2015 Spark no longer 21-kWh and now 19 ???

[Nashco]

For a relevant example, the sticker on my A123 battery says 17.1 kWh. GM previously advertised the Spark EV as having a 21 (or 21+) kWh battery. The only time I've run mine to a stand still (had to push it 500 feet to the charging station!), my energy display showed 19.1 kWh since last full charge. So, which is it...17, 19, or 21 kWh? The answer: It depends.

The 21 kWh is supposed to the the total pack capacity and IIRC 17.1 kWh is the usable amount, just like the Leaf has ~21 kWh usable out of 24.

So...how'd I get over 19 kWh out of a pack that only has 17.1 kWh usable? Usable under what conditions? I think you're missing my point.

Bryce

 

[buickanddeere]

GM uses the Delta platform to build the Volt. Along with the Cruze to compete with the VW TDI vehicles class.
The GM econo putt putt Gamma II platform is the Spark, Sonic, Cobalt and Trax/Encore etc.

 

[TonyWilliams]

So...how'd I get over 19 kWh out of a pack that only has 17.1 kWh usable? Usable under what conditions? I think you're missing my point. Bryce

Who would think I'd agree with something you'd post?

But, we drove the Spark EV for 92.8 miles @ 5 miles per kWh, so there was at least 18.5kWh usable, with probably 0.5kWh remaining due to the 3 miles remaining on the GOM.

This course was driven at 100km/h (62mph) ground speed:

http://youtu.be/TPsgnI4vRoQ

 

[nozferatu]

^^^
You could at least attribute that to the right person...

To claim they are losing money is pure BS. Fiat's CEO loves suckers. Reverse psychology works well apparently. So yeah..hold on to your seat since you don't dig too deep about things.

Hilarious. There's someone here that doesn't "dig too deep about things" but it sure isn't Tony.

It is funny!!! We have had guys much like our esteemed Mr. nozferatu one of the other forums. They are routinely wrong, and it is widely pointed out how wrong they are by lots of people (not just me). It almost make me think these type of people just need attention. Nobody could be that clueless.

Mr Williams, why are you so arrogant all the time? Why do you come to these forums and always try and "teach" people?

If anything you are the one who comes here crying for attention. However you are nothing but a regurgitator of "facts" you think you can find from various sources and not much else.

Beyond that, you simply excel in putting people down and making yourself more important than you think you are. But like clockwork, you come into a thread and ruin it.

Why are you still here? I simply don't understand that much that's for sure.

 

[nozferatu]

It doesn't matter of a car or its technology is "ground breaking" or not. Development of cars and associated systems in addition to tooling costs and other overhead (as we've already detailed in other posts) is very expensive. Even if an automaker develops just another ICEV, doesn't makes its development cheap.

It matters a great deal. The fact that you say that is ludicrous.

The Spark EV has a single motor and no clutches. Its motor is made in the US (http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2013/Apr/0416-spark-electric.html).

The ICE Spark and EV are based on a completely different GM platform than the Cruze/Volt.

The layout, manufacturer of cells, chemistry (http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?49609-How-is-the-Spark-EV-s-battery-longevity-acheived&p=650897#post650897), cooling method, # of cells, and cell voltage are different between the two (http://gm-volt.com/2013/08/02/spark-ev-versus-volt-battery/).

Precisely...with a global parts bin and shared platforms from IC to EV all minimize costs. The only EV that really costs a great deal is the Tesla...and it's not surprise because it's not based on anything previously made.

 

[iletric]

But it still does not explain why GM won't market Spark nationally. So it must be the losses that each Spark EV sale/lease represents.

Every state of the union needs its own version of ZEV mandate to force the auto makers to market EVs in their respective states. There is no other way. Just remember the fight over seat belts back in the 50s: "It will cost to much and people won't be willing to pay the price." For them it's all math. And the EV math just doesn't add up - for them.

