Design engineering at large

at 1/10/2007 5:31:44 AM, Joe Finnegan said:
John, I'm not big for spouting opinions all over the place and I never read blogs, but I found yours after doing a search about the new GM concept and you asked about for feedback, so here goes... GM is WAY behind the 8-ball (again) and only by their own fault (again). Toyota is cleaning up on the way to electric marketshare in the future of automotive propulsion and GM (who should have massive expertise from decades of running Electromotive, experimenting with the EV1, and having a hearty slew of talented engineers) is sitting back so as not to make a step in the wrong direction. They mistakenly believe this is a good way to save money. Launch a perfect car later, after much deliberation. Here's the problem... Electric-hybrids are just the beginning of electric propusion and anyone who wants to buy a new car knows to allow the manufacturers a few years with any new model to "iron the kinks out". Magnify that caution period for a complete redesign of the vehicle drivetrain and then consider how many years behind GM will be when the public begins to figure out that electric propusion really is here to stay. In the meantime, GM is toying with publicity stunts that capture only the public's imagination, but not the buyers' confidence. Toyota has redesigned the hybrid Prius once already and has had a true, significant recall related to their hybrid-electric drivetrain. It was a terrible embarrassment to Toyota and the system has a way to go before "normal" internal combustion drivers believe hybrids are the best option on the road. It's unlikely that consumers would currently select the Prius for no reason other than it's the vehicle that suits them best. Consumers have spent the last five years forgiving Toyota because they're perceived to be making a real, concerted effort at resolving one or more of the most namable issues of our day. In the meantime, they are gleaning valuable engineering experience, invaluable marketing, and future marketshare by giving it their best shot. I agree that Toyota probably loses money on every unit they sell, but how is that different from the majority of cars being produced today? If it didn't make sense! to produce the "Synergy Drive" enhanced vehicles, they wouldn't be expanding it to the rest of the line. The solution for GM? Build a car! The Volt is a neat object to have spinning on a concept turntable of the Detroit auto show, but nobody is inspiring the envy of neighbors by owning one. The car has limitations, but imagination is limitless. Build a few, get them on the street and watch the enthusiasts chat it up on the internet, then after listening, tweak it and build more. Next, watch the mods a new generation of hot-rodders design for the vehicle and shamelessly include some of the modifications in subsequent designs. It's doable, but time is of the essence. GM can't afford to give Toyota a decade-long head start in this race. The public doesn't know how much capability a better, more perfect design would have been able to produce. The drivers on today's roads don't drive vehicles to the limits of capability and subsequent improvements in performance bring new buyer! s into the showroom year after year. Only a real, physical vehicle, however, can inspire driveway envy. So what car to sell? The Volt? Why work that hard? Build a new line for a limited production? Sounds costly! Why not piggy back on the return of an automotive icon and guarantee that the car gets remembered, talked about, critiqued, modified, showed-off and envied? Why not a (very) limited production Camaro in 2009? Build the same quantity as there were sold in some other limited production run and make it a selling point for Barrett-Jackson wannabees. Better the performance numbers of the antique for easy reference in numerous car enthusiast magazines. Seriously, how hard can it be to produce huge torque numbers when you're using electric motors?! The Camaro can be straight, performance, or hybrid...just like the Honda Civic. An added benefit is that ALL the Camaro line is going to be attracting attention, so even the standard Camaro will sell the hybrid. Imagine the&nbs! p;dude who buys a standard internal combustion Camaro in 2009... but the chicks keep asking him if his car is the electric one. Sorry to write it that way, but get inside the young man's mindset. Would he consider buying an electric hybrid in the future? I'd bet it would at least be a consideration. Mileage on this vehicle, by the way, is almost a moot point, since the EPA ratings have no good way to account for the electric propusion and battery energy storage. The EPA numbers will doubtless look great, but they don't need to beat Toyota. Noone will even care to make the comparison. Use the big, torquey motors in a future hybrid pickup to save development costs. A pickup with great MPG numbers is a future MUST, so they might as well get a jump on that in the near term. There is much to be gained by GM jumping into the hybrid race with both feet. There are hearts and minds to be won. The Volt, since you asked, looks good, but maybe too edgy... too mod squad for mainstream. I like the practical idea of a half suicide rear door for back seat access. No reason you couldn't build that into the new Camaro. The rest of it is a concept car, so why comment on the great looking wheels or other impractical, awe-inspiring features? My gut tells me that unveiling a REAL electric vehicle wearing the Camaro badge in 2009 would be a marketable, strategically sound move that GM can profit from. Best Regards, Joe Finnegan Arlington, VA

at 1/10/2007 6:12:32 AM, ev said:
what do we think ? We think that GM should stop lying about and blaming the battery tech for their incompetence. There are countless positive proofs all around the world that battery technology is definitely there for 40-miles range EV, and specifically lithium-ion tech is there as well. The highest profile proof positive of course is Tesla Roadster. For further info, see this post and its comments: h t t p: // www.autobloggreen.com/2007/01/09/whats-the-most-obvioius-question-to-ask-about-the-new-chevy-vol/

at 1/11/2007 5:55:07 AM, John Dodge said:
EV, What is GM saying exactly about battery technology. I did not see the movie Chuck Murray mentions in his column, but I suspect GM killed the EV1, saying the technology was not feasible.

