GM mulling battery rentals for the Chevy Volt

Tossing out the idea of renting / leasing the battery of an electric car isn't exactly revolutionary, but it sounds like GM may be hitching a ride on the ever-growing bandwagon. Reportedly, the firm is mulling the idea of allowing Chevy Volt buyers to "rent the vehicle's battery as a way of pricing the automobile at a comparable level to a traditional, petrol-driven family [motorcar]." Apparently, GM is hoping to get ten years of life from the battery packs and to price the Volt like a "traditional mid-market car." Notably, no further information regarding potential contracts or sales strategies were divulged, but considering the launch date for this sucka is just around the corner, we're sure relevant decisions will be made soon enough.

[Via AutoblogGreen]

[huggles @ Aug 15th 2007 7:42AM]

Every company has a skeleton in their closet, GM's happens to be the EV1. Instead of leasing the whole car they will just lease out the batteries and recall them whenever they feel like it.

[Joe @ Aug 15th 2007 8:28AM]

That's fine. Take back your batteries. I'll keep the car and get my own batteries. LiPo's please.

[Grizz @ Aug 15th 2007 7:59AM]

Thats a lot of RedBull in the picture.

[PJK @ Aug 15th 2007 9:54AM]

I was thinking the same thing, the first car powered by Red Bull!

[Diogo @ Aug 15th 2007 12:18PM]

Actually those are super capacitors, but I guess you were just making fun of their shape anyway

[Diogo @ Aug 15th 2007 12:27PM]

Sorry, just looking at another post about A123 (the battery manufacturers), those are the actual batteries. Cool. But they look a lot like supercaps, tho.

[Farris @ Aug 15th 2007 3:03PM]

Wait, are we sure that this frame isn't for the Muller SkyCar?


(Red Bull gives you wiiiiiiings!)

[Fubar @ Aug 15th 2007 8:35AM]

Q: What's the difference between petrol and gasoline?

A: About three bucks a gallon in taxes.

[Ben Schiendelman @ Aug 15th 2007 10:00AM]

Well, sure, we aren't maintaining our roads, so of course we aren't paying for it.

[oshean @ Aug 15th 2007 9:04AM]

Nice! A built in cooler for your tall boys.

[John @ Aug 15th 2007 9:32AM]

I'm confused. So I need to pay them to lease the car, pay them to lease the batteries, and pay the power company to charge the car? Yeah, I'll take the gas/petrol. F the planet. Cash is king

[Baalthazaar @ Aug 15th 2007 9:48AM]

When the batteries are low, return them to Chevy and lease new ones

[Ben Schiendelman @ Aug 15th 2007 9:59AM]

So, you're going to pay the company for the car, and then pay an oil company whatever they charge? You're right, cash is king, and over time, this is probably the cheaper option by a long shot.

[Ignatius @ Aug 15th 2007 10:14AM]

No no... they mean if you have any issues with the batteries over a certain amount of time, you can replace them free of charge (since you're probably paying annual or monthly fees to keep them).

It's not a bad thing, because to replace a Lithium-ion pack, it could potentially be a couple thousand dollars. Paying $50-100 a month isn't a bad insurance policy for it.

[craig @ Aug 15th 2007 11:26AM]

"...over time, this is probably the cheaper option by a long shot."

It's probably not. Otherwise they wouldn't be trying to disguise the costs.

"Paying $50-100 a month isn't a bad insurance policy for it."

Don't know where you got the $50-100 a month figure from. Would $500-1000 a month also not be bad? We can all make up numbers to justify our point of view.

If they wanted to sell insurance policies they would. This is not insurance, you don't own the product and it can be taken from you.

One interesting thing about electric cars is that urban areas, where they may be most beneficial, have many potential owners without access to outlets in their garages. That includes me.

[Ben Schiendelman @ Aug 15th 2007 9:58AM]

You know, this is similar to the original electric car business models... in the 1890s.

[JBo @ Aug 15th 2007 11:19AM]

This is an outstanding idea. By making it possible to get new batteries, GM is eliminating the major mental block people will have with this vehicle, battery life. I would imagine they are going to make the pricing all work out to about the same as buying a gasoline based vehicle (which the Volt can also run on). Since replacement will happen almost never, they can just do it through the dealers.

I plan on replacing my Prius with a Volt as soon as they are available. It will be a win-win to be able to support an American car company again. I'll get an even less impactful vehicle than the Prius, and I'll be supporting manufacturing in this country. Of course, if they decide to build it elsewhere, all bets are off.

[craig @ Aug 15th 2007 11:35AM]

I'm curious to know, JBo, why you assume that creating a rental program for batteries makes it possible to get new ones? Do you think that it would be impossible otherwise? Also, since you think that batteries will be replaced "almost never", why would you have any enthusiasm for a forced rental program where you pay continuously for an item you will "almost never" replace and will never own? If, indeed, you feel as you do then you should think this is a terrible idea, not an outstanding one.

Replacing engines is expensive but you "almost never" need to do it, so perhaps GM should start selling us cars without them and require that we rent the engines by the month. Outstanding idea!

[JBo @ Aug 15th 2007 11:43AM]

Well I'm not assuming anything. Based on the tiny bit of information in the post, it could be great, it could be a waste of time and money. I guess I prefer to see the potential benefits rather than immediately demonize something without any actual information.

I don't see "forced" anywhere in the article or my post. Voluntary would be the best way to go about it. I'd likely not participate in an exchange program, but I can see it being peace of mind for anyone on the fence over battery life. People know engines are pretty reliable, engines are trusted proven technology. Batteries on this scale are new to most people, so there's going to be some resistance, especially given the less than stellar range of the EV1. Your glass is permanently half empty, huh?

The best way to go about it would be to warranty the hell out of the battery. Since they anticipate 10 years of life, they should do a 10year/200,000 mile warranty on any non-traditional (electric propulsion system) component. Given how good their quality has become, GM should have no problem with a warranty like that.

[OddManOut @ Aug 15th 2007 12:35PM]

It's all a mind game when you get down to it. Think about it, putting legal directives aside, are you any less likely to get in to a car crash if have insurance ? No...but people FEEL safer with it. People like to have RECOURSE against unpleasent surprises or twists of fate.

I don't know that I would particularly like to be in such a scheme as renting/leasing the battery, but I don't think it's such a farfethed model, particularly from a psychological point of view. Let's say you rent/lease a particular battery pack for 3 months and then you trade it in and get a new one. But what happens if one day you experience complete battery failure (no explosion, it just doesn't work)? Probably one of three things...

1) You drive the car to wherever you exchange the battery (under gasoline power of course), you exchange the battery and go on your merry way. Lickety-split, no fuss no muss.

2) You drive the car to wherever you exchange the battery (under gasoline power of course), you exchange the battery, for which you are charged a nominal early exchange penulty or a pro-rated monthly charge of some kind, and go on your slightly less merry way.

3) You are under no circumstances allowed to exchange your battery early, so you just drive under gasoline power until your next scheduled exchange, which can't be more than 3 months away. The environment and your pocket book incur a little damage, but you're still mobile.

I don't know the precise terms that would be used in a rental scheme engineered by Chevy, but in the scheme as I mentioned it, in your probable 5 - 7 years of owning this vehicle you will pay for batteries, and you may even have trouble with those batteries, but you will never get saddled with a big fat $5000 battery replacement bill, which is what a lot of people fear. And with that fear out of the way, a lot more people might be likely to buy a hybrid. People won't realize that the rental fees will probably add up to about the same if not more than a simple one time battery replacement because it's spread out over time (and it does protect you against the unlikely event of MULTIPLE battery failures costing you a fortune). But in the end everyone DRIVES HOME happy.

It might be sneaky, underhanded, and an abuse of applied psychology, but that doesn't mean it can't be a profitable business model...

[Icon149 @ Aug 15th 2007 1:12PM]

Sounds pretty good to me, makes the battery replacment cost a part of your monthly payment (easy to budget) and makes a 5 year old Volt easier to sell, (who wants to buy a used car and then get hit with $5,000 battery replacement cost). Or a car that no longer gets the promised range because the batteries are old and outdated. That is huge piece of mind for the resale value and used car crowd! not gonna lie to you, if chevy prices this program right, it is probably a win win. no expensive suprises for consumer, steady predicatable income for GM.