Or my 3rd theory - they're still, after all these years, in oil business' pocket. And as you know, Shell and Exxon want no part of Tesla and its ilk. Too bad they can't buy THAT (high mileage) carburetor patent! Ha-ha!

 

[buickanddeere]

Too bad they can't buy THAT (high mileage) carburetor patent! Ha-ha!

You don't believe there was a 200mpg carb do you ?

 

[cwerdna]

It doesn't matter of a car or its technology is "ground breaking" or not. Development of cars and associated systems in addition to tooling costs and other overhead (as we've already detailed in other posts) is very expensive. Even if an automaker develops just another ICEV, doesn't makes its development cheap.

It matters a great deal. The fact that you say that is ludicrous.

It can matter but as I stated earlier, even cars WITHOUT "ground breaking" technology are expensive to develop. How much "ground breaking" tech is there in the Cruze that cost $4 billion in development?

From http://translogic.aolautos.com/2010/07/27/why-does-it-cost-so-much-for-automakers-to-develop-new-models/

Car companies, too, spend enormous amounts developing new models. The price tag to develop a new vehicle starts around $1 billion. According to John Wolkonowicz, Senior Auto Analyst for North America at IHS Global, "It can be as much as $6 billion if it's an all-new car on all-new platform with an all-new engine and an all-new transmission and nothing carrying over from the old model."

and has more details.

The Ford Mondeo was a $6 billion project: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1993/06/28/78013/.

The GM-10 program was referred to has a hapless $7 billion program at http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1992/11/16/77137/index.htm. Some quotes from there:

Then came another corporate cash squeeze. GM couldn't afford to produce all eight remaining GM-10 versions simultaneously, so they would have to be rolled out separately over two years -- two-door versions before four-doors. Eight years after the project began, the final GM-10 car came to market in 1990 -- but the market had moved.
...
Sales of the GM-10 cars started slowly and never got up to speed. In 1989, GM lost more than $2,000 on every GM-10 car it built. The next year GM managed to sell 537,080 of the cars with all the marketing resources of four divisions behind them, while Ford pushed 410,077 Tauruses and sibling Mercury Sables through just two divisions. Last year Oldsmobile sold 87,540 GM-10 versions of the Cutlass Supreme. In 1979 it had sold 518,160 of the models the GM-10 car replaced. GM-10 exposed critical inefficiencies in GM's plant system.

The Spark EV has a single motor and no clutches. Its motor is made in the US (http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2013/Apr/0416-spark-electric.html).

The ICE Spark and EV are based on a completely different GM platform than the Cruze/Volt.

The layout, manufacturer of cells, chemistry (http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?49609-How-is-the-Spark-EV-s-battery-longevity-acheived&p=650897#post650897), cooling method, # of cells, and cell voltage are different between the two (http://gm-volt.com/2013/08/02/spark-ev-versus-volt-battery/).

Precisely...with a global parts bin and shared platforms from IC to EV all minimize costs. The only EV that really costs a great deal is the Tesla...and it's not surprise because it's not based on anything previously made.

GM has built plenty of cars in its over 100 year history and a very large parts bin, yet I already pointed out the $4 billion Cruze project and $7 billion GM-10 disaster. Sure, Tesla has huge upfront costs from not having built a prior car from the ground up. We've already pointed out costs in other posts.

Ford isn't exactly new to building cars either.

 

[cwerdna]

But it still does not explain why GM won't market Spark nationally. So it must be the losses that each Spark EV sale/lease represents.

Yep. Seems very likely. They know it loses them money, so only build what they need to in order to help meet CARB ZEV mandates vs. paying fines or buying ZEV credits from others, just like Chrysler.

Expanding to more states means more overhead (dealer training, marketing, regional technical support, parts scattered at warehouses, etc.), inventory more thinly allocated, more inventory risk, etc. and I'm quite sure GM knows they can't get Spark EV sales to a sufficient amount while trying sell nationally in order to get the economies of scale to breakeven. So, do the minimum.

 

[tigger19687]

HELLO !!!!

CAN YOU PLEASE MAKE ANOTHER TOPIC FOR THIS !!!!!

 

[nozferatu]

But it still does not explain why GM won't market Spark nationally. So it must be the losses that each Spark EV sale/lease represents.

Every state of the union needs its own version of ZEV mandate to force the auto makers to market EVs in their respective states. There is no other way. Just remember the fight over seat belts back in the 50s: "It will cost to much and people won't be willing to pay the price." For them it's all math. And the EV math just doesn't add up - for them.

Or my 3rd theory - they're still, after all these years, in oil business' pocket. And as you know, Shell and Exxon want no part of Tesla and its ilk. Too bad they can't buy THAT (high mileage) carburetor patent! Ha-ha!

I would venture to say the best theory is your last one. I doubt it's a theory....I think it's fact.

 

[nozferatu]

It doesn't matter of a car or its technology is "ground breaking" or not. Development of cars and associated systems in addition to tooling costs and other overhead (as we've already detailed in other posts) is very expensive. Even if an automaker develops just another ICEV, doesn't makes its development cheap.

It matters a great deal. The fact that you say that is ludicrous.

It can matter but as I stated earlier, even cars WITHOUT "ground breaking" technology are expensive to develop. How much "ground breaking" tech is there in the Cruze that cost $4 billion in development?

From http://translogic.aolautos.com/2010/07/27/why-does-it-cost-so-much-for-automakers-to-develop-new-models/

Car companies, too, spend enormous amounts developing new models. The price tag to develop a new vehicle starts around $1 billion. According to John Wolkonowicz, Senior Auto Analyst for North America at IHS Global, "It can be as much as $6 billion if it's an all-new car on all-new platform with an all-new engine and an all-new transmission and nothing carrying over from the old model."

and has more details.

The Ford Mondeo was a $6 billion project: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1993/06/28/78013/.

The GM-10 program was referred to has a hapless $7 billion program at http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1992/11/16/77137/index.htm. Some quotes from there:

Then came another corporate cash squeeze. GM couldn't afford to produce all eight remaining GM-10 versions simultaneously, so they would have to be rolled out separately over two years -- two-door versions before four-doors. Eight years after the project began, the final GM-10 car came to market in 1990 -- but the market had moved.
...
Sales of the GM-10 cars started slowly and never got up to speed. In 1989, GM lost more than $2,000 on every GM-10 car it built. The next year GM managed to sell 537,080 of the cars with all the marketing resources of four divisions behind them, while Ford pushed 410,077 Tauruses and sibling Mercury Sables through just two divisions. Last year Oldsmobile sold 87,540 GM-10 versions of the Cutlass Supreme. In 1979 it had sold 518,160 of the models the GM-10 car replaced. GM-10 exposed critical inefficiencies in GM's plant system.

The Spark EV has a single motor and no clutches. Its motor is made in the US (http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2013/Apr/0416-spark-electric.html).

The ICE Spark and EV are based on a completely different GM platform than the Cruze/Volt.

The layout, manufacturer of cells, chemistry (http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?49609-How-is-the-Spark-EV-s-battery-longevity-acheived&p=650897#post650897), cooling method, # of cells, and cell voltage are different between the two (http://gm-volt.com/2013/08/02/spark-ev-versus-volt-battery/).

Precisely...with a global parts bin and shared platforms from IC to EV all minimize costs. The only EV that really costs a great deal is the Tesla...and it's not surprise because it's not based on anything previously made.

GM has built plenty of cars in its over 100 year history and a very large parts bin, yet I already pointed out the $4 billion Cruze project and $7 billion GM-10 disaster. Sure, Tesla has huge upfront costs from not having built a prior car from the ground up. We've already pointed out costs in other posts.

Ford isn't exactly new to building cars either.

$4 billion on a Cruze is highly suspect. A global platform cost that much to develop from global parts bins when cars like Ferrari or Porsche spend no where near as much for MUCH lower volume cars? Come on...these numbers are jokes...please.

Either that or GM just doesn't know how to spend money properly. Either way...that doesn't reflect on the actual cost of each vehicle...more like incompetence on GM's money spending methods.

 

[fengshui]

<SNIP!>

I deleted a bunch of inflammatory posts on all sides here. Let's keep the conversation on-topic.

 

[cwerdna]

$4 billion on a Cruze is highly suspect. A global platform cost that much to develop from global parts bins when cars like Ferrari or Porsche spend no where near as much for MUCH lower volume cars? Come on...these numbers are jokes...please.

Either that or GM just doesn't know how to spend money properly. Either way...that doesn't reflect on the actual cost of each vehicle...more like incompetence on GM's money spending methods.

As has been pointed out, you can't have it both ways. Somehow despite your assertion of GM's incompetent spending and/or accounting for $4 billion to develop an ICEV w/o any "ground breaking" technology (but has sold over 2.5 million units), they're so brilliant that they're able able to so quickly make money or not lose $ on CA compliance car that hasn't broken 1100 units in sales?

From the PDF at http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2014/Jun/gmsales.html, GM sells about the same number of Cruzes in the US ONLY in ONE DAY that the Spark EV has sold in the US in its entire existence.

 

[TonyWilliams]

$4 billion on a Cruze is highly suspect. A global platform cost that much to develop from global parts bins when cars like Ferrari or Porsche spend no where near as much for MUCH lower volume cars? Come on...these numbers are jokes...please.

Either that or GM just doesn't know how to spend money properly. Either way...that doesn't reflect on the actual cost of each vehicle...more like incompetence on GM's money spending methods.

As has been pointed out, you can't have it both ways. Somehow despite your assertion of GM's incompetent spending and/or accounting for $4 billion to develop an ICEV w/o any "ground breaking" technology (but has sold over 2.5 million units), they're so brilliant that they're able able to so quickly make money or not lose $ on CA compliance car that hasn't broken 1100 units in sales?

From the PDF at http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2014/Jun/gmsales.html, GM sells about the same number of Cruzes in the US ONLY in ONE DAY that the Spark EV has sold in the US in its entire existence.

I don't think we need to beat this fact up any more. Every person involved in this industry knows that these extreme low volume, compliance only cars are built at a HUGE loss by every manufacturer. Toyota, with 145 BILLION dollars in the bank, never went bankrupt, only lost money once in 80 years, and is the largest auto manufacturer in the world loses a TON of money on every compliance-only Toyota Rav4 EV. It's just the cost of doing business.

There will always be "Flat Earth Society" members, climate change deniers, believers in fairy tales and the like. The folks who can be educated have been, and those who will never "get it", won't.

Let's move on to the battery issue. I'm confident that the smaller battery is purely a cost saving measure, and that they vehicle ABSOLUTELY will suffer in range. I guarantee that I will test one as soon as it is available (standard 100km/h ground speed driving loop).

Others will believe GM when they claim otherwise. Others believed GM would offer the car in Canada and Europe... because GM said so. Others want to believe the Spark EV will be sold nationwide (and GM has NEVER said that!).

I will bet that that it MAY be extended to other CARB-ZEV states. Actually, it has to, becasue the "traveling provision" is set to be eliminated post 2017.

********

CARB-ZEV state coalition - California, New York, Massachusetts, Oregon, Vermont, Maryland, Connecticut and Rhode Island. There are additional "CARB" states, but they haven't adopted the ZEV provision.

The eight states combined account for 23 percent of U.S. vehicle sales, according to California’s Air Resources Board.

