Gongrats to the general, after spending $1.2Mill on one car, they have achieved 40 miles on battery alone, now that just great, but here's the thing, for that kind of money i'd would have gotten the Veyron.

BTW, just buy that Prius technology from Toyota, and lets get this over with.

GM fan boys bring it on

↓↑report

Reality check.

1.2 million to develop a new car is nothing. Ask toyota how much government it took to develop the prius.

↓↑report

Also Toyota is just got sued for the processor technology. It is not all Toyota's great ideas.

↓↑report

Ok, to clarify the Toyota sued for hybrid patent infringment thing: they weren't convicted of industrial espionage, they were found to be infringing a patent. Very, very different circumstances:

* The first is stealing, and requires deliberate action. It's definitely not what happened here.

* The second can happen inadvertently. Let's say you and I both develop a new widget:
1. I patent it before you do, but both our patents are filed.
2. You actually make and market the product, spending lots of money to develop, produce and promote it. I don't; I just sit on my patent.
3. You're successful in selling the product. I note this, and then note that I have a patent that predates yours.
4. I sue you and win, even though you did all the legwork.

Now, maybe I didn't market it because I didn't have the capital (I'm a small guy; let's say you work for a huge company with a massive R&D and marketing budget). I might not have been directly malicious in my suit, but I'd be stupid to not try and make money at your expense. On the other hand, maybe I'm a patent expert who buys or develops and patent lost of stuff all the time, just hoping for someone like you or your company to take the risk.

The point is: Toyota did the actual legwork, engineering and marketing. The firm who sued them filed a patent and sat on it for years, waiting for the opportune moment to sue. They could have sued when Toyota released the first Prius, but that wouldn't have netted them serious money, so they wait until Toyota is fully committed to hybrids as a strategy and _then_ pull the trigger because Toyota has no real choice but to pay them; the alternative is to scrap a huge, comprehensive engineering and marketing initiative that's already well underway.

↓↑report

reality check:
I have worked on consumer products that sell for $80-$300.

The prototypes we receive cost the company between $6,000 and $14,000 to make. And that isn't even counting the ones that use FPGA chips. There are FPGA chips used for prototyping that cost $8,000, and we've used 6 per board before.

Prototypes cost more to make, look up Henry Ford and mass production to find out why.

↓↑report

I wouldnt compare this to the EV1. Since that was a full electric they could jettison the traditional motor in favor of more batteries to increase range. I think what GM is saying is that the batteries are up to the task of the 40 miles without needing a charge. They have probably tested the generator as well but they just havent told us.

↓↑report

Bob "Never mind the man behind the curtain" Lutz not telling us about a real or imagined achievement, ya right.

↓↑report

Here comes all the GM haters. I guess they did not have jack to say about the Caddy's ring time on the post before this one, so I guess they have to vent on the Volt. I will reserve my judgement for the final product. I do hope they can deliver what they say, this could be a game changer.

↓↑report

The irony of your comment seems to escape you. If the Volt is a game changer, say goodby to your high powered Caddy.

↓↑report

I disagree. I think - at least for now - that even if the Volt is a huge success, there will be people (many of them here on this blog) who will prefer and buy non-hybrid sports cars.

I'm not one of them though. I'd pick a (finished, working) Volt anyday.

↓↑report

its not 40mpg. It is 40 miles prior to using the ICE which should recharge the battery to give a MPG much higher than 40

↓↑report

correct that ...40 miles on a charge

↓↑report

Umm..

This is an engineering mule, not a final product. The "game has begun" when the first customer gets his/her product. Just like Tesla: the proof is in the mass-produced product, not the manicured special delivered to an investor or used for testing.

Also, this thing is just a Malibu body for the sake of having a body--it's not a "real" Malibu at all, just a shell over Volt mechanicals. It's also not a 40mpg car, but a car that goes 40 miles on batteries alone. What remains to be answered is:
* What circumstances allowed the 40-mile range?
* What's the overall car like?
* How much will it cost?
* Can GM actually build it, consistently and without demand- or quality issues?
* How will compared to the other cars on the market in 2010/11/12?

Since we can't really answer any of these questions, this story amounts to little more than a feel-good press release. GM can promise and spin all they want, but they need to actually _sell them_ before they'll win over the general public, let alone the skeptics.

↓↑report

You're assuming that Lutz needs facts in order to run his mouth. I don't think that's a requirement of his.

↓↑report

Did you even read the article?

↓↑report