Slashdot Mirror
Can GM Challenge Tesla With a Long-Range Electric Car?
cartechboy writes "GM may sell the Chevy Volt, but it's not a sexy electric car like Tesla Model S. It's a plug-in hybrid with muddled marketing (whose owners love it even though they burn gasoline sometimes). Product exec Doug Parks says GM is developing an electric car that does 200 miles on one charge, with a price around $30,000. But he wouldn't say when, falling back on the old excuse: 'Electric car batteries are really, really expensive!' Tesla's still the only maker to offer an electric car with more than 200 miles of range, so it will be interesting to see whether GM can really build a true Tesla rival. If so, the marketing must be better than the Volt's. Otherwise, it won't matter how good the car is."
apk won't buy a car without it
why do people even try to submit shit articles with bad questions? Betteridge's law easily applies here. GM is not going to "Challenge" tesla, and they don't need to. It's an explicitly unnecessary question.
The correct question is: "is GM going to continue developing and improving electric cars?" to which the answer is already clearly yes.
I was riding home from work on US1 in Florida the other day, when to my surprise the car in front of me turned out to be a Tesla. Good looking cars. It's great to see things like this on the road.
Sexy doesn't matter if I can't afford sexy. I'd be willing to go with ugly if I can afford it and it has the specs I need.
GM and all other American car manufacturers (except Tesla) are trying really hard to half-ass and fuck-up any and all their attempts at electric cars. Let's face it: they don't want to make fully electric cars. For whatever reason, they seem to be utterly incapable.
Fuck 'em.
Has Nissan built a true Tesla rival? How's that going? I think that may point to an answer to the question can Chevy do the same.
More music, fewer hits
GM made wild promises about the Volt that it didn't follow thru on and now they're just making noise to try to convince investors to stick around. Until they do something that matters in this space, it's hard to take these types of statements seriously.
. If so, the marketing must be better than the Volt's. Otherwise, it won't matter how good the car is.
IF they really do have a car that goes 200 miles on a charge and costs $30,000, they won't need to run a single advertisement, that thing will market itself. I will strongly consider buying one, and I spent a lot of time complaining about the Volt.
Remember that will be close to $20,000 after rebates, a really good deal.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
But they would be lease only, GM would refuse to sell them to anyone and then they would for no reason take them all back and destroy them.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
But he wouldn't say when, falling back on the old excuse: 'Electric car batteries are really, really expensive!'
Well, sadly, you have to admit, that's a pretty damn good excuse for the time being...
"If so, the marketing must be better than the Volt's. Otherwise, it won't matter how good the car is." Tesla hasn't done any marketing besides just being an amazing car. And they are selling like hotcakes. The only reason car manufacturers have to market their "next-gen" ICE cars is that with each passing year, the changes on new models are incremental at best. The Tesla Model S is a revolutionary car in every sense of the word and therefore required zero marketing for it to literally sell-out for months ahead of time.
This would all be useful, if the Chinese didn't already beat all of them to the punch. AND, it's a minivan:
http://www.byd.com/na/auto/e6.html
When I look at the tables for MJ/kg here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density , I see 9.0 for Li-air batteries and around 46 for liquid fuels.
It's a heavy handicap, and I'm not sure that technical prowess and good marketing can overcome it.
They should be investing in fuel cells not battery tech.
Sounds like they're trying to pump sugar daddy for more cash.
"Written on the pages is the answer to the never ending story..."
Thread closed
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Well... Tesla's cars also cost twice as much.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The answer to "Could someone else make this thing I just made" is always "yes", eventually. We have patents to slow the arrival of the "yes" answer enough so that the first person to do so gets to make a bit of money.
But in this case (and most other cases) there's more than one way to do it and a lot of relevant technology, a lot of which is general car technology. And in every case, sooner or later, the huge company with a huge patent portfolio and huge expertise in manufacturing is going to win the "lowest price point" game... if they want to.
