A friend recounted the other day details about a recent informal get together of GM executive retirees. It seems that one of the attendees was a big name who has observed members of the Automotive Task Force going about their work. Along with the expected reviews of processes and plans, the ATF (not to be confused with these guys) also has been steering the ship, so to speak. “They’re in every corner of the company,” the former big wig was heard to say, “from Design to Engineering. And they have gotten to the point of asking questions like: ‘Do you really think the nose of that car should look like that?’ and ‘I know you have planned for this vehicle to be powered by a V6, but have you even considered a hydrogen fuel cell?’ And that has an effect on the decisions that are being made. The customer isn’t at the center anymore. Whether it’s intentional or not, the administration’s desires are at least as big a consideration as the customers’.”
The last thing GM needs is to have people with no practical experience in the industry making decisions for them – even if only by “suggestion”. As another former industry executive told me over the weekend: “Of the two companies, Chrysler is in a better position than GM.” That’s because Fiat could threaten to walk away from the deal and leave the administration holding a bag filled with empty promises and loads of manure left over from Daimler’s ownership. GM is still a going concern, and needs help. It might even have been able to stay out of bankruptcy had former Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson not used the crisis to settle some scores with his former colleagues on Wall Street, or if current secretary Tim Geithner hadn’t compounded the problem by nationalizing everything in sight. Had someone, somewhere sat back and done the difficult thing – thinking before acting – better responses to what was a large but localized (financial sector only) problem would have been found. Instead, we have those who think that, because they drive a car, they know what the market wants and how a car company should be run. Well, just because I eat, it doesn’t mean I’m a four-star chef.
Though we’ve not held the highest offices within the auto industry, we here at Cars In Context have a pretty good idea of what goes on behind the scenes. It’s the reason you read what we have to say. But even we admit that we don’t know everything. That’s why one of our favorite saying is this: “There are no stupid questions.” If you don’t understand why something is being done, ask. But don’t just take the answer at face value. Probe. Challenge. Come at the problem from a different direction. But – and this is extremely important – listen to the answers. Deliberate. Reflect. Consider. Think! Judging from the information coming out of GM, precious little thought is taking place on one side of the table.
Let’s take the hydrogen fuel cell remark as an example. Not too many years ago, proton exchange membrane fuel cells designed for use in cars and trucks cost $1 million – each. Even if this number dropped to $100,000 overnight – an extremely large drop – this is still a long way from the cost of a modern internal combustion engine – about $5,000 at retail for a V8. At one point, PEM fuel cell design was so platinum intensive that, if we were to replace every gasoline- or diesel-powered vehicle on the planet with a fuel cell-powered one, it would have used up every ounce of platinum. However, hard work from engineers at fuel cell companies and at automakers like GM has drastically lowered the amount of platinum necessary. And they will continue to do so as more advances are made. Similarly, the exchange membrane, which one engineer with whom I spoke likened to a sheet of Saran Wrap, has become much more robust. It can take the constant jostling and movement that comes with a vehicle that rolls over roads – both perfect and imperfect. But it takes lots of cells – known as stacks – to make up a fuel cell that is powerful enough to drive a car. That’s because the average fuel cell stack produces about 2.0 volts of power. A typical battery-powered drill uses 18.
Which brings us to the question of batteries. If you look at the Chevy Volt, it is easy to imagine a hydrogen fuel cell eventually – eventually – replacing the small four-cylinder engine under the hood. And those batteries will be lithium-ion, if the problems associated with heat and – potentially – fire can be overcome. It’s a larger step than you can imagine to move from the hundreds of individual laptop batteries used in cars like the Tesla, and the proprietary designs being planned for high-volume vehicles. Tesla uses readily available commodity batteries that are said to give over 200 miles on a charge. But what are the parameters for this claim? Is that +200 miles accrued on the same Federal Test Cycle automakers must follow to certify their gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles? (That test includes the multiple stops and starts, set acceleration rates, deceleration rates, etc. you see in the real world.) Does that range include cold starts, hot starts, air conditioning on, heat on, and all of the other parameters internal combustion vehicles must meet? Nope. (Note: It takes 7 kilowatts of power to heat a vehicle that has been out in the cold overnight, and about 5.5 kilowatts to cool one down on a hot day.) That’s because there is no standard test protocol for vehicles like the Tesla, though one is in development as automakers ready electric vehicles of their own. But until that day arrives – and the numbers undoubtedly will be as “accurate” as the EPA mileage ratings were for 30 years – you can claim any reasonable mileage you like, even if it was a best-case on a level road on a 70-degree day in California.
Just don’t expect electric vehicles to be inexpensive. A vehicle has to be designed to not only survive but to work day-in and day-out, whether its –30 degrees in Alaska or +120 degrees in Arizona. And it must do so for 10 years. Try getting that life out of a battery that can’t keep your laptop at peak power for three hours. Nor will consumers stand for the occasional battery fire that melts their minivan down to the tires. That means automakers will use the safest “advanced battery” formulation they can find. Who can blame them? But there’s another side to this coin – cost. Though prices will drop, but not significantly in the foreseeable future, it still costs about $500 for every mile of electric range. Thus, a car capable of traveling 100 miles under electric power alone needs a $50,000 battery pack. (Did you ever wonder why the Volt, which can travel 40 miles on a charge, is expected to cost $40,000?) And to make certain that this battery has the capacity to faithfully meet the range demands of customers, it will still have more than 50% of its battery life at replacement. Also, unlike the laptop batteries in the Tesla, you won’t be able to run it completely dry. That’s because, if you completely discharge lithium ion batteries, they become tough to recharge. The batteries reverse polarity and won’t accept the charge. It takes some tricky conditioning to get the batteries to snap back to their correct polarity.
Which brings me back to where this all started. I will be the first to admit that there have been a number of dumb decisions made in this industry over the past 50 years – and not all have been made by the domestic automakers. However, those will be relatively minor if the government decides it can run individual companies – and the industry – better than those who have worked their way up through the system and have a direct responsibility to each and every car buyer.
You must log in to post a comment.