GM's Maximum Bob: Don't tell me how to make an E-car

Times staff writer Ken Bensinger, who covers the auto industry, filed this post:

A living legend in the auto industry, Bob Lutz has worked for Ford, Chrysler, BMW and, since 2002, General Motors, where he heads product development. The Swiss born, fighter-jet-flying, bespoke-suit-wearing ex-Marine isn’t known to mince words. This spring, he famously referred to global warming as a "crock of sh**." When outcry ensued, Lutz, in his trademark raspy growl, told reporters that those were his personal opinions, not those of the General.

On Friday, Maximum Bob (as gearheads call him), showed he’s not afraid to mix it up with the rabble as well.

In response to a Times article on the multiple woes of GM and other automakers, a particularly vociferous reader -- known to call electric cars more important that "the so-called immigration issue, falling home values, and man-bites-dog stuff" -- copied Lutz in on a letter to the editor. The gist: GM, after losing $39 billion last year and with its stock at a three-decade low, could save itself by bringing back a 10-year old, two-seat electric car.

"There is one option GM has not considered, which would turn things around, both in image and in reality. GM could resume production of the 1999 EV1, using Panasonic lead-acid batteries," the reader asserted.

Furthermore, he wrote, GM’s plans to produce a four-seat extended-range electric car called the Volt, set for release in 2010, "depends on Lithium batteries which don't yet exist."

Maximum Bob was not about to let that backtalk from a green transportation activist go by without comment:

He shot back in an email: "The EV will not meet any current safety laws. Putting a version into production that meets regulations would put us out to ’11 or ’12. They cost us well over $80,000 to produce, and, being a two-seater, we could only sell 800 in four years. We lost over one billion dollars on that experiment."

As for the Volt, Lutz had choice words as well:

"I don't know why you insist that lithium-ion doesn't exist. We are getting packs from our suppliers, they test well in both hot and cold, they store the energy as claimed, we are fast-cycling them to make sure they last, we are doing high-temp, high-load testing with the cooling system shut down and are experiencing no thermal problems. Trust me, the battery will not delay the car."

As any outraged activist would, the reader quickly fired back a reply, copying four Times addresses, an additional GM employee and a contact at California’s Air Resources Board, calling for distribution to all members of the body.

Too early to tell if Lutz will call these revealing comments his own personal opinions as well.

Photos: Bob Lutz. Paul Sancya/Associated Press; a funeral for the EV1 in the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car."/Sony Pictures Classics

Comments

[Phil]

Lutz is right on the EV-1. Will the various regulatory agencies roll-back their requirements to mid-1990s standards and then will Congress or the administration sufficiently subsidize revived EV-1s so people will buy them at a price GM can afford to sell them for? Somehow I'm not optimistic about that. How about we be patient; let the Volt serial hybrid get to market and then GM can contemplate an updated lithium-ion all-electric, battery-only commuter car ala EV-1.

Hey, he says lithium-ion battery testing is going well and the batteries won't delay the Volt. We'll know in 2010 won't we? BTW, global warming is real. It's the anthropogenic part that's a crock.

[kerry bradshaw]

Whenever I hear statements like the one wanting the return of the EV-1
using lead acid batteries, I expect to hear the theme music from the
Twilight Zone and see Rod Serling puffing on a cigarette. Mssrs
Thomas Edison and Henry Ford were not satisfied with that technolgy
and that was during Prohibition!!! This brainless fellow seems to be
about 80 years in arrears in his technology. The EV-1 was, pardon me,
Mr Lutz, a piece of crap. Not that the Toyota Rav4 electric or the Honda
EV were much better. Not one of them was even remotely viable as
an alternative transportation vehicle. Anytime you wonder whether you
can get to a destination a mere 35 miles away and back (on old batteries)
without requiring a tow truck, I would suggest that your mode of
transporation is even more primitive than what was available during the
American Civil War. I ahd no interst at all in the EV1, but am planning
on buying the Chevy Volt, which can accomplish virtually everything an
all-electric can and I don't need to own, insure and maintain two cars
in order to do so.

[steve kindel]

People who criticize Bob Lutz re electric cars don't remember that after he left Chrysler and before he went to GM, he spent three or four years as CEO of Exide, one of the largest makers of batteries. Lutz poured loads of money into battery research back then, so he knows of what he speaks. Bob may be retrograde in attitude, but he really does know the auto industry.

[Michael Snyder]

Call me a bit paranoid; but somehow I smell more Government sponsored payola in McCain's $300 million battery prize. Make an announcement like that and you really thing anybody's going to release any significant innovations in that field until after the election and the lobby/legislation process has been played out? There's more than enough incentive for GM or anybody else to develop energy sustainable batteries. Government intervention will produce more of the inevitable unintended consequences. Where do folks think "taxpayer dollars" come from anyway? Why not cut out the middleman & just let the market reward the people who come up with the solution?
Cost + weight to sustainable wattage ratios still are a long way from practical but there are some pretty smart folks on the problem. The real problem here is the "big business is the only business" attitude that pervades government. A cursory glance at history will prove most of the paradigm shifting innovations in history have come out of somebody's garage/barn.
Bob Lutz does Bob Lutz better than anyone else. While GM (like the rest of the industry) is in the position it's in because it failed to read the handwriting on the wall in the seventies, that doesn't mean Maximum Bob won't pull this one out; but I'd be looking for the solutions elsewhere.

