GM reaffirms commitment to 2010 Volt launch

Although we haven't noticed an atypical resurgence in doubters, General Motors' Bob Lutz apparently has. The exec has come forward and stated that the 2010 timeline for its much-anticipated Chevy Volt is still valid, despite the fact that employees working on the vehicle are "becoming increasingly nervous." While speaking at the Reuters Autos Summit in Detroit, Lutz also noted that there was "a lot of skepticism within the company," but that those in leadership roles firmly believe that it "has to be done." More specifically, GM is hoping to "leapfrog anything that is done by any other competitor," and while we're delighted to hear that the commitment is still strong, three years offers up a lot of time for situations to change.

[Image courtesy of WindingRoad]

[pooptypeuptypants @ Nov 21st 2007 10:44AM]

"that those in leadership roles firmly believe" - oh, well then ok, should be no problem pumping out this vehicle by 2010. in what industry do "those in leadership roles" every have a clue as to what it takes to really get things out the door? if the people who are working on it are nervous and looking at each other like wtf are we doing? i'd say its a sure bet that this thing won't see the light of day for some time. its ugly as sin anyway - especially compared to the Tesla.

[CraigJ @ Nov 21st 2007 11:11AM]

Agreed. This is the reason I left product management to get back into development. Some VP saying we have to have this product with these features by this date... of course, lack of resources and tools was never accounted for. You tell them that it isn't going to happen, but they don't want to hear that, then it slips and heads roll. Executive management suffers from a serious case of cranial rectal inversion.

[David Clark @ Nov 21st 2007 11:35AM]

No. Lutz in no way will get things out the door by 2010. What's important is that he's not doing anything to _stop_ this thing from getting out the door by 2010. That's what is important.

[Flashpoint @ Nov 21st 2007 11:38AM]

The Tesla's fenders and body arching makes it look like a cross between a 300c and a Cadillac CTS

Judging by the size of the people next to it, it is going to be TOO SMALL - probably comparible to the Cadillac XLR.

I can't wait till they make a car the size of the Chrysler 300 that's enery efficient.

[Flashpoint @ Nov 21st 2007 11:38AM]

The Tesla's fenders and body arching makes it look like a cross between a 300c and a Cadillac CTS

Judging by the size of the people next to it, it is going to be TOO SMALL - probably comparible to the Cadillac XLR.

I can't wait till they make a car the size of the Chrysler 300 that's enery efficient.

[superfresh @ Nov 21st 2007 12:35PM]

I agree. That design will be offputting to a lot of people.

Seriously, I love how U.S. auto manufacturers act like they're trying to create something that only exists in theory. The Toyota Camary was number one for a reason: it had a design, feature set, and price that appealed to a large number of people.

GM, green technology is not some special feature, like a sport package. WE NEED THIS TECHNOLOGY TO SAVE THE PLANET. Release an environmentally friendly vehicle with a simple design under $20K and get your fucking shit in gear.

[johnzilla @ Nov 21st 2007 2:21PM]

@pooptypeuptypants

You obviously have no clue whatsoever about Bob Lutz's background.

[Ellianth @ Nov 21st 2007 6:44PM]

Man I'm becoming so distant from my fellow Engadget readers. I think that car looks really cool and nice :S.

[DT @ Nov 21st 2007 10:51AM]

I'm sure GMs tanking stock price has nothing to do with this announcement...

[Loban @ Nov 21st 2007 11:01AM]

Oh boy, this kind of thinking leads to really bad things. Management telling the outside world that something will happen in a certain amount of time, when the engineers know full well it's impossible. I'm an engineer, I've seen this sooo many times. It's management's job to promise the impossible and force the engineers to release a sub-par product. But as long as it's on schedule, who cares right? This is why code is never documented well (because the engineers never have the time), and electronics on vehicles are having so many problems these days. Management forces the release of a product before it's ready.

[constantnormal @ Nov 21st 2007 1:29PM]

I'm an engineer also, and wonder if you have any idea of how long a new vehicle development cycle is. Do you really think that it takes Honda or Toyota (or GM) 4 years to bring a new model to market? That the 2008 model year vehicles being currently rolled out were started back in 2004? With the exception of the large-scale use of lithium battery technology on the scale required for a car, there is absolutely NOTHING in the GM Volt that is revolutionary or in uncharted waters. Granted, they have been very ingenious in combining existing concepts in the design of the Volt, but that is not the same as breaking new ground and doing things that have never been done before.

