GM's Hybrid Strategy

Washington Post ^

[John Jamieson]

GM's Hybrid Strategy

By Warren Brown Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, January 3, 2003; 1:07 PM

DETROIT, Jan. 3 -- General Motors Corp. offered detailed plans today to boost the fuel economy of its most popular cars and trucks by as much as 50 percent, beginning with two pickup trucks in the 2003-model year.

Overall gains in fuel economy will range from 15 percent to 50 percent, with the biggest increases going to the 2005 version of the compact Saturn VUE sport utility vehicle, GM officials said.

As In Overdrive first reported last month, GM will rely on hybrid gas-electric technology, and possibly hybrid diesel-electric engines, to dramatically crank more miles per gallon out of its mid-size sedans, such as the Chevrolet Malibu, and its full-size SUVs, such as the GMC Yukon.

[John Jamieson]

Stop the Insanity! These cars cost the consumer as much as $12 per gallon saved and probably do NO net positive to Mother Earth.

Read the entire article at link. I'll expound on my argument if anyone wants to seriously look at the issue.

[Free the USA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[toddst]

Please expound. I drive a GMC Suburban and like it just the way it is. Likely will trade for a new GMC Yukon XL (just a fancy marketing ploy for a Suburban in GMC clothing, I know) so have no interest in the hybrid unless performance is going to match what I have.

[BfloGuy]

I certainly understand and welcome private industry's attempts at moving technology to the next level. Indeed, it is the place of private industry, and not government to do just that.

But I see an almost desperate desire to please environmentalists in that the whole project is described as an effort to improve fuel economy and not as an effort to simply improve automobiles.

Have we (I think we have) arrived at the point where even industrialists, supposed capitalists, have rolled over to the enviro-nazis?

I remember the wailings of the traditionalists back in the 1970's when GM introduced front-wheel drive. "It's dangerous", "it's inherently unstable", "it's treacherous in the snow", they said. On balance they were wrong.

But at any rate, the Toronado, for whatever may have been wrong about it was still large, comfortable, and powerful. Hope that philosophy's not changing.

[John Jamieson]

Argument 1

These cars do NOT save the customer money. Toyota says that customers are buying the Prius for it's improved gas mileage, NOT it's possible pollution reduction.

A Prius is a is a $10,000 Toyota Echo stretched 6" in the hood to contain the motor/generator package. Outfitting an Echo with all the nice options raises it cost to about $16k. The Prius model changes the name and adds a $5000 package that saves about 500 gallons of gas over 100,000 miles.

The extra $5,000 brings with it atleast another $1.6k in sales tax, finance charges, insurance, and extra tire costs (low rolling resistance tires). Subtract the $600 you get for your $2000 tax rebate (ripped from my pocket) and the total cost to save 500 gallons of gas is $12 per gallon!

Surely these people are not doing the math!

Other Arguments (later):

2. Battery amortization costs
3. Added safty hazards
4. NO net benefit to Mother Earth.

[John Jamieson]

Interesting the biggest benefits are going to be to the largest vehicles, because there is a higher fuel cost to begin with. Technology like this should be tried in commercial vehicles first; not eco boxes. A 10% improvemrnt in the operating cost of a large truck or bus can pay for a lot of extra junk onboard.

[cmsgop]

And if that Battery goes Out,......Whats it like $7000 to replace ?

[tubebender]

But at any rate, the Toronado, for whatever may have been wrong about it was still large, comfortable, and powerful

And Mickey Thompson set all kinds of speed records with the engines and transaxles.

My wife drives the Buick version...a 95 Riviera with the Supercharged 3.8

[John Jamieson]

Argument 2. Battery costs.

EDMONDS recently explored the battery replacement costs for these vehicles. Honda quoted $6.5k for the Civic battery and Toyota said "about" $3k for the Prius battery. That's interesting because both batteries are made up of the same 6 amphour "D" cells and the Honda battery is 144 volts while Toyotas is 274 volts. The Toyota battery should be the more expensive one. My own research shows the wholesale price of the Toyota battery should be about $4k based on industry sources.