[richard%20schumacher]

If Lutz's statements about the Volt are correct it is certainly good news. In large organizations information sometimes has a funny way of getting distorted and sanitized as it flows between the trenches and the executive suites.

[P.Birkett]

Maximum Bob and his xenophobic partners at GM should be in court being sued by GM stock holders. Forget electric cars and focus on being #2, unemployed workers and the effect ignorant management has foisted off on the American consumer. Max Bob should fly off to his offshore hideaway and enjoy his ride in a Toyota Camry to the local gin bar!

[Charles Wilson]

To put it mildly, I am no fan of General Motors. I fully expect the Volt to be late and to underperform. The 40-mile range of their battery will be 25 miles, or there will be some other big problem. GM has been disappointing its customers for nearly 40 years running, so why should anything change now?

[martscan]

I'm not as impressed with Lutz's CV as Lutz is. He may be a top notch management guy, but his visions as to what constitutes a successfully marketed car are less than stellar. I'd like to ask him why GM sold the electric technology and patents of Ovonics to then Standard Oil of California (Chevron). Also, to what degree did GM's parts business figure in dropping an EV? Frankly, if anyone calls global warming a 'crock', you can bet they have a financial interest in fossil fuels. Its because of "top notch executives" like Lutz that GM stock is now a crock of s***t and headed for the dust bin of history, where Lutz has been for years.

[stephen]

i, like a lot of other people find it vrty interesting that the ev 1 patent went to chevron. how stupid do you think we are. oh.

[Brian]

Lutz is a moron.

They could sell brand new EV-1s, right now with no significant changes.
All they have to do is limit the top speed to 35 mph and the car meets all the federal safety standards to qualify as a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle.

The brain-dead comments and strategy from Lutz explains why GM is in so much trouble right now.

They could easily cut costs of the EV1 with economies of scale to make it affordable. But instead, old Bob would rather feed the media with more hot air.

[Doug Korthof]

What safety standards? The EV1 met all applicable standards as a production car. If it takes GM 3 years to fix a door latch, don't expect the VOLT any time soon!

1. If they really cost $80,000, then GM's destruction of them, refusing to sell to willing buyers, is even MORE inexplicable.
2. The EV1 would be generating revenue right now, if GM had resumed production when it started VOLT research.

[Doug Korthof]

"GM can save itself: resume production of EV1"

General Motors (GM) has been hurt by not having the right cars to sell ("U.S. car firms flat-out hurting", June 27).
http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-autos27-2008jun27,0,5737426.story

GM has been seriously looking for options for getting more fuel-efficient cars on the market quickly, because there is some question about its financial health after 2008. Rebranding foreign cars has become more expensive as the dollar falls, and new vehicles require years-long development cycles.

GM has proposed producing the VOLT, described as an Electric car with a range-extender, but it isn't planned for earlier than 2011. The VOLT depends on Lithium batteries which are not yet proven successful in an Electric car, as Lead and Nickel batteries were perfected over millions of test and customer miles in actual all-electric EVs.

There is one option GM has not considered, which would turn things around, both in image and in reality. It's simple, not dependent on a gamble, will work right now, and won't exclude the possibility of some day producing the Lithium VOLT or other EVs and serial hybrids.

GM could resume production of the 1999 EV1, using Panasonic EV-EC-1260 lead-acid batteries. These were leased in Arizona in 2000, and regularly attained a range of over 100 miles on a charge. The life-cycle cost is the lowest of all battery options.

GM claims they were "unable to sell" the EV1; typical of GM's current disconnect with reality, GM never offered even one for sale, explaining why the EV1 didn't sell.

If you refuse to sell a car, don't be surprised if it doesn't sell. Is this an example endemic to GM's current failure, as noted in financial articles, with a Market Value less than Starbucks?

Resumption of production would be simple; the EV1 plant is empty, the former assembly workers have been laid off and are idly drawing "jobs bank" salaries, the batteries are available off-the-shelf in any quantities over 1000, and the design is proven successful.

Production of the EV1 does not depend on an expensive product design cycle, new engineering, questionable battery testing and recalls; it's a proven winner.

This is the GM car that fans watched over in a rain-plagued vigil for 28 days. Here's an example where would-be purchasers clamored for a chance to buy GM products, hoping for the faint chance that GM would sell six-year-old used versions for $25,000 cash.

According to one GM exec, each EV1 cost "well over $80K to produce". If so, that would make GM's relentless confiscation and destruction of each and every EV1 even more difficult to understand. However, the 1150 EV1 were hand-built in batches, instead of using GM's traditional manufacturing excellence; in mass production, the cost would come down, by one estimate, to less than $11,000, leaving GM a signficant profit margin -- and allowing GM to scoop the competition.

