mphtower’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  batteries (continued)

  Hi,

  I guess I should explain more, since I left some things out to prevent my response from being too long.

  The first thing to be mentioned is that neither of us know exactly why GM has selected the vendor and battery they did--this is all supposition.

  But, my understanding/guess as to the differences in cost between the Tesla and Volt come down to these points:

  • The Tesla is a technology showcase for an upstart firm. As a result, their vendors are willing to operate at a lower margin to "get in the door", so to speak.

  • It's possible that GM's vendor is reaming them a bit, but it's also possible that the batteries cost more per kWh because of the point you made about using half the capacity (or some variation) of their battery pack. Yes, they could use fewer higher quality batteries instead, but will that have the lifecycle of more batteries operating less efficiently? One need only look at the Toyota vs. Honda mindsets of engine design and lifespan of their respective engines to see that the Toyota approach of understressing reaps further rewards down the road.

  • Back to profit margins: Vendors for the Volt realize that this is a mass-produced vehicle and cannot afford to operate at a "get in the door" margin. I would guess that they are operating at a lower margin than usual to help make the Volt a success, but they can't afford to drop their price too far with the expected sales.

  • Tesla doesn't need their car to operate flawlessly for 100,000 miles for it to be a success, whereas GM absolutely does. To this point, GM requires a higher standard of QC than Tesla does.

  Again, I can't say for certain (and no one except the bean-counters at these companies would be able to), but I think that Tesla and their vendors are making a lot of concessions to be able to demonstrate the viability of their product. GM, for many reasons, can't afford to make quite as many concessions.

  I hope that explains my thoughts on this a bit better.On Chevy Volt could cut costs by using batteries more efficiently and paying less for them posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Why the Volt uses those batteries

  Comparing a Chevy Volt to a Tesla does a disservice to both vehicles. The Tesla is a special-purpose vehicle designed to highlight the technology capabilities of the company, hence the very high price tag. Tesla intends to use the goodwill generated from this car to produce a more consumer-oriented vehicle.

  The Volt, on the other hand, is a mass-produced vehicle designed to satisfy the needs of the consumer market.

  The Tesla and other such performance vehicles come from a cost-is-no-object concept, whereas cost is very important to the Volt. Although Chevy will undoubtedly lose money during the initial run, as Toyota did with the Prius, they intend to make this profitable by the first redesign.

  With this in mind, there are sacrifices that need to be made to keep the car at a reasonable price. I doubt anyone reading this site could afford to spend the amount of money to buy a Volt that would offer the same range, charging time, level of comfort, handling, yet also uses the most efficient and advanced materials on the market.

  One could just as easily ask why the Volt is made out of commonly available materials instead of carbon fiber, kevlar, and aluminum honeycomb to reduce the weight. The answer, of course, is that it doesn't make sense for the market.On Chevy Volt could cut costs by using batteries more efficiently and paying less for them posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Is there a net economic and climate gain?

  You posed the question, "After all, there's a lot of energy and emissions involved in manufacturing new cars. Would removing the oldest of the gas guzzlers still be a net economic and climate gain?"

  The answer is no. In fact, a reasonably sized (but not huge) no at that. To understand this, one needs to look at the lifecycle of the cars in question, and also the era.

  The proposal is for progressive incentives for vehicles built between '98 and '02, and a flat rate for vehicles built before '98. It also requires that the purchaser gets a vehicle that better average fuel economy in its respective class by 25%. This last part effectively eliminates any the gross polluters with high GVW (i.e., trucks and SUVs) because there aren't any that I'm aware of that exceed their average by 25%. Bear in mind that most people will not step down from a truck into a sub-compact.

  What this ends up coming down to, then, are cars--and not necessarily inefficient or gross polluting ones. For instance, a carbureted Geo Metro produces less pollution per mile driven than an '04 Chevy Silverado.

  But, the lifecycle of cars also needs to be considered. Unless the car is a classic, owners do get rid of them for myriad reasons. 150,000 miles is now around the top end of ownership-life which means that we're looking at an average 10-year lifecycle.

  The approach I recommend is safety inspections for all street licensed vehicles, akin to the British MOT. This not only has the benefit of keeping the roads safe, but it allows for the natural abandonment of polluting vehicles. If there is a car that is special to someone (a collectible such as an old MG), then owners will take care of those vehicles and prevent them from becoming waste and pollution somewhere else. The waste of throwing away a car far exceeds the emissions output from the tailpipe of a classic driven only a few miles a year.On Senate hones in on crucial need for country: more cars posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 6 Responses