Toyota delays next-gen Prius while GM inks deal with lithium-ion maker

It looks like those waiting for the next generation Prius to hit the road are going to have to hold out a little bit longer. Toyota announced this week that it would be delaying plans to bring its plug-in, lithium-ion-based model to market until 2011, as opposed to 2008, due to safety concerns over the company's chosen battery. In very related news, GM has struck a deal with Massachusetts-based battery developer A123 Systems to produce flat lithium-ion batteries for use in upcoming plug-in electric vehicles, such as the Chevy Volt. With regards to whether Toyota's setback could give GM an edge in the electric car game, Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said, "I think that our No. 1 competitor has some problems with their technology, and I do think that it very definitely opens a window of opportunity for us to be first to market with a genuine plug-in hybrid," which sounds like fightin' words, if you ask us.

Read -- Toyota delays next-gen lithium-ion Prius
Read -- GM says it could lead electric car race

[Rick Person @ Aug 10th 2007 11:05PM]

No contest. Toyota wins hands down.

[Rick @ Aug 11th 2007 1:31PM]

Go ahead and drive your crappy american cars. When I see you broken down on the side of the road I'll make sure to wave. And guess what???? More and more people are thinking like myself and paying a premium to buy a Japanese car. I've never bought american and I never will. So hell yes Toyota wins. And for all you Hummer lovers, that is the biggest piece of crap ever made. Yeah you can drive over boulders but thats only if you can get the thing started.

[waLLy @ Aug 13th 2007 5:22PM]

What, exactly, do they "win" besides your dollar?

Is GM so teh suxxor?!

[wiidude420 @ Aug 10th 2007 11:17PM]

bring me a corvette all electric with 1500 miles per charge and a 1 hour or less charge at under $120,000

with no performace decrease from gas powered vette

and im in. oh and chevy make it the italian design corvette prototype's look :) the corvette moray

guess then ill need to hope for under $150k

[Mark S @ Aug 10th 2007 11:40PM]

At least be within the realm of ridiculous... "bring me a corvette all electric with 1500 miles per charge and a 1 hour or less charge" That would mean the car would go be going an average of 1500 mph for an hour if the battery lasted that long. That is in the realm of ludicrous. On a side note, those who like muscle cars with either have to pay big bucks for gas or invest in a hybrid or electric car if barrels of gas go to the forecasted levels.

[Noah @ Aug 10th 2007 11:15PM]

I'm still trying to understand the point of spending a bunch of extra cash on silly electric hybrid cars when:

1) The extra cash you're spending would usually buy enough gasoline (even at higher prices than what we see now) to make it a moot point

and

2) These batteries are made of nasty chemicals that are not only bad for the environment, but are made of minerals and metals that need to be mined or quarried in order to acquire, often at the cost of millions of acres of otherwise undisturbed land.

I'd think that both environmentalist and economically cautious types would be avoiding these bizarre contraptions like the plague, but they seem to be selling like hotcakes for some reason.

I can only hope that PHEV technology not only addresses my first argument stated above, but shatters it by giving an undeniable ROI, regardless of whether fuel is ar $1 or $10 per gallon.

I think I'll stick to riding my bicycle for my trips under 10 miles, and driving my 30-MPG Focus around for longer trips or when I have to carry a decent sized load. I'm definitely not prepared to drink the kool-aid on any hybrid-electric automotive technology yet.

[Señor Swanky @ Aug 10th 2007 11:31PM]

As long as the coal-fire or nuclear plant isn't in your backyard, electric vehicles make it FEEL as if you're saving something. Sticking a plug in a socket seems rewarding, even though it doesn't really solve anything considering the relative efficiencies of the tech being used.

Oh, but adolescence is so powerful. If only we could power the world on self-importance.

[Jesse S @ Aug 11th 2007 1:31AM]

Ummm...Modern nuclear plants are very, VERY good for the environment. I suggest you go hit up Scientific American, I believe it was in the January issue. I forget the title.

[yojimbo @ Aug 11th 2007 6:38PM]

Saying that something is "very VERY good for the environment" implies that it improves it when in fact it does not. All energy systems impact the environment negatively including solar and geothermal even if by simply raising the ambient temperature of its surroundings.

I am not anti-nuclear but your love for the atom, while understandable, is shortsighted... several thousand years shortsighted to be precise. I hope that we find a way to deal with nuclear waste in the future and I am sure we will, but we are gambling and if anything it isn't "very VERY good."

[DarkAardvark @ Aug 10th 2007 11:32PM]

1) tesla motors... it has what, 4x the driving range?
2) ultra/super capacitors =O

it's pretty funny how chevy is like "oh em gee new technology, we is smart," even though electric cars have been around since the early 1900's AND tesla motors is currently (lol... current...) way ahead of chevy's "projected stats." that's just... funny XD

[DarkAardvark @ Aug 10th 2007 11:39PM]

oh, and this article makes me LOL
http://www.lincolndailynews.com/News/business081007_e.htm
do they not realize someone has already come in first?
40 mile range... yeah, whatever

[Mike I @ Aug 10th 2007 11:43PM]

Not to mention that Tesla is a 49 person company... Uhm... And if anyone replies to me saying "YEAH BUT TESLA'S CARS ARE TOO EXPENSIVE!" -- Well DUH, they're a startup company... They don't have much supply, they don't have much demand. I will be extremely happy if I own a Tesla in the future when they become a much more popular company.

[theflew @ Aug 10th 2007 11:57PM]

Talk to me when Tesla is building cars for under $100K and more that 100K a year. Tesla is basically kit building cars, far from the mass production that Toyota and GM are talking about.

[Alex @ Aug 11th 2007 9:17AM]

That's because Detroit is way too friendly with the oil companies. Anyone else notice how American cars never seem to get better than around 30 mpg, while foreign get close to 60 mpg in some cases? I'd be happy to buy a Tesla in a few years when they become a little more practical.

[AlexP @ Aug 10th 2007 11:43PM]

Incase you didn't know: the Volt has an expected range of around 40 miles on the battery alone + you're buying domestic + it's not as repulsive as a God damn Toyota + GM quality improvements can already be felt in any of their new post 06 vehicles.

FYI, JD Power's newest dependability survey ranks the AVEO ABOVE the YARIS, and BUICK ON PAR WITH LEXUS.

Seriously, Toyota isn't doing much to improve and is pretty much falling in the SUV trap Ford (mainly) fell in not too long ago, all their new vehicles are getting worse fuel economy and are starting to have reliability issues. The Toyota you knew last decade isn't the Toyota you know now.

Welcome back, GM.

[echo @ Aug 11th 2007 12:10AM]

JD Power awards/reviews are a joke. You really shouldn't put too much faith in them. Also buying domestic? It seems to me Ford/GM/Chrysler are creating plants outside the U.S., while Honda and Toyota are creating ones inside the U.S.

And remember that JD Power is purely a survey, unlike Consumer Reports (although some people question its validity, I think it is safe to claim CR is a higher quality source of reliability than JD Power). JDP does not do any in house testing.

Enjoy "domestic" cars, while you can (oh, by the way, the quality "domestic cars" are using the european or australian models and bringing them over here).

[AlexP @ Aug 11th 2007 1:03AM]

God, I shouldn't even have to tell you why buying GM is better than buying Toyota.

And it's funny because you 'import' lovers (wow, 3 they make three vehicles in RURAL AREAS WITH NO UNION BACKGROUND in the US! THEY'RE DEFINITELY JUST LIKE IMPORTS NOW!) have been all rejoicing when JD Power rewarded non-domestics (no shit - I know I bought a Daewoo from GM) in the past... But now that they're starting to award GM or any other domestic brand their judgment is apparently worthless.

Oh, by the way, consumer reports came up with the most flawed and worthless review this week, a comparo between the Tundra and all the other trucks on the market... It basically ended up as a match between it and the Silverado as they were both the newest models available as of today.

To quote Autoblog's John Neff:

"At face value, it seemed to us that the cards were stacked in the Tundra's favor.

It appears to us that CR failed in terms of acquiring vehicles that were comparable to each other. We recognize the difficulty that's presented with the new Tundra, since Toyota offers significantly fewer configurations than do Chevy, Ford and Dodge. Nevertheless, there are other configurations of the Silverado that would have better matched the Tundra and likely led to the Silverado scoring higher. We admit, the Silverado may not have won the comparo even if it had been configured to better match the Tundra, as Toyota's powertrain is particularly strong and fuel efficient. In the end, however, we believe the consumer would've been better served by reading about an evenly-matched contest.

On CR's second point, that it typically tests versions of vehicles that most regular consumers will buy, we concede that is a good strategy if the plan is to offer a review that will benefit the largest number of consumers. That's fine if a single vehicle is reviewed, but totally inappropriate for a comparison test. As a consumer, why would I want to read a comparison test of trucks that aren't similar? It would like reading about the Honda Civic versus the Saturn Aura. Comparison tests, at least to us, are not about comparing what people buy, they're about advising what people should buy based on an equal comparison.

CR also gave the Tundra a predicted reliability rating of Very Good based on the reliability of past Tundras and Toyotas in general. The Silverado was labeled as too new to predict its reliability. In our eyes, the Tundra should have also been labeled as too new to predict its reliability, considering it is an all-new model built at an all-new assembly plant in San Antonio, TX. Mechanically speaking, the Tundra of today is completely different than the previous Tundra on which CR's reliability scores were based. The Tundra has also suffered 20 cases of reported camshaft failures in models equipped with the same 5.7L engine CR tested.

We still have a lot of respect for the hardworking people at Consumer Reports and value their opinion, but in the case of this half-ton pickup comparo, we believe its value is limited."

A survey's a survey, yes, and survey are typically quite accurate.

Oh yeah, my neighbor's 3-year old RAV4 broke down three weeks ago.

By the way, other than GM I also love Hyundai, Honda (although I dislike their customer service... I mean, Honda's),Mazda (that's running through my father's side of the family) and BMW.

[CL @ Aug 11th 2007 1:06AM]

"FYI, JD Power's newest dependability survey ranks the AVEO ABOVE the YARIS, and BUICK ON PAR WITH LEXUS." "you're buying domestic"
You do realize the Aveo is just a rebadged Daewoo Kalos right? Also look at where the cars are assembled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Aveo

[AlexP @ Aug 11th 2007 1:53PM]

CL, is it really that hard to read my post?

"(no shit - I know I bought a Daewoo from GM)" - referring to the fact that I bought a Wave. I'm an enthusiast for crying out-loud, I know that kind of stuff.

Either way, I know way more money is going in my local economy and the US economy when I buy a car that's manufactured by a subsidiary of GM or Ford.

1. Toyota has much lower wages.
2. Toyota is based in Japan, Toyota's goal is to bring the profits back home for the most part, the same can be said for GM.
3. I don't know if you've been following development in relations between GMDAT and GM, but Daewoo didn't exactly have the best record when it came to reliability (nor did GM, as a matter of fact), yet for whatever reason, the Aveo is a top-ranking subcompact now.

Whoever upvoted CL makes me lol.

[WhiteSites @ Aug 11th 2007 7:12PM]

To state that Buick in on par with Lexus , is BS. Someone at GM had to pay alot to get that kind of press.

[Sean D. @ Aug 10th 2007 11:44PM]

When these things explode in movies, it's gonna be far more spectacular than the standard gas-powered car explosion... Little jets of fire shooting in all directions and then KABOOM, the big gas explosion that sends all the remaining Li-ion batteries into the onlooking crowd, which each have their own little intense explosions. I can't wait.

[DC @ Aug 10th 2007 11:48PM]

I heart GM. I hate japanese crap.

[AlexP @ Aug 11th 2007 12:01AM]

You've got to admit though, the stuff the launch prior to 00's was total crap, and even some of the stuff during this decade, but since 06, everything's been well.

If Cerberus doesn't change Chrysler radically, I can only hope it dies... But Cerberus has been going after wounded animals in the auto industry as of late and that's not exactly giving anyone a good impression.

[Sam @ Aug 11th 2007 12:16AM]

**** GM. Have any of you heard of the EV1? GM produced an electric car from 96-99 to meet California's new clean air act that stated so many cars had to be pollution free. GM came out with this EV1 to fulfill these new standards. After putting $1 billion into the development and marketing of this car, GM decided that it would be cheaper to sue the state of California and overturn this clean air mandate than to make an electric car. I'm not saying that this car was all that great, but at least it was a start. Big Oil was able to kill GM's electric car once, whose to say it won't do it again?

[DarkAardvark @ Aug 11th 2007 12:28AM]

doesnt california charge extra taxes on hybrids?

[matt @ Aug 11th 2007 8:22AM]

**** GM??

They were being forced by California to produce a car that cost them $80k to build, while only being able to lease a very limited number of them for the equivalent of $40k, with a car that while yes, was cute, and yes, made environmentalists happy, was impractical and had some very serious limitations. The law *should* have been overturned.