GM is now bemoaning the lack of enthusiasm for its current products; why not re-activate the EV1 fan club, recharge the excitement of the "21st century test pilot" GM fans, and turn GM around? Spend scarce engineering dollars on new versions of the EV1: four-passenger, pickups, serial hybrid with range-extender; but the current version could be in showrooms in six months. Even if it didn't sell, it would draw in floor traffic.

While Lithium may pan-out, as GM's Bob Lutz claims, there's a lot to life-cycle costing of batteries that so far has precluded Lithium's practical use in Electric cars. To date, no Lithium-powered EV has gone more than 50,000 miles without significant battery degradation. Lithium is unproven, as one recent story has pointed out, while the batteries used in the EV1, both Lead-acid and Nickel, were tested and proven successful.

Nickel batteries are running well over 100,000 miles in the Toyota RAV4-EV.

All successful Electric cars, such as the Toyota RAV4-EV and the GM EV1, started with Lead batteries and were later upgraded to Nickel. Why not repeat past success, and start now with lead or nickel, later upgrading to Lithium when it is proven? GM, according to CEO Wagoner, has enough liquidity to last through 2008, but he refused to comment on 2009. GM may not last long enough to fund the perfect electric car it now spends a fortune advertizing it will some day produce.

If GM had re-started the EV1 line at the same time it starting design work on the VOLT, the EV1 would already be generating revenue right now.

Fresh off the assembly line, these cars would sell for no less than $35,000, perhaps as much as $50,000 or more. But the morale value would be even greater.

Revival of the EV1 would quiet GM's critics, make GM some money, and attract new customers as well as increase floor traffic for other models. New and improved versions of the basic Electric car, year after year, would expand GM's footprint on the world market, leveraging scarce investment dollars, maximizing profit and leading the way forward.

And we could say once again that our cars were "made in America and fueled by American Electrons".

Is it a measure of GM's past failure that resumption of EV1 production is not even under consideration?

/Doug
562-430-2495
1020 MarVista
Seal Beach, CA 90740-5842

[Doug Korthof]

Bob Lutz didn't do well at Exide Battery; to be fair, it had existing problems, but after Lutz loaded it down with debt, he left, leaving it to bankruptcy.

So what's Lutz's credentials, anyway??

[Doug Korthof]

The EV1 had an EPA certified range of 140 miles (I still have the sticker) and the Toyota RAV-EV is still running over 100 miles on a charge on 6-year-old battery packs.

If you need to drive more than 100 miles a day, maybe an electric car is not for you; similarly, if you don't have a roof over your head, you can't use the money you save to buy a rooftop solar system.

But the fact that an EV isn't for people like the first two commentators should not preclude those who want them from buying them.

So why didn't GM sell the EV1 that it had supposedly spent $80,000 building?? Why did GM spend more money to truck them to Arizona, take out the batteries, crush them, and then ship them back to the smelter?

Why use YOUR idea of what the range should be, to stop OTHERS from driving an EV??

[Mark]

Theres millions of cars being used by local/county/state/federal and post office that are for occasional use or for short range.

Is GM telling us there is no market for an electric car that could replace them?

[kert]

Curious bit is that GM seems to have entirely forgotten their second gen, four seater EV1 series hybrid prototype with NiMH batteries.
Look it up, its on wikipedia.

[Fritz]

Bob we are not stupid out here in America... There are many reasons people want to buy a Toyota or Honda and for me it is b/c I won't be patronized like that. Get it together. Your Opel division (and thus Saturn) comes closest to getting my dollar but likely on the used market b/c I refuse to fund your paycheck.

Meanwhile I'm likely going to replace the ICE drivetrain in my little import car with a proven Siemens ac propulsion system based on off the shelf parts that will exceed my commuting needs for many years to come. When this chassis wears out (cosmetics rather than actual wear) - I'll likely move that drivetrain to another chassis that I buy cheap b/c the engine is ruined - and I still won't be buying a GM product. What skills do I need? An engineering degree (check), electrical training ourtesy of the US Navy (check), experience working on cars (check) and the internet (check).

I will then accomplish what all of GM can't - or maybe won't. What's more - like Linux - I will then encourage, educate and share with the world how I accomplished this. This will hopefully lead to more grassroots EVs driven by normal, average working folks.

The bad part is that all of your rhetoric and from leaders like you will likely take our country to ruin with unwinnable wars, excess credit, low value products, and stagnation in innovation and industrial quality. Of course you don't care that much b/c your bank account will maintain the lifestyle of your family for generations even if America is plunged into the second Great Depression. Good day Mr. American Businessman. I can see the Asians coming over the hill again to stomp on your toe again.

[Ian Lay]

We have GM here in Australia under the name of Holden & after the fiasco
of (who killed the electric car) I note that none of the comments have mentioned Big Oil who I beleive were the main reason the car was dropped,
I will have nothing to do with GM because had they had the balls to continue the production of the Ev 1 it would have been a winner, it was the 1990s and think what innovations would that car have with todays technology, Gm shot themselves in the foot, maybe the President can remove the bullet, but they deserve to be dragged kicking and screaming to the production line to produce the very car they crushed.
America is lucky they at last have a President thats no Idiot and is thinking of the future for Gods sake take good care of him
Ian Lay