At the moment, the big players don't think there's a big enough market to make it worth their while to compete aggressively. At some point that will change, and at that point GM and other huge companies will develop, licence or acquire whatever technology they need. At the moment, Tesla is selling a niche product. That's great, but it hardly the same as producing electric cars for everyone.
Or, to put it the other way round, does anyone see Tesla scaling production up to anything like GM's level while GM quietly hands them market share and eventually gets out of the car business?
Virtually serving coffee
.. then they could advertise much cheaper prices, get people in the door, and sell multiple range options based on the batteries they could afford/lease.
Chevy Volt, but it's not a sexy electric car like Tesla Model S.
The Volt is not sexy, not that I'm sure I'd apply that adjective to any car. But I personally find the Volt a hell of a lot more aesthetically appealing than a Prius. I'm sure many people disagree with me; it all comes down to personal taste I suppose.
A friend was considering (but ended up not) taking over management of a lithium battery manufacturing plant.
He pointed out that one problem with lithium batteries is heat dissipation.
His plan was to make shaped batteries that could be mounted in the car's unused spaces. Big, flat batteries could be placed in the roof or on the floor, or in the door panels or behind the seats. With a larger surface to volume ration, they would dissipate heat more efficiently than the cylinder form factor. They would also free up space for other purposes.
I never heard anything more on this. Does anyone here more familiar with battery tech know more?
first one of them that get a performance electric car, that isn't fugly as all the current "green" cars....sporty looking (like the Tesla Roadster was) for the price range of a low end Vette...gets all my money.
The Tesla Model S seems to fit your critera. It's very nice looking, does 0-60 in just over 4 seconds in the fastest model and under 6 seconds in the slowest, it costs roughly the same as a well appointed current model Corvette, and it got the highest road test score from Consumer Reports they've ever given.
They lose money on every Volt they sell - better marketting means they just lose more money. Like the 'Vette, a chronic money loser, it's a "halo" product that makes the rest of the product line look better. Come in to see a 'Vette, leave with a Camaro. Volt shoppers probably end up buying... a Prius?
for the past decade GM had refused to ease up on its strategy of selling SUV's, betting instead that customers would continue to buy even as gas went beyond $10 a gallon. as gas approached $4 a gallon and SUV sales went into steep decline, GM was faced with a stockpile of midsized cars that came from such an incestuous group of design teams, sometimes the only thing that changed was the badge. if a car were so shitty as to be un-sellable, they just slapped a new brand on it and kept pushing. For example: the PT Cruiser was such a collosal piece of shit, it was rebranded the Chevy HHR in what i can only imagine was a complete lack of respect for their customer. then when GM failed, we bailed it out. so can GM compete? no. more importantly though, it now knows it doesnt have to try.
in 2004 GM's offering for hybrid technology was basically a toyota ripoff. based so closely on Toyotas development of Hybrid Synergy Drive, they were later forced to license 21 patents from toyota just to offer a hybrid vehicle. Their first hybrid vehicle? the Chevrolet Silverado, part of the same portfolio of overweight gas guzzlers GM just couldnt seem to sell to anyone.
their electric vehicle is electric, in the most ass way possible, because GM doesnt care. it doesnt care if you buy the cars or if their technology is all that great, because they understand they will just be bailed out if they dont succeed in an industry that has so far outpaced them, GM itself has started rebranding and outsourcing most of its "innovations"
The Dart is based on a version of the Fiat Compact platform
the Pontiac G6 is based on an Opel platform
the Ford Fiesta is based on a Mazda platform
Good people go to bed earlier.
"If so, the marketing must be better than the Volt's. Otherwise, it won't matter how good the car is."
That's like asking the president to give a New Glorious Speech to fix a deep problem. No, the problem has not been marketing - it has been mainly the cost (both to the purchaser and the subsidizing taxpayer), and to some extent performance (size, garages on fire).
I dunno much about the Volt's angry slashdot history, but It seems like a pretty feasible way to transition to an electric car if you're worried about road trips.
Every time I pass one, it catches my eye. I'd say it's right up there in looks with the Model S, which also, in my opinion, looks attractive. If I had the money to choose between those two cars, I'd have to think about it.