at 1/11/2007 10:03:09 AM, Holger Shult said:
Re: the article "I killed the electric car" I don't know about Charles Murray's situation but I have more than one car for our family of 4, infact we have 3 cars. I use my car for several years now for the only purpuse of commuting to work and doing trips to the nearby town of Williamspor t. The car never runs more than 50 miles each day and never has more than 2 passengers (this is fact for the last 10 years). For all our traveling we use my wife's car, a van (the third car belongs to my son). I would love to exchange my car for an electric one (if the industry would let me) for many reasons: - The fuel prices (electric power is still cheaper these days) - Maintenance (there is - and I think the movie made this point very clear- as good as no maintenance needs) - Pollution (Zero emission from the car itself - yes I know, the power plant emits too, but I hope, infect I expect our country to implement more and more Zero emission power plants like solar or wind, at least these technologies -and you may even count nuclear power- are feasable on the basis of central power generation, not in transportation devices/small engines) - Energy efficiency (if electric energy really is so "inefficient", why do we all have so many electric powered machines - and not fuel powered?) - Just to set an example - To stick out (yes, some people buy things to impress others or just to show they are different) Yes I know, driving my other cars would still pollute the air etc., but I would at least knock the total down 30 % or more and that's a good start or not? What bugs me is that in this "free" country I don't even get the chance to make this decision! I didn't even know about this wonderful car until the movie. It's pretty useless to guess who would and would not buy a car like this unless you really offer it for sale and market it just like other cars and let it compete, not the way GM did it, with negative image and telling potential customers all the negatives- Just sell a car like this for what it really is: a very nice car for the purpose of commuting or short trips. There are other cars that are selling despite their limited purpose, like 2 seated pick-up trucks for example: Who in the world would buy one (you can't do a family trip in them because they only have 2 seats and your luggage sits outside in the rain…) or big SUVs: their fuel consumption makes you think twice to use them on your trip down to Florida. But reality shows customers buy them anyways and they have their place and purpose, just like the EV1. PS: The necessary infrastructure is NOT the problem, as the example of California had proven (what's more effort: installing some electrical outlets or building a network of Hydrogen fuel stations??) Regards Holger Schult Senior Engineer L-3 Communications Williamsport

at 1/29/2007 10:33:10 AM, Craig Taylor said:
I will buy a car I can plug in at home, drive the 30 mile round trip to work each day, run to the grocery store and back, while I listen to my books on CD. Average speed limit is 35 mph (min is 25 max is 60). Build it!

at 1/29/2007 10:49:12 AM, John Koonce said:
How about a straight utility vehicle that I can drive to work everyday and to the grocery, and hardware store on the weekends. Three passenger rear hatch upright enough that I don't have to crouch to get in, and a asking price that doen't make my next five year fuel and maintance bill driving a ten year old SUV look small by comparison. Face up to it most of us want the electric option, but are not going to go into bankruptcy to have it.

at 2/8/2007 2:50:34 PM, doug said:
A young american man put an electric motor in a 1200 Datsun. He acheived 180Km before needing to recharge. discharging batteries to approx 60 percent. He used 13 car batteries 156V. This is without solar panels etc. to help recharge. With Li-Fe Technology, back charging when going down hills,and solar panels,wind forced generators. much more can be acheived. Possibly 400km or more. So to GM get your product on the market, use the technology we already have.

at 2/28/2007 10:22:52 AM, Bruce said:
The PR firms for the slash and burn, who cares if it is not in my backyard corporations and their management have been very successful in damning anyone who says that the canaries are dying as a "tree hugger". I own a Prius that under the worst conditions gets 43mpg and a Chevy Tahoe that gets at best 16mpg. Guess which one I use for commuting to work or going to the market for groceries and which one I use to take the dog to the beach to run. Guess which one will take me to work and back all week on one tank of gas and which one needs to be refueled after one trip. Guess whether my next car will be a GM/Ford/Dodge or a Toyota (a company that employees USA workers and produces the most fuel efficient 5 passenger vehicle available). My first car was a 1952 Willys station wagon that got the same mileage as my 1998 Chevy Tahoe which gets better mileage than a 2006 Tahoe. Some progress the American auto industry has made in the past 50 years.

Post a comment

Display Name
Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above: