Bob Lutz: $5k-7k for “very complex, very sophisticated†two-mode hybrid system -- 25 and 30% fuel

A further demonstration of the reasons why GM will continue sliding to oblivion.

The first company to adapt HSD to busses and trucks will own those markets.

 

Toyota's HSD is a clever, almost simple system. Toyota's biggest PARTS cost is probobly the batteries. GM's system is so complex the transmission is probobly as expensive as the batteries. Making it in large numbers will reduce the cost but not as much as what happens when battery supply catches up with demand on the HSD.

Electric motors can be made quite cheaply. Toyotas electronics are going to reduce in price, and the gearset while a precision device is just not expensive to make.


Right now if I were GM I would make Saturn style BAS system standard on as many vehicles as I could, its not a great system but its cheap and it does provide a reasonable mpg gain for its cost. Finally its something GM can actually do.

 

The interesting thing in that article to me is where he says:

“Toyota has said, economically, hybrids make no sense. The reduction in fuel [consumption] does not pay for the technological content and cost of the vehicle so therefore economically it remains fairly nonsensical, so that’s the left-brain analytical argument."

I'd really like to see a citation for where Toyota said that because I have significant doubts, that the quote is quite accurate or complete. I suspect a few liberties were taken somewhere.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(richard schumacher @ Jul 23 2006, 07:36 AM) [snapback]290930[/snapback]</div>

That is counterproductive; any effort made to improve large utilty vehicle mileage needs to be encouraged.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tempus @ Jul 23 2006, 10:27 AM) [snapback]290945[/snapback]</div>

I'm sure that was indeed true... back in 1994 when the hybrid development began. Geez! How cheap was gas back then? And what importance was the reduction of smog-related emissions so far in the past.

Talking about leading you to believe something but not telling you it is no longer valid. Heck, a quote like that could have easily survived all the way to the end of the THS availability (2003). But now, the world is quite different. Gas is much more expensive. Emissions are considered more important. Battery technology continues to improve. So that "has said" holds little merit anymore.

As for the Lutz attitude, GM has little chance of succeeding. No wonder they only plan to deliver 83,000 of the two-mode system by 2010. At least they are being sincere about their effort having a political and public relations focus. But to use the words "doubtful" and "expensive" without any reference to perspective is just plain wrong. That was the case for Toyota originally. It isn't anymore though.

Oh well. It is entertaining to watch an automaker self-destruct. Witnessing denial on that scale is hard to believe. But there it is.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tempus @ Jul 23 2006, 11:27 AM) [snapback]290945[/snapback]</div>

Not quite the quote you want, but something similar:

 

“Assuming we can do all that, [for] a diesel hybrid you would be adding $US5-7,000 on-cost for the sophisticated hybrid system to the $5-7,000 on-cost for a Bin 5-compliant diesel. Now you’ve got a $12-14,000 cost penalty in the vehicle which the customer would simply never, ever [pay].â€


Hmm, I see a lot of $45-55K trucks and SUVs out there now; does he mean that the diesel+hybrid ________would cost $57-69K?

And if they only use a flex-fuel engine, vice the diesel, then the range is back to $50-60K..

Sounds doable to me, judging from the market that they are addressing anyway.


Shigeyuki Hori quote waswas said 8 August 2005:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/toy...3353208622.html

 

Shigeyuki Hori stated in or about 5 August 2005:


http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/toy...3353208622.html

 

Should we listen to ANYTHING GM has to say?

My wife once owned a Chevy station wagon. The transmission was constantly breaking down. Once when the transaxle broke, a dealership insisted on waiting a week to even begin repairs (for "authorization") even though the car was still under warranty. The original dealership sold her an extended warrantry from some 3rd-party company which immediately (and conveniently) went "bankrupt". She finally had to junk the car after just 70,000 miles.

Is it any wonder we will never ever buy from GM again? And now we are supposed to listen to anything GM has to say about hybrids?

Unlike GM cars, Toyota cars work.

 

Well, one vehicle does not a reputation make, else my Honda Hybrid would have forced Honda to close its doors and the CEO to commit seppuku;-)

My experience with US made cars, and GM cars in particular has been good. Reliable as a train, and when there was a repair to be made (like when Ford replaced the transmission in my SHO and gave me a loaner), it was at no cost or effort on my part.

Unlike Honda's refusal to even look at defective brakes, Ford replaced all 4 disks when one was warped.

The starter motor died in my 1971 Corolla after one year; out of warranty.

The worst car was the 1974 Renault that would suddenly refuse to start.

I have always been an efficiency 'junky', so at this point, GM's offerings have little to offer me. At the same time, Honda has nothing to offer me either, as they don't offer a midsize hybrid hatchback.