If it were my company, I would hedge my bets and offer two different battery technologies, the NiMH and the Lithium batteries. I would explore the use of ultracapacitors to reduce the stress of charge/discharge cycles in regenerative braking. Spend a couple of years testing those elements of the design, and the rest of the vehicle could be prepped for production in about 18 months. 2010 is a totally achievable milestone, a bit conservation in my opinion. GM runs the risk of having some other car company steal their thunder (and a good chunk of their sales) with an alternative plug-in hybrid design hitting the marketplace in the 2009 model year.

[Loban @ Nov 21st 2007 2:35PM]

No, I don't know anything vehicle development cycles. I'm work in the heavy equipment industry where some features take a decade or more to see the light. However, the fact that GM's own engineers are "becoming increasingly nervous" tells me GM is trying to push the Volt out the door maybe a little too quickly.

[johnzilla @ Nov 21st 2007 2:23PM]

@Loban:

You obviously have no clue whatsoever about Bob Lutz's background.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lutz

You should do some research before making judgements about peoples' experience.

[Fuzzball @ Nov 21st 2007 3:21PM]

@johnzilla

Looks like someone has been tooling around try to defend Lutz. I think he can defend himself just fine. If he succeeds in the 2010 rollout, kudos and congrats to him. If he doesn't in this small timeframe, a lot of the engineers on here would be proven right.

Just because I have x+ years in y position, doesn't mean I wont ever a head+rectum issue and fuck something up.

[billy @ Nov 21st 2007 11:03AM]

I GOT to see the volt in person, its really nice, check out a video of it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP9CCRaFKxM

[a_ashworth @ Nov 21st 2007 11:06AM]

I don't think one electric car will counteract the fact the rest of America is driving around in huge 4x4 petrol guzzlers, however that said its a step in the right direction.

[badenglishihave @ Nov 21st 2007 11:08AM]

Am I the only engineering/technical person that thought that the "2010 Volt" in the title was in reference to an electric potential?

[Jagannath A @ Nov 21st 2007 11:14AM]

if you were really a engineering/technical person you should have beforehand known about GM's Volt

[Dan @ Nov 21st 2007 11:09AM]

From a consumer point of view, I'm more excited for Volvo's C30 serial hybrid: http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/02/01/volvo-c30-plug-in-hybrid-concept/ (with a diesel engine in it you've got the possibility of using biodiesel too).

But from an environmental movement point of view, the sooner that a company as large as GM gets this out the door, the better.

[CraigJ @ Nov 21st 2007 11:23AM]

I want a plug-in Hybrid, and I want it ASAP. Diesel electric hybrid systems have been around for like 100 years. The GM EV1 had the basic technology needed for this. It had a range of 60 to 70 miles, with older battery technology. They had a functional regenerative braking system. Small, efficient diesel engines are well understood and cheap to manufacture. Seriously, why is this taking so damn long? If the battery technology is a problem, go with current technology and let me upgrade the battery pack later.

My neighbor built one of these Cobra kit cars back in 1995 that was powered by batteries and electric motors. He replaced most of the batteries with a generator and a small gas powered engine and was getting around 45 miles per gallon. He built this in his garage with off the shelf components and the car had serious acceleration.

Sometimes the stupidity and lack of foresight by these companies is just astounding.

/Rant

[mh @ Nov 21st 2007 11:16AM]

Death March.

[ksmith @ Nov 21st 2007 11:22AM]

someone's been drinking the ttac koolaid

[mlb @ Nov 21st 2007 11:18AM]

I would buy this tomorrow if it came out. I only live 4 miles from my work, so this would be great for me. I could cut my gas consumption to a fraction of what it is currently. Comeon GM, please don't let us down!

[Rob @ Nov 22nd 2007 9:49AM]

I'm in the same boat as you -- I don't put a lot of miles on my car, but I do want to drive something more environmentally friendly.

But the way I see it, if you don't drive much, I'm just not sure that buying a new car that gets better gas mileage is really a good thing for the planet (or your wallet). It takes a lot of energy to produce a new car, whereas keeping your old car running only requires the energy of gas.

Does anyone know where to find information that helps people like us figure out if it makes environmental sense to buy a more efficient vehicle? Perhaps for people like us, who don't drive much, lowering or consumption of new vehicles is the more green thing to do.