[Andrew @ Aug 15th 2007 1:22PM]

Um... You guys are all missing the point. The rental program for the batteries isn't about insurance, it's about lowering the initial cost of the car. GM realizes that most of its customers won't be willing to put down $90k for an car (as in the tesla roadster). Instead of that you pay $30-$40k for the car and rent the battery. It's actually a really practical concept because the money you will be saving on gas should end up paying for the rent fees on the batteries.

[Mark @ Aug 15th 2007 1:24PM]

Here's what I think:

People will save a lot of money when compared to buying gas. Also, there is a huge peace of mind when you know the price of the battery will be the same, or lower, in the future when it needs to be replaced. The price of gas will always go up and down, so it is more difficult to budget for it. It will be a lot easier to budget with when dealing with battery pack rentals.

[dj-kenpo @ Aug 15th 2007 3:50PM]

this is great, becuase it means continued INCOME and revenue for GM.

with gas, there was none, except for bribs. this might be the push for GM or other companies using th same model to tell the oil companies where to stick it. they might not be the oil companies bitches anymore if they ahve gauranteed revenue.

this is far, far better than simply buying the batter, both for the consumer (psycologically) AND the company (psycologically).

I would buy this right away if gm does it.


especially, watch "who killed the electric car" less parts break down, and the parts that do are cleaner, simpler, etc. this is a win for the consumer in more than simply Gas cost...

[Linkdead @ Aug 15th 2007 4:20PM]

10 years of life out of those A123 cells...they are joking right? The people using these cells now in high stress applications are not getting this kind of life. A123 themselves only claim 15,000 cycles when used at 85 percent capacity, thats not going to translate to 10 years of commuter miles.

As soon as these cars start gaining popularity, taxes will appear on them to offset the tax es on gasoline. The cost of transportation will never be free.

Also consider where you electricity is coming from. Very few places in the country have eco-friendly power production. So instead of burning gasoline to power your car, you'll be burning tons of coal to power your "Eco-friendly" electric car.

[JRo @ Aug 16th 2007 9:18AM]

I'm not too darn concerned about getting 10 years out of these batteries. My so-called "reliable" Toyota 4Runner only lasted 5 years before going tits-up. I think most Americans are used to ditching their cars every 5 years. I'd expect to do the same with a battery.

[esteban @ Aug 15th 2007 4:43PM]

i Don't know if someone already said this, but Im wondering, what if car manufactures design cars that could have the battery swapped out in the same amount of time that it takes to fuel up a car? Catch My drift? So you could have two ways of getting juice to your car, one, plug it in and charge it while it's in your garage or at work, secondly if you need to go a longer trip, you could pull into a battery station, which would have fresh sets of replacement batteries that you could switch out your de-charged ones with. You will never own the batteries, instead the battery stations would, they would also be responsible for servicing the batteries, to make sure that they are always in optimal condition. These battery stations could be outfitted with solar panels, and wind-mills which would supply the power to the batteries, so there is absolutely no carbon emissions from charging the batteries, and any surplus electricty would be pumped back into the grid.

[mr friggles @ Aug 16th 2007 2:30AM]

I gotta agree with the first poster. GM doesn't want people remembering the EV1 massacre so instead of strictly leasing the car you buy it and lease the battery. If the oil companies decide its too much of a dent in profits they have GM cancel all leases and force people to either return the batteries or pay some huge ridiculous amount.
GM = GenerallyMalevolent

[Nathan @ Aug 15th 2007 7:47PM]

Moron.

[mr friggles @ Aug 15th 2007 8:22PM]

Show where my logic is flawed before you start putting yourself down.

[WhyNotV2 @ Aug 16th 2007 8:22AM]

Someone mentioned it lowering the cost and why it will be more appealing than the $90k Tesla. Just to point a few things out about that...the $90k Tesla is a fully electric car that has a fuel equivilent range of approximately 300 miles per charge where the Volt, has an approximate range of 40 miles on electric power. The Tesla has a top speed in excess of 120 MPH, the Volt, 80MPH. Being fully electric, the Tesla won't step all over itself during acceleration, where the Volt will sputter between combustion and electric and a combination of both. The Tesla's $90K price (actually it's gone up a few thousand recently, or atleast phase 2 has increased) is only an intro price. As soon as they are able to mass market them and when the sedan is introduced, the price will come down. Unlike GM, Ford and Toyota, Tesla doesn't have a full automotive stable to rely on and to sumpliment cash from. No existing assembly lines, parts bins, etc. They're only half in bed with Lotus and not getting much of anything from them. The folks at Tesla are estimating/envisioning the sedan version to be in the $45-50K range. IF they can deliver what they are saying and make it look good (which I have every confidence in it looking good), I'll be in line to buy one.