This is (the last time I checked) a free market economy, where the market is supposed to drive business decisions. If the consumer wants great gas mileage, that's what they buy - and if a company wants to stay in business, they sell what people want to buy.

Instead, we have California, and it's lawmakers (who, coincidentally are want-to-be scientists) deciding what's possible and not possible regarding the technology behind automobile engines. They don't seem to realize that if the auto makers could produce a 180hp engine that gets 60mpg while meeting SULEV emission requirements, they'd be doing it in a heartbeat on their own, without any regulation required! Because if they *could* pull that off, it would give them a significant advantage in the marketplace.

But sure, be mad at the auto maker, because they tried to pull the gun away from their head. Don't be mad at all of the other auto makers who didn't even attempt to meet the zero emissions vehicle requirement, and fought the ruling from day 1. That's smart.

[Sam @ Aug 11th 2007 12:30PM]

So, we should make murder legal because that law limits the Mob? If we didn't laws and regulations to HELP the market, 90% of the medicines we take would either be unsafe, or simply sugar pills. I applaud california for trying to help our environment and for trying to push the market in the RIGHT direction. Do you know why it cost GM $80,000 (thats including R&D, NOT including state rebates)? Its cold economy of scale. Had GM mass produced this car, (instead of say, make 1,000 or so cars TOTAL) it would cost a hell of a lot less then, lets say...a Hummer? Oh yeah, thats right, GM put the hummer on the map a month after it finished off its EV1s. The market didn't want hummers and big run-over-your-neighbor SUVs. Detroit convinced people that these were "safer, bigger is safer, you want your kids to be safe right??" and THATS why the SUV is around. Had GM given the EV1 the same kind of media spin, we might all be driving electric cars getting 400 miles per charge, with a 20 minute charge time. The fact of the matter is that Big Oil bribed GM to drop the car, because for every EV1 that hit the road, was another 4,368 gallons of gasoline not sold (13 gallon/tank, 4 times a month, 12 months/year, for 7 years) which is $13,194 in gasoline.

Yeah, **** GM

[mark @ Aug 12th 2007 4:05PM]

>So, we should make murder legal because that law limits the Mob?

While that’s a very… interesting… interpretation of the situation, it completely ignores the fact that we’re talking about vehicles. If you make it illegal to produce vehicles, we’re in a bit more of a pickle than if we make it illegal for the mob to operate. So aside from the fact that your overblown metaphor has no bearing on the subject, it was worth a laugh.

>If we didn't laws and regulations to HELP the market, 90% of the medicines we take would either be unsafe, or simply sugar pills. I applaud california for trying to help our environment and for trying to push the market in the RIGHT direction.

I have no problem creating incentives for companies to produce more environmentally safe products, or regulation of medicine to make sure that it’s safe. But again, you’ve presented a lousy comparison for the situation, in that a) safe medicine can be made, and b) we can help our environment without presenting engineering challenges to the companies that can’t be met within any sort of reasonable time frame. Sure, GM was able to produce the EV1, but I’d hardly call it a practical vehicle.

> Do you know why it cost GM $80,000 (thats including R&D, NOT including state rebates)? Its cold economy of scale. Had GM mass produced this car, (instead of say, make 1,000 or so cars TOTAL) it would cost a hell of a lot less then, lets say...a Hummer?

Yeah, of course it would. But no-one would have bought it, so your economy of scale argument is, well, crap. Limited to what, 55 miles? And you had to install a charging station at home, if you wanted to recharge in any sort of reasonable time frame? A 120 volt trickle charger was available, but was… get this… a trickle charge. Sounds real viable for the mass market, huh?

>Oh yeah, thats right, GM put the hummer on the map a month after it finished off its EV1s. The market didn't want hummers and big run-over-your-neighbor SUVs.

The market didn’t want it? That must be why GM hasn’t been able to sell *any* Hummers. And why they keep producing them, and expanding the line. They’re remarkably un-desirable.

>Detroit convinced people that these were "safer, bigger is safer, you want your kids to be safe right??" and THATS why the SUV is around. Had GM given the EV1 the same kind of media spin, we might all be driving electric cars getting 400 miles per charge, with a 20 minute charge time.

Sure, if you ignore the realities of actually trying to make something like that – which is why engineering-by-legislation is so dangerous – because you, and the legislature, are *not* engineers.

>The fact of the matter is that Big Oil bribed GM to drop the car, because for every EV1 that hit the road, was another 4,368 gallons of gasoline not sold (13 gallon/tank, 4 times a month, 12 months/year, for 7 years) which is $13,194 in gasoline. Yeah, **** GM

No, it sounds like you’re a bitter environmentalist who has been brainwashed by his own kind to believe that a) GM is evil because it didn’t continue it’s EV program (where were the other EV’s from the other, non-evil companies at that time?), and b) who believes that no-one should have the right to buy the vehicle that they desire, in spite of their actual transportation needs, just because it doesn’t fit into your very limited world view.

So fine, be angry at GM, and continue your conspiracy theories about GM wanting to protect ‘big oil’ (wtf?). Either their interests have suddenly changed (maybe they’re just not getting along anymore??), or maybe, just maybe, the market is finally demanding a new EV that’s useful for more than running around town. But so long as you keep spewing your venom, remember to complain about those other 1 or 2 (or would that be all of them?) auto makers who never even attempted an EV program to meet the California legislation.

[xc7x @ Aug 11th 2007 12:55AM]

GM > Toyoga

[Mark @ Aug 11th 2007 1:00AM]

Why do I smell an OPEC rat for this delay?

[Thomas @ Aug 11th 2007 4:22AM]

I wonder if lithium could do more damage to the industry of hybrid and electric cars than anything. A massive battery pack that contains flammable and highly volatile compounds just doesn't sit well with me.

[Malvarius @ Aug 11th 2007 1:34PM]

Well the idea of an engine that internally explodes thousands of times minute doesnt sit well if you think about it, either. Ala the internal combustion engine. Bottom line is, that Detroit is in cahoots with the oil companies, and now that either start up companies like Tesla or over seas car makers are leading the way in reduced or zero emission vehicles, they are now worried and have to play catch up.

anyways to the main subject

Gm wants to make a deal with the lithium ion maker! Hmm remember when Gm bought controlling share of the producer of the battery for the ev1. They want control of alternative power sources for the cars they wish to never see produced. Detroit does not want cars produced that will not take gasoline (or hydrogen for that matter, because oil companies are looking into that as their next cash cow.)

[hurriyete ilan @ Aug 11th 2007 3:32AM]

hi

[hürriyet gazetesi ilan @ Aug 11th 2007 3:35AM]

i think this is the most important...

[christomapher @ Aug 11th 2007 3:44AM]

Thank you, Engadget, for placing a GM vs Toyota image at the top of your article. Because I really wanted to read comments from morons about what company is better, rather than read comments about the article. ::Sigh::

[OddManOut @ Aug 11th 2007 5:10AM]

Just a few light hearted responses to your comments...


"the Volt has an expected range of around 40 miles on the battery alone"

That's a projection, not a guarantee. And it's for 2009. In 2008 it's supposed to be a TEN (10) mile range. On a prototype. Actually, a PROJECTED prototype. It isn't even confirmed to have been built yet. A lot can happen in 2 years...or a lot of NOTHING can happen in 2 years.

"...you're buying domestic..."

Hell no I'm not. Not if I have a choice in the matter. And neither are you if you buy a Chevy. Anywhere from 10% - 96% ( to be fair, a more average range of 10% - 30% ) of your Chevy comes from abroad...and may in fact be assembled abroad (Canada).

http://www.theautochannel.com/link.html?http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-03-21-car-content-chart_N.htm?csp=34


"...it's not as repulsive as a God damn Toyota..."

Entirely subjective. But a valid opinion...

"GM quality improvements can already be felt in any of their new post 06 vehicles."

Good for them. But in a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the highest) which change would be more easily 'felt'? A change of |9.1 to 9.2| or a change of |3 to 6| (Note, these are entirely arbitrary numbers used solely to illustrate a point)? Point(s) being you can double somethings quality and have it still be an inferior product, and if there's not much to fix, you can't fix much...

Besides..."new post 06 vehicles." ??? That might show an improvement in 'initial quality' (which is commendable), but most people plan to keep their cars until they pay them off in 3 - 5 years. THAT's the acid test...can they last at least THAT long w/out needing major work ? I'm not saying American cars can't, but as far as post '06 models go, we're back to PROJECTIONS about the cars overall long term quality. I'll bet all those Dodge customers who decided to buy Neons PROJECTED their Neons could make it past 40K miles before the head gaskets blew. A lot of them were wrong...

"Oh yeah, my neighbor's 3-year old RAV4 broke down three weeks ago."

Ah...even better than a survey, ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE. Yeah, JFK was fatally injured whilst in an American car. So from this isolated incident we can see that ALL American cars are death traps, and bad for national morale.

Not to say that Toyota hasn't had it's share of technical problems. There was a whole spate of EXPLODING Camry V6 engines for a while there due to some design flaw...something about a hot spot in the engine where oil cooked off. Anyway, yeah, Japanese automakers aren't perfect, but what do surveyS (IE more than ONE particular survey) say about the reliability and durability of Toyota's products over the past 20 years ? Hint: It will take more than your neighbors single broken down RAV4 to tip the scales of perceived quality/reliability in GMs favor...

I myself prefer Japanese cars, but more than that I'm a simple auto-enthusiast. I've actually been rather impressed with the US auto industry in the past few years. I think they've made some big strides technologically (their business practices however still defy logic). But they've got a track record for selling CRAP several decades long, and I think they will have to OUTDO (not just equal) their competitors by a big margin, for a long time (basically do exactly what their competition did to them) to win back the confidence of the American car buyer at large.

Which means they've got their work cut out for them , because I haven't seen any reports of a proportional drop in import quality lately...

All IMHO, and offered in a conversational manner...

[AlexP @ Aug 11th 2007 2:09PM]

Respectable reply, I must say.

Thanks for reading before commenting, by the way.

[Adi @ Aug 11th 2007 5:57AM]

What a bunch of idiots. GM lost a long time ago, its just dying a slow death. Their lucky that Toyota is prepared to bail them in the even of a complete collapse.

As an industrial engineer, TPS and their implementation of cellular manufacturing is unrivaled.

The morons who think GM is anywhere near Toyota in terms of the relevant metrics must have fat and wide asses cause GM excels at wide seats for their rotund target market.

[g2 @ Aug 11th 2007 6:00AM]

A123 uses MIT founded Nanophosphates technology in their cell designs. The automotive cell technology is also being developed for buses. The thermal dissipation will be critical to safety testing. It's too early to say GM can leapfrog Toyota with all it's experience with the NiMH based Prius since their are more complex subsystems to manage in a car. GM's hopes all hinge on this tech being viable and safe.

Many Japanese companies got "burned" by Li-Ion polymer battery problems in consumer electronics devices, so this risk averse approach is predictable by Toyota for a production vehicle.

Historically, the US has done the basic research in batteries (superconduction), but the Asian companies (Asahi, Matsushita) have mass produced them.

[Chris Macdonald @ Aug 11th 2007 7:42AM]

why don't they just make battery exchange stations at every gas station.... just make all cars use the same type of batteries (or a few different kinds) and you just go to a charger thing, switch yours with a fully charged one, let your old one charge for the next guy, and take the new one after paying a fee, and when the other next one is dead, just go to the "gas" station and exchange it for a charged one again. I think if you did that you wouldn't have to wait every time you want to charge your battery, you just switch batteries and go. Is there anything wrong with this idea?

[Majortom1981 @ Aug 11th 2007 7:57AM]

YAy lets all bash toyota even though they are buidling all these new plants in the U.S> while the american car makers are building more outside of the U.S.

Also Prius's that people have moded also do 40mpg on batteries alone. Toyota knows they are in no rush.

Didnt toyota state they want the next ver of the prius to have 100mpg ?

[AlexP @ Aug 11th 2007 2:15PM]

1. They don't have to deal with the unions, yet, so they have no problem with building in the US.
2. Lower wages than the domestics (there's a $30 difference per hour (average) between UAW licensed workers and Toyota workers).
3. They're building in Southern RURAL AREAS with no union background for a reason.

[Kent Beuchert @ Aug 11th 2007 11:39AM]

Once again, an article misleads. The announcement from Lutz was that GM and A123 Systems have enteredt into a collaborative agreement is just that. It is unlikely to have any effect on the batteries that will go into the first VOLT, whose launch was firmly set for 2010, along with Opel versions and Saturn versions. The battery for the first version VOLT has yet to be selected from either A123 Systems or LG. Both recently completed work on the cells, completely satisfied that they will meet GM specs (weight, power, 15 year lifespan, etc). Both company's battery cells will be integrated into packs by Consolidated and CPI and provided to GM by October. GM will install into two (or more) test mules, which will be running on the streets by the end of the year. Offical acceptance testing by GM test division begins in the Spring and a decision as to whether A123 Systems, LG or both, will be selected as supplier will occur in June, 2008. Any talk of project cancellation is complete fantasy - appropriate batteries obviously do exist, and that was the only conceivable obstacle to prevent and delay a 2010 launch. That won't happen. Guaranteed. Sorry, GM haters. Now, on to Toyota's confusing mess.

[Bob @ Aug 11th 2007 11:22AM]

I'll be happy so long as I never have to look at another prius again, EVER. I live in a college town and those things are freaking everywhere.

Makes be dream about getting a Hummer just to run those pussies over....

[Kent Beuchert @ Aug 11th 2007 12:33PM]

Is Toyota braindead? The company that has been undisputed champ of the green (but ineffective) hybrids is talking in circles and now apparently also walking in circles. First was the transparent ploy to stael GM thunder by promising a plug-in before the VOLT, in 2008 or 2009, accompanied by NIMH equipped Prius "plug-ins" (I use the term very loosely). Then there was the utter confusion for days while Toyota first suggested they might use NIMH, then li ion, then claimed that their plug-in would have less than 20 miles of range, since that was all that was affordbale, given the high cost of batteries. Along the way they basically declared GM a liar for promising a 40 mile range.
Lutz repsonded that GM would do just that, as a midpriced car (think
twenties). Next came word that upcoming Prius will be a cobbled together old Prius with a bigger electric motor and more batteries (this time of an unknown type). Toyota caught holy hell for suggesting NIMH batteries, which were 99% responsible for the flop of the Rav4 electric, EV-1, and Honda EV of the 90's, all mercifully cancelled by their makers. NOBODY, but NOBODY uses, threatens to use, or even talks about using NIMH batteries in any car that requires electrical storage, other than those used in regular hybrids. Now comes word from Toyota that the plug-in Prius wil not debut until post VOLT. Talk about the kiss of death. The Prius doesn't even look good to treehuggers anymore. The question is whether Toyota is going to simply modify the Prius or
create a design that's appropriate for a plug-in ( the design they
originally intended retains the Prius transmission, an unnecessary
and expensive part to stick into an electric car). My bet is that ,
despite the unbelievably idiotic sequence of decisions from Toyota execs, they have retained enough intelligence in their engineering
staff to squelch any ideas of a quick and dirty and crappy mod job on the Prius, and will copy GM's E-Flex architecture and swallow their pride. Now, Toyota needs to find a battery. In the meantime, Toyota has become a whipping boy for the Greenies, who had been holding them up as examples for Detroit to follow. Talk about irony!!

[brian @ Aug 11th 2007 12:32PM]

Bottom line is only Americans trust GM quality... regardless of how many improvements they've made to the quality control. I will never ever buy an American car again... American car manufactures have tarnished their once good reputations. The only way I'd buy an American car is if they had a no hassle lemon return policy the same one Walmart or even Best Buy has.

[AlexP @ Aug 11th 2007 2:23PM]

Only Americans? You do realize that GM was only profitable for this quarter of 07 because of their subsidiaries outside of North America? GMDAT, GME, etc.

I just hope GM can get enough out of the UAW (healthcare especially) to start building factories in the US again.

Trust me, I know the difference between former GM quality and current GM quality, and it's... Rather great (we own three GM vehicles, one's a 99, the other's an 05 and the last one (mine) is an 07, the 99 sucks balls, the 05 is fine, although GM said it was an error (the Malibu) and the 07... Impressive, really).

[Aroon Saini @ Aug 11th 2007 12:36PM]

Allow me to end this GM vs. Toyota war once and for all...

Honda & Acura owns all... anyone who disagrees is completely ignorant towards cars.

all I need to say for Acura is - 2008 TL TypeS

[AlexP @ Aug 11th 2007 4:02PM]

Re: Element.

[Aroon Saini @ Aug 11th 2007 10:22PM]

okie okie you got me there, thats one exception... i think the Element is the uggliest thing ive ever seen in my life..

buh hey every1 gets at least one or two screw ups, at least Honda doesnt screw up as much as others.

as for Acura, i dont think theyve ever screwed up, or at least big time..