[chadow @ Nov 21st 2007 11:20AM]

It would nice if the US would allow foreign cars like the VW Lupo TDI to be imported until our US auto makers get their heads out of their a$$es when it comes to electrics and hybrids. While Bush tells us that 35 mpg by 2020 is "unattainable", that VW currently gets 78-99 mpg using regular diesel and a hundred year old tried and true technology.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E4DB1E38F935A2575AC0A9679C8B63

[mlb @ Nov 21st 2007 11:26AM]

The problem with this car, for me at least, is that it is too small. I am 6'5" and weigh 220 lbs. I couldn't get my bottom half in the Lupo, much less my whole body. I have to drive a full sized car just to fit comfortably.

[chadow @ Nov 21st 2007 11:38AM]

I know what you mean, I'm tall as well. My point is just that they have the ability RIGHT NOW to produce very high MPG vehicles and US automakers seem to have this "next big thing" mentality instead of just making what we have better in the meantime. The Polo is small, but VW also has the full size Passat, the Jetta, and the Golf using the larger TDI engine and they get as high as 55 mpg. In most cases that engine beats all available hybrids and performs better.

It just makes me sick because we know our automakers, oil companies, and politicians are all in bed together. Therefore they give us what they want us to have instead of what WE want.

[why not the LS2LS7? @ Nov 21st 2007 1:16PM]

Why should the government let you import a car that doesn't meet US emissions standards? If we want to allow cars to pollute more, we should change the laws to allow all automakers to pollute more, not allow people to sidestep them and give advantage to foreign car makers.

[Craig @ Nov 21st 2007 1:31PM]

Attention fatties: maybe if you WALKED or BIKED that 500 yards to KFC for your bucket of chicken you wouldn't be so fat that you can fit into a smaller, more efficient car!

[johnzilla @ Nov 21st 2007 2:38PM]

@chadow:

You have no clue about automakers. I work for one (not GM), and I can assure you there is no grand conspiracy to "hoodwink" the public into buying big, inefficient cars.

It takes $1 billion dollars to get a new vehicle ready for market from scratch, and even the fastest automakers need at least 24 months to do it, most of them 36 months. Imagine trying to spend $1 billion dollars effectively while having absolutely no way whatsoever of knowing for sure whether prospective buyers 3 years from now will be willing to buy the product.

Further, Americans don't want tiny cars, despite the media hype. The sales figures do not back up the hype. Car companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to build what they can sell, not what they feel people should buy or what the media claims people will buy.

Producing automobiles is a horribly complex task. You have to manage quality issues, currency fluctuations, hundreds of different suppliers, different regulations in various states, and even deal with patent and other licensing issues. Then, you have to predict what people will want 3 years from now, and figure out how to do that and do the more mundane things like pass crash tests, keep your labor force from walking out, and make sure you make enough money to turn around and fuel R&D for the next batch.

Anyone who seriously claims that automakers don't sell 50 mpg cars right now because of some sort of grand conspiracy is an idiot. Remember, Toyota just spent $1 billion on an assembly plant to do one thing: build big trucks. If Toyota is so smart, why did they spend $1 billion to do build something everyone says people don't want??

[chadow @ Nov 21st 2007 4:39PM]

@johnzilla
Please don't tell me I don't know anything about cars. I'm born and raised in Flint, MI and about 70% of my family works for either GM, Buick, or Chrysler. Now living in Detroit I can add about 15 more friends that work for the auto industry. Im no stranger to that industry.
I don't know where you are trying to go with your opinionated reply filled with your "facts". There were a lot of words, but it really said nothing. Oh, and I never said Americans want tiny cars. They want fuel efficient ones, and once gas hits $4.00 gallon they will demand it.

@why not...blah, blah LS2.
What the hell are you talking about? The VW Lupo and most other high mpg diesel engine vehicles pollute FAR less than anything we make here in the US. Whats more, for $800 you can add a bio diesel kit and run that as well with no hydrocarbon use or pollution.

[Che @ Nov 23rd 2007 4:31PM]

No thanks. I'm happy that the U.S. doesn't allow the import of deisels with particulate emissions that actually kill people. A little fuel savings don't really make up for the literally deadly emissions. You probably wish the US had allowed the sale of thalidamide back in the day: Hey, what's so wrong about a few kids with flippers instead of arms? I'll take our regulators over the European ones every time.

[Che @ Nov 23rd 2007 4:42PM]

Chadow,

Try reading and learning a bit about diesel emissions. You know nothing about the subject. Diesels have more harmful emissions than gasoline-powered cars, especially MUCH higher particulate emission. Always have, probably always will. "Biodiesel" usually has lower sulpher content and lower particulate emissions than current-generation fossil fuel diesel, but suggesting that any automotive fuel has zero emissions is just stupid.

Even if all you care about is net carbon dioxide emissions, you still don't have zero as long as some fuel is consumed in the production of the biodiesel. I've never seen the analysis on biodiesel, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the carbon dioxide relesed in producing a gallon of biodiesel exceeds that of burning a gallon of regular diesel.

[Flashpoint @ Nov 21st 2007 12:25PM]

I have a Chrysler 300 SRT8. The 300 and the Dodge Charger are HUGE for guys like us. Try one out.

I'm 6'7 350 lbs

[Hax Or @ Nov 21st 2007 11:35AM]

I know this will come out in 2010, here's why: Fleet MPG Averages.

Take me for instance, I make a pittance. But this allows the VP to make even more!

Likewise if they start selling a car that gets unlimited miles per gallon (since it requires no gas), the average MPG of all of their cars drops!

Then a big fat 2-ton SUV can be yours at the 10MPG doesn't matter to the fleet average.

[Jaymez @ Nov 21st 2007 11:46AM]

This is what the Camaro should look like. The planned desgin has been around for so long, it's already looking dated. As for the EV tech, don't get your hopes up just yet.

[palehorse @ Nov 21st 2007 11:52AM]

The Volt is actually one of the better looking electric cars I've seen. At least they realized that it doesnt need to look like a Jetsons bubble-mobile, are some modern engineering nightmare, to be electric!

That's a step forward given the ugliness of most hybrids and electrics in the past...

I still cant figure out why every green car so far has been so damn ugly...

[Jonathan Bergeron @ Nov 21st 2007 11:58AM]

Why is the world's largest auto manufacturer having a problem with making a battery powered car? While Tesla, which I'm pretty sure has only one car to it's name, is already selling a battery powered car.

It's disgusting how inefficient American car companies have become.

[opas lorare @ Nov 21st 2007 12:07PM]

looks a lot like the saab aero x, no?
http://www.leblogauto.com/images/saabaerox.jpg

[Zach @ Nov 21st 2007 1:54PM]

i agree

[Fuzzball @ Nov 21st 2007 3:25PM]

Dude, Saab is owned by GM. This wouldn't be the first time a car manufacturer has released the same car under different brand names.

[CharlesLanger @ Nov 21st 2007 12:25PM]

It's not 3 years to go, as the article states-- but more like half of that: 1½ years. If takes as long as 2 years, then the model year will be 2011 instead.

[noimagina @ Nov 21st 2007 12:39PM]

is this the same GM that "promised" fuel cell vehicles by 2004?? I call BS.

GM Promises 'Production Ready' Fuel Cell Vehicle by 2004

5 January 1998
GM Promises 'Production Ready' Fuel Cell Vehicle by 2004

WASHINGTON, Jan. 5 -- General Motors said today it will meet
the technical competition in fuel cell vehicles...

[AlexP @ Nov 21st 2007 8:03PM]

In 1998? No, it's not the same GM.

[Ben @ Nov 21st 2007 12:45PM]

copying cadillac style designs??
GM needs to stay GM it cant be Cadillac...

[Flashpoint @ Nov 21st 2007 2:45PM]

Your comment is stupid.
GM owns Chevy, GMC, Cadillac, and a bunch of other marques.

Cadillac is GM's top brand but Chevy is its best selling brand - followed by Buick in China.

[Ben @ Nov 22nd 2007 4:09PM]

i meant chevy sorry...
the sign on this car is chevy

[Thunderbuck @ Nov 21st 2007 1:04PM]

You'll have to forgive my continuing skepticism, Mr. Lutz. If this car actually makes it to market without a serious improvement in battery technology, it will NOT be for everyone.

Plug-in hybrids aren't such a bad idea, but employing a system where a combustion engine is only used to charge the batteries seems wasteful.

I'm also skeptical of how GM will attain market "leadership" here, given that there are already modified Prius plug-ins on the road, and Toyota has begun to research this as a product they may produce in-house. Other automakers have expressed plans to produce plug-ins, too, and these may well reach the market by 2010.

[Thunderbuck @ Nov 21st 2007 1:05PM]

Dude, Cadillac IS GM

[why not the LS2LS7? @ Nov 21st 2007 1:13PM]

Diesel engines are not clean enough to qualify (in the US) for any hybrid emissions credits/rebates, either to the company making them or the person buying them.

Diesel engines pollute as much as the average car outside the CARB area and are in the highest car pollution bracket in the CARB area.

So as long as emissions are important and part of the financial incentive formula, there will be limited interest by companies in making Diesel hybrids in the US.