General Motors has been relentlessly flogging its Chevrolet Volt "concept car," just last week hosting a lavish event at DC's ritzy Georgetown waterfront to promote it.There's only one problem. The Volt isn't much of a step forward from the EV1 of Who Killed the Electric Car? fame.
And GM's own research and development chief admitted as much, while simultaneously making a vague Giambi-esque admission that GM was, in fact, responsible for the EV1's murder.
So if it's not a technological advancement, why is GM now pushing the Volt? A shockingly candid (no pun intended) admission from GM's #3 official, after the jump.
Who killed the electric car? GM's remorseful confession:
According to the March 13, 2007 issue of Newsweek, "GM R&D chief Larry Burns . . . now wishes GM hadn't killed the plug-in hybrid EV1 prototype his engineers had on the road a decade ago: 'If we could turn back the hands of time,' says Burns, 'we could have had the Chevy Volt 10 years earlier.So why resurrect it now? From last week's Detroit News:
Plug-in hybrids will be on center stage in Washington today as the Chevy Volt makes an appearance on Capitol Hill as part of General Motors Corp.'s effort to convince Congress to pass a more palatable fuel efficiency increase.And there you have it.GM's No. 3 official, Troy Clarke -- head of North American operations -- is returning to the Hill today to meet with a about a dozen mostly undecided lawmakers. He also will show off a GM concept car, the Chevy Volt, in trying to explain why the company believes the long-term answer to energy independence is through biofuels and the electrification of the automobile, rather than spending tens of billions of dollars to meet 4 percent annual corporate average fuel efficiency. (emphasis added)
A Democratic Congress is rapidly accelerating towards tightening fuel economy standards for the first time in 17 years, and this is GM's way of trying to divert attention. We know we've ignored fuel economy for 17 years, giving you SUVs, ever-larger pickups, and the Hummer along the way. But we don't need regulation! See this Volt? It's proof we've learned the error of our ways!
Don't buy it. The argument, not the car. (You can't buy that -- it's just a concept that won't be on the market until at least 2010).) GM foolishly passed on the chance to be a pioneer in the electric car sector, with the explicit endorsement of President Bush:
"As soon as George Bush got elected, the U.S. car companies walked away from the partnership and didn't continue developing hybrids," [Clinton administration Energy Dept. official Joseph] Romm said. "And the Japanese did. As a result, they ended up the leaders."
Now they're trying to suppress tough fuel economy standards by greenwashing themselves with the Volt. But what happens if a Republican president is elected in '08 and the Senate swings a vote or two back to the GOP column? Who's to say GM wouldn't kill yet another electric car?
There's an easy response - tell GM to to spend big bucks on the Volt, get it into production, then their fleet economy would improve drastically and therefore help them meet (or exceed) the new standards.
Quit whining and get to work GM!
As it stands, the American built Hondas and Toyotas kick the Mexican built GMs and Fords. They can take the same "lazy Americans" and build reliable, affordable cars.
I wish Detroit could build a car that was 90% of what a Camry was.
Post 1960 car history keeps repeating itself : Americans invent and prototype but the Germans and Japanese actually implement quality.
Is anybody here proud of a recent American designed/American built mass market car?
Remember ESP - aka traction control, that's been mandated by congress to be in ALL future cars built in the US? It was invented by Mercedes, and has been available on most German cars in the US for the past 6 years! If the US even had it back then, it was labeled as stabilitrak or some nonsense by GM.
The US auto industry just keeps using the complaint "oh, our car buyers aren't willing to pay for those safety features & it would cost us BILLIONS to add a mere 20 cent or $150 safety feature" that reports have suggested could save 10,000 lives a year. How pathetic.
Granted having such "sophisticaed over engingeered electronic doo dads" in German cars such as being able to watch TV in Europe on your OEM navigation system (not cheap aftermarket), is overkill and has the chance for more buggy computer glitches. But at least it's available!
I did agree with earlier comments about accountants running the companies rather than automotive engineers. Absolutely true. And this is just one more example of the nefarious results of Harvard Business School-type philosophy which has ruined not only the American car industry but, under Bush and Republicans, our very government. I mean, "bottom line," short-term-time-frame, totally profit-dominated decisions in just about everything. While there is nothing wrong with the profit motive of capitalism, like many good ideas when carried to a logical extreme it becomes absurd and counterproductive (another example being our health care "industry").
GM is planning on bringing in some clean diesel cars in 1010.
But what is the wait? GM sells hundreds of thousands of diesel cars per year, overseas:
"GM said it sells more than a million diesel-powered cars and pickup trucks annually, ranging from a 1.3-liter four-cylinder in the Opel Agila and Corsa, up to the 6.6-liter Duramax V-8 that is available in the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra heavy-duty pickups in the U.S. market."
Environmental groups prefer other solutions than diesel:
http://www.mercuryne...
The comments are often more informative than the article itself, as this one shows:
http://www.businessw...
The price of the air car is not in filthy rich territory With a price tag of $8,818 for the MiniCat model and $12,109 for the CityCat model. It will go 136 miles before it needs to have the compressed air tank refilled. It sounds practical. What is the catch?
It uses compressed air rather than expensive and heavey batteries to store energy.