[JRo @ Aug 16th 2007 9:30AM]

Also, I think you're confused about the Volt's propulsion system. It too is 100% electric-driven. Sure, there's a combustion engine inside, but it doesn't drive the car. It just recharges the batteries during operation to extend the range to 650 miles (much further than the range of a Tesla Roadster, for 1/3 the price).

If you're waiting to buy a Tesla for that price, you'll be waiting for a while. "Whitestar" (Teslas follow-up to the Roadster) has been said that it will be half the price, so we're talking $45K. It will be well past 2010 before Tesla has anything roadworthy for under $30k.

[WhyNotV2 @ Aug 17th 2007 9:53AM]

"...plug-in cars are designed to allow short trips powered entirely by the electric motor, using a battery that can be charged through an electric socket at home.

GM is designing the highly-anticipated Volt to run about 65km on battery power alone, reducing or even eliminating the need for drivers to fuel up an on-board gasoline-powered engine provided as a backup power source."

Keywords here are "allow short trips powered entirely by the electric motor" which leads one to believe that the vehicle is still dependant on the combustion engine.

Then the second paragraph I pulled from the article flat out again leads one to believe that the gasoline engine is required.

Nowhere does it say that the gas engine will allow the Volt to travel 650 miles without being plugged in to recharge the batteries. Why would Chevy come out and state 40-ish miles if it is indeed 650? Chevy's Volt website doesn't state the 650 mile number you do. Though regardless, the Chevy still would then be relying on an IC engine and thus creating tail pipe emmissions.

The thing with the Volt is that it is an improvement on the current generation of hybrid vehicles available to the general public today. By having the ability to plug it in, it eliminates the need for as much fuel as the Prius, Altima, Civic, etc. Like Chevy says, the average commuter would do fine with a 40mpg equivilent charge.

All in all, the Volt is one step closer to a greener alternative fuel vehicle, but it's still only a bandage.

As for "Whitestar" being 45k, I said that already :)

[WhyNotV2 @ Aug 17th 2007 10:08AM]

Okay, I found the 650-mile thing...

"At the start of your trip, you can drive approximately 40 miles on your charged electric battery. Then the range-extending power source will automatically come on to recharge the battery as required so that you can keep driving with either gasoline, E85 or biodiesel.

A trip like this will give you an estimated 50 equivalent miles per gallon using gasoline. Driving range between fill-ups could be as much as an outstanding 640 miles.(1)

(1)Actual range may vary depending on driving habits and driving conditions. Fuel economy estimates based on GM simulation data."


Regardless, it's still 40miles on a single charge before the IC kicks in to recharge the battery. All in all, like I said, a "better" hybrid vehicle than the current generation of hybrids on the market currently.

[JRo @ Aug 16th 2007 9:23AM]

I dunno where you're getting 80mph top speed for the Volt. According to Autobloggreen.com, it's 120mph (for a limited duration):

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/01/07/detroit-auto-show-full-specifications-on-the-chevy-volt/

[WhyNotV2 @ Aug 17th 2007 10:08AM]

I swear I read it on the link from clicking on the image. After going back, it's no longer there. My bad, I had read the article about the Chinese EV just before it. My appologies for that.

[L Register @ Aug 17th 2007 8:26AM]

I find GM's serious attempt to screw the public AGAIN totally unacceptable. There's no reason for them to 'rent' batteries. If a person chooses to 'buy' a car instead of 'leasing' a car, then they should OWN the batteries. It would be up to the owner to keep them up/chagrged - whatever. GM - along with ALL auto manufacturers have STOLLEN a lot of money from the public - maybe it's time they give some back!

[CA08X @ Aug 21st 2007 12:52AM]

After reading some of the comments I can tell you when it comes to the Electric Vehicles and Hybrid Vehicles there is an answer right now for that, having a good Battery Set-Up and the Technology behind it there would not be any stopping in your travel, this is the answer to the World's problem and we have it.