Toyota == Google
Google isn't willing to put their name on something as astronomically boring as ... basically every car Toyota has ever sold in the US in the history of time.
A better analogy:
Toyota == HP
VW == Google
You constantly see Toyota on the road, but never envy one. The company that makes drivable cars that middle-class people can afford is VW, but people keep forgetting that they are even around because they can buy something less satisfying from someone else for less money.
And for that matter...
GM == IBM
Both used to be relevant, and both pull the strings in the market in ways that we often don't see immediately. I'm not sure that there is a "Linux" in the car world through one could make an argument for
MacLaren == FreeBSD
As they drop a single new product every year or two, which is a technical marvel but beyond the skill of most users of products that are aimed for similar function. They also have a dedicated team of developers who can tell you exactly why their way is better than everyone else's, even if it looks ridiculous.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Basically, even if GM made the greatest electric car the world will ever see, I don't think they could challenge Tesla with it. GM draws so many negative connotations - especially in the electric car field - that they have a nearly insurmountable obstacle to overcome. Even if they hadn't gone broke and needed the government support, they still would have to face the fact that they killed the EV1 in spite of many efforts from lessees to keep it going. Even if none of that had happened you still have the fact that the Chevy Volt was a contender to knock off Duke Nukem Forever on the vaporware lifetime achievement polls. Even if you ignore all of that you still have the fact that GM hasn't managed to get enough of their engineers in one room long enough to make a mass market hybrid that can outdo the Camry hybrid as a family car.
I for one would love to see GM stick around, so that Ford has more competition. Some of my favorite Fords exist in their current states because they have competition from GM.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Tesla's superchargers are what make it truly revolutionary. Pony up the bucks and get viable road-trip capability with no charge at the charger. Ummm... let me rephrase that... ummm... without spending any money at the point of charging. Yes, the car itself is expensive; but you have to factor that in.
Unless GM is also planning a supercharger infrastructure of its own, or partnering with Tesla to allow their vehicle to pull up and charge, it's hobbled right out of the gate.
Yeah fine, you go 200 miles then... GM has no answer. Tesla does.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
GM has one advantage though. In some states, Tesla is forbidden to sell cars because they are not going through dealers. Plus, GM also has a lot larger advertising warchest.
GM has a lot more advantages than that. GM has a much larger R&D budget. GM has a global distribution network. GM has lobbyists. GM has economies of scale for production and purchasing. GM has a well known brand.
Disadvantages? Big company inertia, difficulty funding speculative projects that are likely to lose money for years, management distracted by a wider product line, internal politics, shareholders demands for immediate profits.
It would be entirely feasable to mount a small generator/fuel tank in a lightweight aerodynamic trailer and use it to power an electric car for long road trips. Then for local short-range driving you unhitch the trailer and go pure-electric to avoid the weight penalty.
I mentioned this in a previous post but it would be possible to make a little trailer with a fuel tank and generator and use that to provide extended range for an electric car.
I'm up in Canada. All the Toyota dealers within a thousand miles charge the same price, and they don't dicker.
Over twenty years ago GM made the EV-1 electric car. It was only available for lease. The leasees were so happy with it that they wanted to buy the car, but the cars were reclaimed and destroyed under very questionable circumstances and production lines were promptly shut down. There are GM executives who are known to be rabidly hostile to EVs. Chevron, in collusion with the automakers, ultimately bought the patent to the EV-ideal environmentally-friendly NiMh battery and refuses to license it in a format suitable for EVs.
The oil and auto industries colluded to keep EVs and any other competitive technology from eroding the profits of Big Oil. They did it before when they conspired through shell companies to acquire and destroy streetcar companies. Streetcars were powered by electricity not fossil fuel, so by forcing consumers away from streetcars they had little choice but to buy cars. Auto makers fattened their profits, as did oil companies.
I find it hard to believe that GM is at all serious about EVs.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Are you seriously saying that there is no possible way the lawyers at GM couldn't have come up with a valid waiver for drivers to sign saying that they were buying the cars as-is with no guarantee of servicing or parts availability?
GM is delivering what customers want. SUV sales are booming: http://www.forbes.com/sites/dalebuss/2013/09/13/could-big-suv-boom-hint-at-fruits-of-energy-security/
Wild promises of building an EV and not a hybrid, and then wild promises of a revolutionary drivetrain which never appeared?
What drive train do you think they promised? I'm not aware of any similar drive train from their major competitors. The Volt uses the gas engine to power the electric motors which actually drive the car - kind of like a diesel locomotive. The hybrid offerings from Honda, Ford and Toyota work differently. They can drive the car straight off the gas motor which is quite different. The Volt has the best all electric range among similar hybrid cars (around 40 miles) and I'm not aware of any cars near production that can match that. The Volt could be turned into an EV rather easily since removing the engine would provide lots of room for batteries. The economics of it just don't make much sense yet.
I'm not saying the volt isn't a perfectly fine automobile, I've never driven one, so how would I know?
I have driven one and can confirm they are nice. You can tell the money went into the drivetrain instead of the interior (not super plush) but it drives very nicely.
I'm of the opinion that American engineering and manufacturing is a joke these days.
I saw something on TV the other week which indicated that BMW is making the fancy high-tech bob-sleds for the US Olympic team.
Not GM, not Ford ... but BMW. The US Olympic team could have gone to those companies, but either didn't, or they couldn't make anything nearly as advanced. If your own Olympic team won't come to you, you're not really capable of competing on some levels.
That, and Americans just make terrible cars -- every time I've been forced to drive one I ask myself "why can't they go buy a Honda and learn what about those cars makes them popular", because the ergonomics of an American car are terrible.
My confidence GM could make a quality product anybody would actually want says I'd be more inclined to bet against it than for it.
GM does not generally compete in the $80-120k market that Tesla is in. So for now it is more likely that Porsche, Lexus, MB and BMW will introduce competitors to Tesla. As to the future Tesla Model E, it is about as concrete as GM's car. They're both vaporware.
Sure, GM will probably continue to offer a select few models with both hybrid and/or electric only drive systems but to suggest that's clearly the direction they're moving in is purely wishful thinking. For ~100yrs the North American auto makers have been churning out vehicles that have minimal investment in engineering whenever possible. Planned obsolescence and minimal styling changes to encourage new purchases is the formula they've been using for decades. That's why you can still spend a rather large sum of money on vehicles that are still using live axles, full frames, and large engines. All of those offerings have the same things in common; SUVs are marketed as trucks so as to avoid CAFE standards, luxurious interiors and entertainment/navigational systems are the only tangible things that differentiate an Escalade from a 20yr old GMC suburban. The same applies to the recent reintroduction of nostalgic musclecars. It's where the profit margins are that matters, and there is more profit in making trucks with leather couches, and 'sexy' musclecars than there is in real innovation. To be sure, features like airbags and ABS are standard on most models, but that tech has been around since the 70's and isn't really in need of improvement.
TLDR;
History is the best predictor of behavior and it says North American auto makers aren't interested in true innovation and haven't been for decades. They have a formula for prfot and they're sticking to it.
Right, which is why Germany builds twice as many cars as the U.S. while paying their unionized workers twice as much.
USA 2012 production 10,328,884 GER 2012 production 5,649,269 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_motor_vehicle_production
Very very few folks understand the appeal of EVs but since I own a 2013 Volt, I can share with you why it's loved by owners. The Volt has a large enough battery that it can run entirely on battery for the first ~40 miles including highway speeds. The car is so silent that with the windows down it feels like you're zipping along on a bicycle. I was in fact surprised to hear the brakes "creak" the first few times at a stop. The fun part comes with accelerating. Most folks will not punch the petal to the floor because on a regular gas car repeatedly doing that will likely wear out your engine or damage something. It also causes most gas engines to burn through gas horrifically. On an EV, there's a slight whine and smooth take-off and at no point does your car sound like it's going to blow up. My daily round-trips average about 20 miles and with electric power being so cheap you end up taking odd trips to the store if you have spare power without worrying about burning up excessive gas. There's no transmission gearing so the car doesn't suffer from any cheap automatic gear shifting jumps and you climb hills like they weren't there.
If you run out of electricity, the Volt turns into a hybrid essentially burning gas on and off (it shuts off at stoplights and down hills) Allowing you to drive across the entire country on a moments notice without having to resort to superchargers which don't exist in Canada. If you go down a huge hill or mountain, the regeneration recovers power in the battery and saves your brakes from melting.
This is why Volt owners like their cars so much. It's an electric without limitations. More range would make it even less likely that gas would be used and help for folks who drive insanely long distances in their daily travel. Probably the Volt's biggest weakness was it's former high price before the recent huge discounts and its somewhat poor advertising.
GM is right. Batteries _are_ very expensive and have relatively poor energy storage compared to hydrocarbons. And if Tesla's growth rate continues, their demand for batteries will more than outstrip current production in just a few years (provided they continue to grow, which I have serious doubts about). That will in turn drive up prices even more. That should provide some domestic opportunities perhaps. But I'm very doubtful that electric cars really have that much growth potential. Will countries rapidly deploy infrastructure (many more power stations, transmission lines, charging stations)? I kind of doubt it. As bad and dirty as oil is, it's relatively cheap to move around and store. Add to this the fact that batteries, while recyclable, don't last that long especially under heavy and rapid duty cycles. All types of batteries wear out. And there are lots of tradeoffs with regard to energy density, safety, etc. Kudos to Tesla for trying to solve these problems, and being willing to sacrifice their money to do it.
GM can always just bribe legislators to ban manufacturers from selling directly, like in Texas! =\ http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2013/09/10/why-tesla-lost-the-fight-to-sell-cars-in-texas/
I said cars, not "motor vehicles", which includes everything from mopeds to semis.
I have owned a number of hybrid vehicles as both a fleet operator and individual. I currently own two GM hybrids, a 2011 Silverado Hybrid (75,000 miles) and a 2013 Chevy Volt (6,000 miles). They are both reliable high quality vehicles which get great fuel economy. I really enjoyed my 2008 Ford Escape Hybrid (130,000) too, but Ford killed that program when they changed body styles. Much of the trash talk about hybrids comes from people who have not owned or driven one. It is very satisfying to drive the Volt every day for a month or more with the engine coming on at all. It also hauls ass up to about 60 MPH or so - above that it does feel a little underpowered. Of course the 6.0 liter V-8 with full time 4x4 in the Silverado just kicks the ass of any other hybrid on the road and it powers by most trucks as well.
How long does it take to charge the battery?
Technoli
It's a valid reason.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The people responding to you are sending a misleading message about EV batteries and overall energy efficiency. Yes, it is true that an electric motor and drivetrain will be significantly more efficient than that of an ICE, bringing overall vehicle efficiency (miles per "tank" or range) closer to parity. And if all EVs used Li-air batteries of similar weight to a full gas tank, they'd probably be pretty close. Happy day, the EV range problem is solved!
But that's not the case. Pretty much all modern EVs use some form of Li-ion or similar chemistry. The same Wikipedia page lists it as having 1.8 MJ/kg, or 5 times less than Li-air! Considering that part of the equation, it makes much more sense that a gas tank can propel a car for 500 miles while a similarly sized battery can only propel an EV about 70. The EV needs all that extra efficiency just to get up to a fraction of what gasoline can deliver as a fuel source.
I say that as a big EV proponent (LEAF owner, loving it) who recognizes that we are still very much in early adopter territory.
The volt is a pretty trendy car in the circles that would actually consider buying it. I haven't seen a single volt commercial. I don't see many car commercials in general. I don't watch non-internet based TV. When a car commercial slips into my internet surfing, I completely ignore it out of habbit.
