Chevrolet Spark EV

[SanDust]

I jotted down a few statements Nissan has made over the years. They certainly cannot be held accountable for everything, but it's interesting to hear this with the benefit of hindsight.

I'm good with Nissan engineering. Nissan marketing? Not so much. My fav is how marketing not only hypes the range but hypes it based on 100% charging. Once you buy the car you find out it's recommended that you only charge it to 80%.

On some of the stuff you have to give them a pass. It was all new. On the other hand, some of the stuff, like the range, they had to have known was BS.

I think a lot of this is due to Emperor Carlos. He seems to be more than a bit autocratic. My impression is that if you don't give him the answer he wants then you're gone. As a consequence everyone runs around spouting what they think he wants to hear, regardless of its accuracy.

 

[SanDust]

Where you planning on taking a Leaf or Sparky on an interstate trip?.. probably not. Nothing wrong with a city car, that is the environment most of us drive in.

I wouldn't take the Leaf on an interstate trip but I would and do take it on the interstate. No problems there. Not so sure about Sparky. Have to see it in person but it looks really small, too small for me to be comfortable taking in on the interstate.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

this was announced by GM in Jan. but pretty sure it was supposed to be a MUCH larger market before. sorry to see they are cutting back their plans.

its like an abortion. cutting the EVs chance before even one is sold. can only hope the success of the CA market will encourage them to go nationwide

**edit** ooops make that jan 2009. cant read about it..at least not for free.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090111/AUTO04/901110312" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

was supposed to be released in Europe 2011 with NATIONWIDE US release to be announced. funny how plans change

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

I will be more curious if the Spark outsells the Volt.

its very possible the Spark will have much more demand and larger potential market, but it will never outsell the Volt. Chevy will see to that

 

[TRONZ]

Well the most important thing about the Spark entry is that its arrival will NOT be in an EV vacume (like the EV1). GM could make up whatever story they wanted since those cars were unique. But there will be almost a dozen BEV's running around by the time Spark gets here. The comparisons will come fast and my bet is it will compare best with the iMiev. GM is setting the bar pretty low though. I mean around the time the Spark arrives, Nissan is gonna shove an Electric Sports Car and Infinity EV right up GM's you know what!

BTW mods - You guys should start an Official General Motors thread to help GM Product threads stay OT.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

nope, and I think the U.S. should have let them go bankrupt, we wouldn't be in much worse shape than we already are, and we wouldn't have to deal with them any longer, so instead, we bankrupt the entire country?

Don't agree. Don't agree at all.

Bankrupt GM would have meant collapse of the Auto industry in the US (as all the parts manufacturers would have gone bankrupt). The money lost just in income tax from all that would have been higher than the small amount paid to support GM.

Supporting GM was a neccessary evil.

Free enterprise would have stepped up to fill the void left by their absence, it always has, and always will. It's not the governments job to bail out private business's, even ones deemed "to critical to let fail"

Sorry, you are blinded by ideology. 2008 crash was a result of free enterprise - it has now been discredited. Even Alan Greenspan, a groupie of Ayn Rand, said as much.

letting a company go that does not really benefit me being a mistake? well, yes and no. GM is simply too big to have a single right answer.

we blew our chance to control GM development. when we gave them money essentially untethered to specific product goal, namely green tech. now, letting them go bankrupt will allow free market to fill the void... in about 10 years.

fact of the matter; our economy is not currently strong enough to weather a hit like that. so it is partly the "lesser of two evils" but executed poorly and Bush is to blame.

he started it!!

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

so if I was so off the mark... why did Ford survive? They
had UAW contracts.....

PS FUD is as FUD does...... :shock:

Ford realized in late 2006 that they had an unsustainable business model and starting cutting their costs. they sold most of their divested holdings, cut middle management costs by 60%. closed over 1000 non profitable dealerships (including the one my Sister worked for) and paid off all their debts.

all this happened 18 months before the market crashed.

at the time, they were considered to be one of the greediest cut-throat companies on the planet. they did those cuts when they still had a profit of several billion.

so, what do you think of them now?

obtw; because Ford was able to weather the storm (the storm is not over btw) or at least the worst part of it, my Sister was able to get another job at different dealership.

she went from Service Manager to Service Advisor. due to the commission structure, she is making a lot more money now than before.

 

[SanDust]

its very possible the Spark will have much more demand and larger potential market, but it will never outsell the Volt. Chevy will see to that

Ultimately GM wants to sell cars. You may care what type of car it sells but it doesn't. It could care less if it sells Sparks or Volts or Cruzes or Tahoes. The same BTW holds true for Nissan or any other car company. The primary mission is to sell cars, any cars, and make money. Keep in mind that the last big new category of vehicle introduced by Nissan was the Titan.

Will GM sell more Volts than Sparks? They're making 45K Volts per year and selling them in all fifty states. They're making 1K or 2K Sparks a year and selling them in a few selected states. Wonder how that will work out?

It doesn't follow, however, that GM is opposed to selling BEVs. At one point Mark Reuss, the head of GM NA, was asked if he thought the ultimate market would be larger for EREVs or BEVs. He equivocated but more or less indicated that he thought the market for BEVs would be larger. But that's then and this is now. In the now we have batteries which cost $500/kW and which have specific energy densities of 150 Wh/kg. This means BEVs will have limited markets. Just the reality and, BTW, the reason why Toyota isn't aggressively rolling out BEVs.

You seem to think that Nissan should be lauded for producing BEVs rather than EREVs. That's one way to look at it. But the truth is that Nissan isn't producing EREVs for the same reason Tesla isn't -- it doesn't have the technology. EREVs are incredibly complex to do. BEVs are relatively simple to do. If you're BMW and pride yourself on having the best technology, and you're strong in technology, then EREVs are the way to go, if you can pull it off. Alternatively you can do what BYD has done and just come up with a serial hybrid. That works but it's not terribly desirable from a product standpoint. In all these cases it ultimately comes down to what you want to do and what you can do. I give credit to Nissan for understanding its limitations and making lemonade out of lemons, but I don't think selling a more limited product makes Nissan a better company or, for that matter, a morally superior one.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

You seem to think that Nissan should be lauded for producing BEVs rather than EREVs. That's one way to look at it. But the truth is that Nissan isn't producing EREVs for the same reason Tesla isn't -- it doesn't have the technology.

oh?? there is no response that i can say to that. because that comment illustrates an alarming level of clueless assumptions that you somehow know Nissan's best options for maintaining a profitable business model.

to include Tesla in that comment is more than adequate reinforcement of my statement above

 

[evnow]

What are various thoughts that there are similar GM BEV vehicles named below in very populous and mass vehicle selling places like China and India? It would seem that the Spark is not such a new start up type of BEV and they are being a smart global business here.

There are no "similar GM BEV vehicles". All those mentioned are concepts (in the case of Beat EV, developed along with Reva before Mahindra bought Reva).

Anyway, what has all that got to do with the apparent reality that in US this would be a small volume CARB play ?

 

[scottf200]

What are various thoughts that there are similar GM BEV vehicles named below in very populous and mass vehicle selling places like China and India? It would seem that the Spark is not such a new start up type of BEV and they are being a smart global business here.

There are no "similar GM BEV vehicles". All those mentioned are concepts (in the case of Beat EV, developed along with Reva before Mahindra bought Reva).
Anyway, what has all that got to do with the apparent reality that in US this would be a small volume CARB play ?

It seems that you would put resources and efforts in the parts of the world that you would benefit most from in the long term (within a decade) as a good business strategy. i.e. the other mentioned vehicles that I assumed to be farther along than the Spark.

If you were going to pick one state to have the best chance (lot of progressive thinking and EV friendly) and environment (year around temps limit kWh usage for TMS) then CA is a natural smart business choice.

 

[scottf200]

Also related to this new BEV discussion I read this article that mentions Fords plans.

chevrolet-spark-ev-with-a123-nanophosphate-lithium-ion-batteries
http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/10/chevrolet-spark-ev-with-a123-nanophosphate-lithium-ion-batteries.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ford may be the first carmaker to sell 100,000 cars annually that includes lithium batteries. When I lasted interviewed Nancy Gioia, Director Ford Global Electrification, she said that Ford has a 2020 goal of 10 to 25 percent of its vehicle sales including lithium batteries. Her best guess is that:
- 70% would be hybrids,
- 20 to 25% plug-in hybrids, and
- 5 to 10% battery-electric.

 

[Smidge204]

Ultimately GM wants to sell cars.

Could've fooled me...

Rather than produce vehicles the market actually wants, they manipulate the market to accept what they produce. That's completely backwards from how a successful business model should work, and that's why they're failing as a company.
=Smidge=

 

[mitch672]

Ultimately GM wants to sell cars.

Could've fooled me...

Rather than produce vehicles the market actually wants, they manipulate the market to accept what they produce. That's completely backwards from how a successful business model should work, and that's why they're failing as a company.
=Smidge=

+1, and I said this a few pages ago as well something about making cars people want to buy...

 

[scottf200]

Ultimately GM wants to sell cars.

Could've fooled me...Rather than produce vehicles the market actually wants, they manipulate the market to accept what they produce. That's completely backwards from how a successful business model should work, and that's why they're failing as a company.=Smidge=

Actually are they doing quite well?

http://investor.gm.com/sales-production/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In September, year-over-year passenger car sales increased 12 percent, crossover sales increased 7 percent and truck sales, which include full-size pickups and SUVs, increased 34 percent.

• Chevrolet : In September, its 12th month since going on sale, Cruze deliveries were 18,097 units, bringing its first full year of sales to 212,019 vehicles. Silverado sales increased 36 percent, Tahoe was up 63 percent and Equinox was up 33 percent.
  GMC : Sales have now increased for 24 consecutive months, year over year. Sierra sales were up 26 percent, Terrain sales were up 45 percent and Yukon was up 45 percent.
  Cadillac : Combined sales of the Cadillac CTS sedan, coupe and wagon increased 24 percent compared with September 2010. In addition, the Cadillac SRX was up 22 percent. Cadillac reduced its fleet sales by 54 percent.
  Buick : September was the brand’s 24th consecutive month of year-over-year sales gains, with the Regal continuing to build momentum with sales up 87 percent. Enclave, which began the transformation of Buick, increased its sales by 10 percent.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

an increase in sales for GM means what??

1) they are doing well

2) they are not SUCKING as much this year as they were last

neither addresses GM's lack of initiative in creating a better product for a better future

 

[hodad66]

boy the FUD just keeps rolling on......

the Repuglican machine has American pit against American in
a battle of anger, jealousy & foolishness.

unions didn't cause the "crash", public workers didn't cause
this mess, teachers didn't destroy the economy, abortion
hasn't caused outsourcing. gun rights haven't saved the
nation's future.

One major AMERICAN manufacturer saved & repaid but here
we sit arguing a bunch of FUD spread by the "right" machine
to keep us divided.

hallelujah..... the true believers trudge on.

 

[smkettner]

unions didn't cause the "crash",

How much did GM get from the goverment? What was the payment to the union for legacy costs in BK?

Both should have been ZERO.

 

[hodad66]

your viewpoint which I don't agree with... oh well.

how has the middle class earnings fared these last few decades?

the class warfare has been going on for all this time with money
buying our government and screwing the common man.

Wall Street finds new ways to create money from nothing, the
Repuglicans remove long standing regulations and off we go to
the new wild west. Last time this sort of inequity was prevalent
was before the "great" depression.

Look at tax levels then.... seem familiar?

pawns and dullards.....

 

[dgpcolorado]

Ford realized in late 2006 that they had an unsustainable business model and starting cutting their costs. they sold most of their divested holdings, cut middle management costs by 60%. closed over 1000 non profitable dealerships (including the one my Sister worked for) and paid off all their debts.

all this happened 18 months before the market crashed.

at the time, they were considered to be one of the greediest cut-throat companies on the planet. they did those cuts when they still had a profit of several billion.

so, what do you think of them now?

obtw; because Ford was able to weather the storm (the storm is not over btw) or at least the worst part of it, my Sister was able to get another job at different dealership.

she went from Service Manager to Service Advisor. due to the commission structure, she is making a lot more money now than before.

In addition to the things you mention, the main thing Ford did right was arranging for a large line of credit prior to the 2008 financial meltdown. Whether they were just lucky or prescient, I couldn't say. But it allowed them to keep the lights on and to ride out the storm when car sales plummeted. GM and Chrysler didn't have the resources to keep going: they needed money coming in from car sales to keep operating because the usual short term borrowing sources, used to fund day-to-day activities, were frozen. GM was further hampered by huge losses from its finance arm, GMAC, as someone mentioned above. With the credit markets frozen, the governments (USA and Canada) stepped in as lenders of last resort and forced the restructuring of GM and Chrysler, wiping out the shareholders.

As one of the GM shareholders who was wiped out, it rankles when the "new GM" crows about its profits, since some of them came from my pocket. Nevertheless, GM is an important part of the economy and I hope that it remains a going concern, although I disagree with their apparent policies wrt EVs. But I doubt that I will be inclined to purchase a GM car any time soon...