. I'm that several times over. Just sayin' But nice to know we've shared employers. :)

- seattleeng

August 5, 2010 at 8:25pm

Rush Limbaugh's attack on the Volt has nothing to do with automotive issues. It is merely an additional way of attacking Obama and the Democrats for supporting the American automotive industry when it was at a point of collapse. To make matters worse, from Limbaugh's viewpoint, the auto bail-out seems to be working. In any case, Limbaugh has no expertise on auto engineering. He is just a big, fat, flatulent windbag.

- orray2

August 7, 2010 at 7:48am