A unbiased positive article or review of a car has about a million times more weight in my mind than marketing. It is my personal opinion that Chevy should spend every dime of money it has allocated to electric cars on making the cars better rather than trying to sell them. Good cars sell themselves. Ok well maybe they should at least have a website with statistics and some pictures.
Whenever I see a car commercial it makes me less likely to buy that car because I think of all the money diverted from R&D into marketing for that car.
GM was decades ahead of the competition with the EV1 but it was too successfull so they killed the program. Now they are trying to catch up with the competition? Nonsensical.
FTFA: "..the marketing must be better than the Volt's. Otherwise, it won't matter how good the car is."
That's not true. The powers that be came out in force to denounce the Tesla and fling as much mud at it as they could. The Tesla curb-stomped its detractors by being a good car, winning over the unbiased reviewers, garnering tons of free publicity, and people started buying it like crazy.
The market is brand new. There is essentially no competition. The demand for electric cars is a given whether or not there is any marketing done or not. At this insanely early stage in the game, market share will be determined 99% by price and availability and 1% by marketing. The choice for people will be Tesla for $X or BrandZ for $Y, and no amount of marketing will be able to change the reality of that choice. That will change, but not right away.
If General Motors was so dedicated to electric vehicles they would have done it long before Tesla proved that electric vehicles can be viable. Three hundred miles on a battery charge is quite sufficient, and although I agree with people about range anxiety, I don't believe this is a problem with battery range. I think it's an infrastructure problem. There a gas stations everywhere for internal combustion engine vehicles. What is needed now, charging stations everywhere, to encourage electric vehicles Then range anxiety won't be a problem. People will just have to learn some patience while charging. The other ironic thing is all gas stations all ready have electricity supplied to them. All that needs to be done is charging stations need to be put in well away from the gas pumps. That is....if the power companies, and petroleum companies will work together. For most of my needs I could charge at night in my garage , and have enough battery range for most of my daily driving.
General Motors killed the Ev1 just to force people to continue using petroleum. General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler can produce whatever E.V. they want, and price it however they want, and I still won't buy it. I'm sick of the American big three getting government funding, while mismanaging themselves for decades, and continuing to come back for more. I'll give a start up like Tesla my support even if it costs me alot of money to do it to do it. I can't believe G.M. would kill the Ev1 that the federal government forced them to produce, and then create the Hummer division, and sell those gas eating hogs probably at a loss.
My present vehicle is a Honda, and hopefully within a year I will be able to order a Tesla Model S. I refuse to support the domestic big three car companies anymore. They all produced junk for vehicles in the 1980's. They are mismanaged to the point of ridiculous. They also should not be getting government bailouts, after decades of stupidity. The last reason I will never buy another G.M. product is because Roger Smith did not give Michael Moore and interview. Two movies I like are 'Who Killed The Electric Car', and 'Roger, and Me'.
Lets see.
Will it have the quality? Not likely.
Will it have the customer services? Again, not likely.
Will it have the safety? Zero chance.
Will it have the performance? Based on GM since 1980, zero chance.
Will it have the range for 30K? Well, their junky volt costs an arm and a leg and delivers little, so zero chance.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
A corporate structure as GM will not be able to move and change engineering priority’s with the ease a lean mean operation
like Tesla can.
What GM can do is out advertise and propagate FUD in the background to undermine Tesla's position as an innovation driven developer.
I really dislike posting as "Anonymous Coward" but ya know.. The B.S. of generating a new password every 30 days
or so...... It just ain,t worth the hassle.
Actually the Volt is more efficient on a KW/mile basis than the Model S. All things being equal. The Volt can easily get 5 miles per KWh, where you have to keep the Tesla under 40KW (ie: both cars driving slow and nice nice) to get to 4.3 miles/KWh. The problem is the Model S has much more load capacity, ie: much more performance headroom over the Volt. There is a reason why the Model S can do 0-60 in almost half the time of the more economy minded Volt. Just sayin'. :)
1 Dachshund + 1 Dachshunds = A Paradox.
ESA