********

Auto manufacturer's Oct 19, 2012 request to EPA for waiver from CARB:

http://www.globalautomakers.org/sites/default/files/document/attachments/JointCommentsCAWaiverRequest10-19-12.pdf

"It is highly unlikely that the required infrastructure and the level of consumer demand for ZEVs will be sufficient by MY2018 in either California or in the individual Section 177 States to support the ZEV sales requirements mandated by CARB. EPA should therefore deny, at the present time, California’s waiver request for the ZEV program for these model years. During the interim, Global Automakers and the Alliance believe that California and EPA, with full auto industry participation, should implement a review for the ZEV program similar to the mid-term review process adopted under the federal GHG and CAFE regulations for MYs2017 through 2025."

That's a whole lot of gobbled igloo to say, "keep the traveling provision so we can only sell cars in California at the minimum number, and not sell any in the other CARB states."

 

[gra]

Toyota, with 145 BILLION dollars in the bank, never went bankrupt, only lost money once in 80 years, and is the largest auto manufacturer in the world loses a TON of money on every compliance-only Toyota Rav4 EV. It's just the cost of doing business.

Of course, Toyota never made a profit on the first generation of the Prius either, nor did they expect to. Same as Chevy expected and stated would be the case before the first gen Volt ever went into production. It's just the price of introducing new tech.

Let's move on to the battery issue. I'm confident that the smaller battery is purely a cost saving measure, and that they vehicle ABSOLUTELY will suffer in range. I guarantee that I will test one as soon as it is available (standard 100km/h ground speed driving loop).

Excellent. I was hoping you would.

Others will believe GM when they claim otherwise. Others believed GM would offer the car in Canada and Europe... because GM said so.

As to Europe, the decision to close down Opel probably had everything to do with that falling through. Sub-100 mile BEVs make more sense there.

 

[tigger19687]

Ok, seems people can't seem to stay on topic !

People, MAKE YOUR OWN TOPIC !

Mods, can you just delete this whole topic ??

Maybe they have put me on Ignore and can't see what I write. Maybe I should just do that same :roll:

 

[emv]

Ok, seems people can't seem to stay on topic !

People, MAKE YOUR OWN TOPIC !

Mods, can you just delete this whole topic ??

Maybe they have put me on Ignore and can't see what I write. Maybe I should just do that same :roll:

Some kids just have to argue. Back on topic. I'd rather they kept the battery the same physical size and upped the wattage. Range is good, more range is better.

 

[buickanddeere]

There will always be "Flat Earth Society" members, climate change deniers, believers in fairy tales and the like. The folks who can be educated have been, and those who will never "get it", won't.

Given the number of times the media and "scientists have been caught slanting data to support " global warming". There is too much blind faith in the cult of global warming. Slanting the numbers or picking and choosing only the data that supports the theory does occur. Some folk turn a blind eye as they figure "the end justifies the means".
Some people have become very wealthy via promoting and taking advantage of a "green" agenda.
It's a real temptation to get on a power trip with a cause that can not be questioned such as "save the earth". Some folk like playing the martyr role and "do with out" to "save the earth" . There is even a small cult of people in western civilization . That make a point of "saving the world" by not owning a fridge or freezer. They are not Amish either.

Planet earth has undergone countless temperature swings before mankind had any influence. There are frozen buried jungles in arctic regions. There is also evidence of ice age glaciers being halfway across continental USA.
Earth's source of heat is the sun. If anybody hasn't noticed. The sun has several short and long term cycles in which it's output significantly changes.

 

[cwerdna]

Ok, seems people can't seem to stay on topic !

People, MAKE YOUR OWN TOPIC !

Mods, can you just delete this whole topic ??

Maybe they have put me on Ignore and can't see what I write. Maybe I should just do that same :roll:

Why would you want to delete the topic? Some folks here have spent a lot of time writing and responding. If not being on topic is an issue, they can carve out the posts into another thread. The MNL mods sometimes do that.

BTW, your post isn't on topic either.

Some kids just have to argue. Back on topic. I'd rather they kept the battery the same physical size and upped the wattage. Range is good, more range is better.

Upped the wattage? kWh as it applies to batteries is a measure of their capacity.