Battery life is estimated to be 100,000 miles by both manufacturers (my battery manuals don't agree). The first battery is included in the purchase price but it is unlikely that any owner would be able to trade a car with a battery near, or at it's end life. A lot of people are going to suffer sticker shock when they replace that battery. Battery cost will be about 4 cents per mile about the same as fuel at $2 a gallon and ontop of fuel costs! I wonder what the recycle charge will be???

Battery costs are unlikely to go down much. The American manufacturer (Ovid) is currently suing Toyota and Panasonic for patent infrigment. GM must not have thought that battery costs were going down either when they recently crushed (impacted?) their entire fleet of electric Impacts.

[John Jamieson]

Argument 3.

Extra Safty Concerns

Unlike current cars these cars have lethal battery voltages. Most manufactures plan to go to 36/42 volts in the near future, but the Civic uses 144 volts and the Prius 274 volts. Careless poking around in the wiring is likely to lightup some do-it-yourselfers! Even of more concern would be the exposed voltage due to a car wreck. Rescurers better be very careful where they use the jaws-of-life!

Probably even worse is high energy potential of these batteries; either contains the power of a large commercial welder. In an accident, a short could melt major hunks of steel around you and serve as an excellant ignition source for the gasoline they still carry.

I expect some every interesting crashes over the next few years.

[John Jamieson]

See post #9

[cmsgop]

Thanks, a FReeper who has one, I think said $7000 for a replacement. Thats whay it stood out in my mind. Im real happy with our 2.0 L 2000 VW Jetta. Im going to get another VW soon. Great Cars!

[Dan(9698)]

>>>And Mickey Thompson set all kinds of speed records with the engines and transaxles.

He used Pontiac engines. Still GM though.

[John Jamieson]

Argument 4

NO net gain to Mother Earth.

Any "Green" car is going to have to produce less polution over it's entire life cycle to be taken seriously. That life cycle includes: mining the raw materials, processing them, forming them, assembly, operating costs, and recycle costs. Better gas miliage alone is NOT a reasonable criteria if more pollution is generated during production and recycle than is saved during operation.

GM has said it will charge about $3,000 extra for these cars and will sell them (at first) at cost. I take that to mean that their costs are much more than $3,000 (they must be making something on the ones they sell now). Many insiders also believe that Honda and Toyota are selling their cars will below cost (Honda quotes $4.5k for a replacement motor and $6.5k for a replacement battery, $11k, but only charges $3k).

These extra costs involve energy intensive materials in large quanties, such as nickel and copper. Battery manufacture and recycling are dirty chemical operations. Since the total fuel savings is about 500 gallons or $750 worth of energy, it is very likely that these cars have "burned" more energy than that in their many thousands of dollars of extra manufacturing costs. If not, recycling would certainly put them over the edge.

The net saving to the planet is likely negative not positive, the owner just doesn't know it, as he shows off his new "Green" vehicle!

One last bitch: It's one thing for consumers to make stupid choices in the market place, it's quite another to ask me to help pay for that bad decision in my taxes!

[Lockbox]

You also need to take into consideration the fact that automobile companies will sell what ever the customer will buy. Want a pink car, no problem the car companies will turn them out. Just because a new technology does not save the customer money in the long run is not important to the automobile companies. They sell cars, they sell what the customer’s believe they want, plain and simple. If Toyota and Honda sell lots of the hybrids, the other companies will follow. If the hybrid become unpopular, they car companies will look for another market place ‘mover’.

Also fact in the ‘need’ to keep the government / environmental wackos placated.

[Sungirl]

NO net benefit to Mother Earth.

Wouldn't we be less dependent on oil?

[nicollo]

Just a little *bump* to encourage your rant.

You're on a roll, bro!

[P.S. Never challenge Freepers to do their own research; that's what the poster is here for.]

[John Jamieson]

No, more oil was used during manufacture than saved. Big old diesel trucks had to haul a lot of copper or a nickel ore to make these things.

There should be a congressional investigation, before we bet our future on this. Let Toyota explain to us just how this a "green" car.

[John Jamieson]

Thanks, I have not yet begun to fight! (it helps to be a retired rocket scientist! ...lots of time on my hands)

[John Jamieson]

Fine, as long as they don't force me to help pay for their fantasy.