backtop


Print 56 comment(s) - last by sorry dog.. on Nov 30 at 3:57 PM

Spark EV will come with an 8-year/100,000 mile battery warranty

We've talked about Chevrolet's Spark EV for quite some time. Over the past year, numerous details have been revealed about the vehicle. Most recently, it was revealed that the vehicle's 130hp/400 lb-ft torque electric motor was good enough to propel it to 60 mph in less than eight seconds.
 
Today, we've learned that General Motors has priced the vehicle at "under $25,000" when tax credits are taken into account. In other words, we're expecting that the vehicle will actually priced at $32,495 before the $7,500 federal tax credit is applied.
 
For comparison, the Nissan Leaf and Ford Focus Electric are priced at $35,200 and $39,995 respectively before the $7,500 federal tax credit kicks in. Depending on where you live, the Spark EV might also quality for state tax credits/rebates that would knock the price down even further.
 
According to GM, the Spark EV features a 560-pound lithium-ion battery pack that is warrantied for 8-years/100,000 miles. This should be enough to give peace of mind to customers who plan on keeping the vehicle for more than the typical 5-year loan period.
 
The Spark EV will also be the first vehicle that features SAE Combo DC Fast Charging capabilities. This allows the Spark EV to reach 80 percent of its charge within 20 minutes. Getting recharging times down to reasonable levels is a critical in the adoption of electric vehicles in the U.S. and this is a much needed step in that direction.
 
“The Spark EV battery has undergone more than 200,000 hours of testing in our global battery systems labs,” said Pamela Fletcher, Chevrolet executive chief engineer of electrified vehicles. “It is extremely durable and has undergone the same abuse tolerance testing as the Volt battery.”
 
GM still hasn't provided us details on how far the Spark EV will travel on a charge, but we expect to learn more details closer to its Summer 2013 launch.

Source: GM



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: These Tax Credits Are Rediculous
By Ringold on 11/27/2012 3:16:45 PM , Rating: 4
99% of the time I'd say you're right, but the Volt loses them money. There's just so little demand at any price, the economics for it fail no matter what. I think they're all just loss-leader halo products so far, probably not even for marketing to the public but for showing to politicians and say "See, we're trying!"

At a time of trillion dollar deficits, its kinda disgusting, both the tax credit subsidies themselves and that manufacturers are forced to be so in hoc to politicians that they have to build garbage that doesn't sell and loses them money just to please the ivory-tower bureaucrats in DC.


RE: These Tax Credits Are Rediculous
By Gurthang on 11/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: These Tax Credits Are Rediculous
By Ringold on 11/27/2012 4:59:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh please, the volume on these products are so low that the credits/rebates are chump change


So it's okay to waste millions, since it's chump change compared to the trillion dollar deficit? Well okay then, since millions are apparently nothing, why don't you toss me a quick mil? It's chump change, after all.

Another point: The taxes on the wealthy Democrats are so furious about? Could hike them to 100% and, assuming they didn't flee the country, it wouldn't get close to closing our deficit.

I also disagree it's meant as research, and that it needs to be done. By a thousand mile stretch the #1 issue is battery cost and capacity. These people know how to build vehicles with spinning wheels. It's an utter waste of time until the battery tech is there to make it desirable. No, these are nothing more than false flags or tributes they're forced to lay at the feet of their political masters in DC, lest they get called in front of Congress yet again and grilled by people who, by and large, couldn't successfully operate a lemonade stand.

And don't try to make the argument battery R&D wouldn't happen otherwise. Batteries of exactly the same underlying technology is central to the modern existence of the Western consumer life. EV production could fall to zero, and some subsidized battery manufacturers that cater 100% to automakers would disappear, but R&D to advance batteries, and the phones, laptops, tablets, hearing aids, marine applications and everything else that they power would advance on without hardly a skipped beat.


By GulWestfale on 11/27/2012 5:11:37 PM , Rating: 1
25 grand for a Korean subcompact? are you kidding me??


RE: These Tax Credits Are Rediculous
By Mint on 11/28/12, Rating: 0
RE: These Tax Credits Are Rediculous
By Ringold on 11/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: These Tax Credits Are Rediculous
By Mint on 11/28/2012 10:59:56 AM , Rating: 3
Okay, then lets do more numbers for those 20k cars.

Over 10 years, they will wind up eliminating $200M in gasoline consumption (250 gal/yr/car), and they'll still be in good shape, having done maybe 30-50k miles on the gas engine (they're currently GM's most reliable car). The battery still charges to 80%, so it'll easily save another $100-200M before heading to the scrapyard.

Then you have the other benefits of reduced urban pollution, reduced trade deficit (e.g. we keep refining the same oil and now export $300M+ in gas more than we used to), etc.

These are savings/benefits for various Americans that a buyer doesn't account for during a purchase. Even with a lease, the carmaker can only account for resale value 3 years down the line. The ripple effects down the road can't be monetized.

We pay $150M now, and over the next 20 years, Americans save $300-$400M, and exports rise $300M. You think that's a waste of money?

We're borrowing money at negative real interest rates. This is a no-brainer investment, especially for the smaller tax credits of Energi plugins.


RE: These Tax Credits Are Rediculous
By Ringold on 11/28/12, Rating: 0
RE: These Tax Credits Are Rediculous
By Mint on 11/28/2012 5:24:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's fossil fuels that also could just as easily be exported
No it couldn't, because EVs are charged at night when production is below capacity due to lack of demand (i.e. nowhere to export).
quote:
In Indy's case, it's a 1100MW or so coal plant, directly adjacent to downtown

I don't know why Indy does that, but it's not common, and your point is irrelevant because virtually all additional generation will come from gas/wind. At night there is a huge amount of idling gas turbine capacity.
quote:
And then there's the range and utility issues with these cars.
Not for PHEVs like the Volt. I admit that pure EVs have a limited market, but let them sell as much as they want.
quote:
If this ever became a big market segment, we could just as easily end up importing batteries and whatnot too, particularly sense we're becoming increasingly averse to mining.
The rare earth argument, which you seem to be alluding to, is overblown. Tesla and Nissan don't even use any for their EVs. Nissan is expecting to reduce costs by building the 2013 Leaf in the US, so don't be so sure that building and shipping is cheaper elsewhere. A far greater percentage of world EV production is done in the US than general car production.
quote:
Because the Federal Reserve is buying the majority of our newly issued debt.
No they're not. They bought under $1T of gov't debt since 2007, which has increased by $7T since.

$10T+ of debt held by the public is earning 0-1.5%. Banks have another $10T in deposits earning 0%. They have nearly $2T in excess reserves because they can't find safe avenues of lending (nobody can, hence the near zero interest rates). The federal reserve's purchases pale next to this $20T seeking safe assets, and thus had next to no impact on interest rates.
quote:
a dollar consumed by government is a dollar that can't be consumed by the private sector
Pre-recession, you could make that case. Now, such a philosophy is dead wrong. The economy is entirely demand limited. A dollar consumed by the gov't is at most a few pennies that can't be consumed by the private sector. There is gobs of capital and labor sitting idle, looking for something to produce but to no avail.n Even when housing construction picks up in the coming year or two, there will still be plenty of labor and capital sitting idle.


RE: These Tax Credits Are Rediculous
By Ringold on 11/29/2012 3:43:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
No it couldn't, because EVs are charged at night when production is below capacity due to lack of demand (i.e. nowhere to export).


Partly. They start charging when people get home from work, actually, according to research done and reported here at DT from Texas earlier this year, and create a new peak in demand as people come home, turn on the AC/heat, plug in the car and fire up the big screen TV. They foresee significant problems with the grid with even moderate market penetration for EVs.

On the other side of the coin, GE has started a trend of new gas turbines that are designed to spool up and down rapidly to match demand and fluctuating output from "green" sources. Once more widely adopted, then absolutely that's energy that could be exported.

quote:
I don't know why Indy does that, but it's not common,


Because you don't leave your bubble doesn't mean that there arent powerplants all around. Some times if you're not looking close it's hard to even spot them, so you're forgiven. But I've never hopped on the highway, driven 10 miles out of town, and found powerplants built all out in the middle of no where,have you?

quote:
Not for PHEVs like the Volt. I admit that pure EVs have a limited market, but let them sell as much as they want.


This isn't a PHEV, you're off topic. And absolutely let them sell all they want, without our tax money bankrolling it.

quote:
The rare earth argument, which you seem to be alluding to, is overblown. Tesla and Nissan don't even use any for their EVs.


Motors that don't use them tend to be less efficient, but I was more thinking lithium and nickel, used in the 2 common battery types.

quote:
No they're not. They bought under $1T of gov't debt since 2007


If you go back to 2007, that conveniently includes 2008 when they shed a lot of assets. You're vastly misrepresenting data, or don't get whats been going on more recently, or the full range of measures the Fed's using to quietly soak up treasuries (like paying interest on reserves).

quote:
A dollar consumed by the gov't is at most a few pennies that can't be consumed by the private sector.


A dollar enters a bank, and is then..
a) Loaned out
b) Parked in short-term govt debt if core capital ratios need boosting
c) Paid out as a dividend so the economy can do something with it if the bank has no profitable use for it

That's just how the world works. As to why companies are sitting on trillions of dollars, the fundamentals of the economy aren't too awful, they're just absolutely terrified to invest, thanks to the fiscal cliff, long-term fiscal deficits, regulatory cliff, Europe, and the rich-world suicide cult of politicians that, like you, refuse to recognize all of the above and can't seem to find a government program they don't like.


RE: These Tax Credits Are Rediculous
By Mint on 11/28/2012 6:05:43 PM , Rating: 2
Forgot to address one other point:
quote:
And then you equate the 150M to ALL the supposed benefits, as if thats the only cost.
Fine, I was being a bit disingenuous with that, but I can't separate that objectively. I don't know how much of the $300M gas savings will be felt by the original buyers, because it depends on how much they drive before selling. Some of the premium they pay is for the silent ride, some for the novelty, some to be "green", and the rest for their chunk of the aforementioned savings. In any case, they are purchasing it with their free will.

Even if you say 6 years of those savings (avg new car ownership) are for the original owner to recoup the additional depreciation of a more expensive car along with the electricity cost, the remaining 60%+ are felt by the rest society and enough to justify the subsidy.

Average car lifetime is 15 years, so I'm not out of line by calculating it out so long when the drivetrain will have so few gas miles on it and low fuel cost.


RE: These Tax Credits Are Rediculous
By Mint on 11/28/2012 5:54:41 AM , Rating: 2
Please. The Volts are selling 3000 per month.

And no, they're not losing money on each car sold. Stop buying into the Fox News BS where they divide R&D costs into only the cars sold so far. First it was $250k loss per car, then $50k, now $30k, etc. Nobody with a brain calculates unit cost like that.

Plugins sales are growing several times faster than regular hybrids did when they came out:
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/images/content/e...

Icing on the cake: According to consumer reports, the Volt has the highest customer satisfaction and is the most reliable car GM makes (which makes sense given that its engine is only powering the car maybe 1/4 of the time and has a very simple transmission). That means lower warranty costs, long term brand benefits, etc.


RE: These Tax Credits Are Rediculous
By Ringold on 11/28/2012 3:48:39 PM , Rating: 1
I'd heard 30k a car a day or so ago (not from Fox News, but direct from an AP report, you troll), but didn't buy it. Sounded too high to make sense.

However, I'm absolutely confident they have somewhere between very slightly negative to negligibly positive margins on it. All that effort in support, development, etc. for a car that sells just 3k a month as you point out? If you can't see its a loss-leader halo product then you're blind.

As for sales growing faster than regular hybrids, you remind me of the problem in development economics. Sure, a dirt-poor impoverished nation can grow at 10% a year relative to, say, France. It's off such a low base, though, that they'll never catch up in a single lifetime. It's irrelevant.


RE: These Tax Credits Are Rediculous
By Mint on 11/28/2012 4:46:23 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not being a troll. Fox News did run the story about this latest report, and in the past they pushed this nonsense more than any other new outlet. That's why Lutz targetted them specifically in his blog.

All that effort is not just for a low margin product. It is for an entire line of products beginning with the Volt. The Ampera in Europe is going to be huge with fleets, because corporations have to pay their employee's gas bills which are twice as large as here (I'm quite shocked that nobody in Europe developed a PHEV before GM, but they're now a step ahead). The Cadillac ELR will have a fat margin. GM plans to use the Voltec powertrain for millions of cars.

"negligibly positive margins" doesn't make it a loss leader. If you include R&D when calling it loss leading, then every car is loss leading.

Did you even look at that data? It's accelerating at at pace that'll take far less than a lifetime to become significant. They're not going to hit Obama's overly optimistic goal of 1M in 2015, but they're taking off.

Every technology has to start somewhere. To write this off as irrelevant is extremely myopic.


RE: These Tax Credits Are Rediculous
By Mint on 11/28/2012 11:04:49 AM , Rating: 2
Regarding losses:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/boblutz/2012/09/10/the...
quote:
The statement that GM “loses” over $40K per Volt is preposterous. What the “analyst” in whom poor Ben Klayman placed his faith has done is to divide the total development cost and plant investment by the number of Volts produced thus far. That’s like saying that a real estate company that puts up a $10 million building and has rental income of one million the first year is “losing” 9 million dollars, or several hundred thousand per renter.


"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki