Print 77 comment(s) - last by ThePooBurner.. on Apr 22 at 5:42 PM

Interior and exterior views of the Cadillac Converj concept-- according to a new report, the Converj has received the go-ahead for production and will hit the streets in 2011. It could be GM's first profitable electric vehicle and is expected to have more power than the Chevy Volt.  (Source: Motor Trend)
GM gets the second entry in its electric armada ready as it faces troubling times

When it comes to GM, it’s hard to remove its financial predicament from news of its tech developments.  However, assuming that it can survive, GM has approved production of the Cadillac Converj according to a recent report.

Though some have poked fun at the name, the Converj has been quite popular ever since it was introduced as a Volt-derivative plug-in Cadillac concept at the North American International Auto Show 2009 in January.  The model seemed a logical move -- the Volt's production price is well above that of an average Chevy, but closer to that of a luxury brand model -- like a Cadillac.  By essentially re-releasing the Volt with luxury styling, the cost of deploying the Volt could be offset somewhat with an even pricier model under the Cadillac umbrella.

The vehicle has received official go-ahead from GM according a report from Motor Trend.  GM reportedly plans to unleash it on the roads in 2011 making it a 2012 model year vehicle.  Sources say that the Converj could even be the first profitable electric vehicle -- a major victory for GM, and a big boost in getting federal approval of their revised restructuring/bailout proposal, due June 1.

The source at GM says that the Converj will be followed up by a people-mover/crossover utility based on the Voltec (Volt) architecture. 

A GM spokesperson denied both comments, saying that no changes had been made with the Converj or other models.  However, Motor Trend stands by its source, stating.  The publication points out that the drivetrain (lithium-ion battery pack and 1.4L four-cylinder engine) could be largely reused from the Volt, with more battery mass added to give it more power.  The main work would be working an all-new sheetmetal and interior.

The new production model will reportedly be a two-door coupe, like the concept.  This is different from the 4-door with hidden handles version that retiring product chief Bob Lutz suggested.  The height of the production vehicle will also have to be tweaked to make production financially feasible.

The source says that they believe the Buick brand is a likely target for the people-mover.  GMC is another branding possibility.  The Voltec CUV would have two to three rows of seats

GM is continuing to make efforts to grow its profitable brands as it reluctantly agrees to kill other ones, as part of its restructuring -- including Saturn, Saab, and Hummer, according current expectations and reports.  GM has also entered into a partnership with Segway to release new light electric two-wheelers for urban streets.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: expensive but
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 4/15/2009 1:12:01 PM , Rating: -1
Accept diesel electric locomotives have been around for decades. All this concept does it add batteries into the equation, and a plug. So I don't imagine there was any new anything on this model, except GM wanting to soak the consumer through the government tax credit.

GM: How much for the tax credit?
Gov: $7,500.00 per vehicle.
Consumer: How much for the Volt?
GM: uuuuum, $40,000.00. Yeah, that's the ticket.

RE: expensive but
By Jeffk464 on 4/15/2009 2:43:33 PM , Rating: 1
I think its going to cost $40,000 but drop down to around $30,000ish with the government subsidies. Subsidies are not all bad and encourage new technologies until they are profitable. Windpower was subsidized for years and is now getting profitable.

RE: expensive but
By Keeir on 4/15/2009 3:06:55 PM , Rating: 3
Windpower was subsidized for years and is now getting profitable.

Sorry, but this is really untrue.

Windpower is still produced at roughly 10-15 cents per kWH wholesale price. Its true, this is down sigificantly from early costs in the 20 cents+ kWH prices, but its far "from profitable".

Some companies are making money because of government subsidies combined with regulation that force power company to have purchase "pollution free" power regardless of price.

Windpower (or any renewable power source) really shouldn't be considered economical until it approaches the wholesale prices of coal/current Nuclear plants.. which is around 4-5 cents per kWH (Heck, the Palo Verde On Peak Spot is just 2.41 cents per kWH right now). Until that occurs, in the free market, the Windpower would not be "profitable".

RE: expensive but
By Oregonian2 on 4/15/2009 6:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
Depends what you do with that windpower.

Here in Oregon, at least the biggie electric company (PGE) sells green power to customers (including residential) at a higher cost than for their "regular" power.

Customers (such as myself) are sent forms about every year or so to option that wind power in our bill.

Don't recall what they charge for it, but it might be profitable for them at those higher prices.

P.S. - If windpower is sold on the wholesale market for 10 cents/kwh, I'd assume then that the producer is making a profit off of that which they charge even if the wholesale customer isn't (presumably buying it because a government law requires it).

RE: expensive but
By Keeir on 4/15/2009 7:03:50 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, no, I mispoke

The DOE in 2007 estimated costs for wind to be between 10 to 15 cents per kWH. Its hard to really understand the costs of wind power unless a firm grip on expected lifespan of wind turbines is known... which is still an unknown. I don't have access to data of a particular wind company, so I will assume the DOE estimates are "reasonable".

Yes, its true, but at the same time, using the DOE estimates, wind power would need to be priced between 8 to 10 cents higher than the other power to "break even" for the power company. Often times a power company with seperate power prices leaves the cost of infrastructure and billing on the older coal/nuclear/hydro power rather than fully charge it on the renewable. Obviously there are company that do not do this, but given the US average premium for "green" power, it seems the only way it can be acchieved.

PS. Its not really profitable for society. Its wealth transfer forced by regulation and as I understand not the goal of subsidies driven theory to create industries that only exist due to regulation. IE the original poster "Since we subsidies wind in the past, we now do not need to subsidize a the industry as it makes its own profits"

RE: expensive but
By Black69ta on 4/16/2009 1:01:11 AM , Rating: 1
And original Computers took up a whole room. Just because Locomotives use Diesel generators doesn't mean that the technology is small enough to be feasible in a passenger car.

“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki