Jump to content
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    GM Expects To Make A Profit On EVs With the Launch of A New Platform

    General Motors CEO Mary Barra spoke yesterday at the Barclays Global Automotive Conference in New York. During her talk, Barra said the company expects to make a profit off electric vehicles once they launch their next-generation EV platform.

    “We are working to provide desirable, obtainable and profitable vehicles that deliver a range of over 300 miles. There’s a lot of really creative things we’re doing to achieve that profitability point for that new platform,” Barra said to investors.

    The next-generation modular platform, due in 2021 will play a pivotal role in GM's plan to launch 20 all-new electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 2023. The platform will help drop the total per-unit cost by 30 percent or more. It will be used across a number of GM brands and various segments.

    GM is also working on a new battery system that will cut the per-kilowatt-hour from $145 to under $100 by 2021.

    Before these two launches, GM will be introducing four new EV and hydrogen vehicles. Two of those will be launch by April 2019 according to a GM spokesman. At least two vehicles will be small crossovers according to Automotive News. It is expected the electric models will use the underpinnings of the Chevrolet Bolt.

    The company has a set a goal of a million electric vehicles by 2026 - with most happening in China due to their strict production quotas for EVs. 

    Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required), Reuters

    Edited by William Maley

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    1 hour ago, William Maley said:

    There’s a lot of really creative things we’re doing to achieve that profitability point for that new platform,”

    Ahhhh exactly what I want to read.. 

    Super expensive powertrain and technology but it'll be in a tin shell with no insulation and plastic seats. 

    • Like 2
    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

    Ahhhh exactly what I want to read.. 

    Super expensive powertrain and technology but it'll be in a tin shell with no insulation and plastic seats. 

    I hope not as one of the things that I love about the bolt is the triple seals on the door and the vault like solid nature of the auto and how quiet it is. If only they would drop or give an alternative color to that damn white V accent, my wife would say lets buy one.

    Happy Wife, Happy Life!

    • Haha 3
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, dfelt said:

    Awesome news to hear they already are working on EV platform 2.0 and have plans to have it profitable. This is outstanding news.

    GM is flawed, but they always seem to come through in the end. Were I a betting man I would have no trouble betting money on their success..

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    7 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

    GM is flawed, but they always seem to come through in the end. Were I a betting man I would have no trouble betting money on their success..

    Yes GM starts with a lot of meh.  Then again, who starts perfectly and never drops the ball on execution?

    • Like 1
    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    9 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

    GM is flawed, but they always seem to come through in the end. Were I a betting man I would have no trouble betting money on their success..

    Makes me want to buy stock in them! Now to find the money. :P 

    • Agree 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I like the looks on the small crossover.   I wouldn't buy a crossover, but given the proportions designers have to work with on compact crossovers, I think that one looks pretty good.

    These batteries will come down in price.  Probably by 2026 the batteries will be $60 per kilowatt hour.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    12 hours ago, ccap41 said:

    Ahhhh exactly what I want to read.. 

    Super expensive powertrain and technology but it'll be in a tin shell with no insulation and plastic seats. 

    I was thinking the same thing...but along the lines of cheapening out on some sort of automotive part by reducing the amount of material used by making it smaller and saving about 3 cents per unit and when the part gets old by 5 years or so and the car hits a bump...the part fails in such a way that for whatever reason locks the steering wheel from turning and prevents the airbag in deploying when the car goes boom...

    But for me to say such a thing maybe trolling...GM would never do that....

     

     

     

    Edited by oldshurst442
    • Haha 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    As companies get better at EVs, they'll continue to be simpler to build than ICEs. That's where I expect a lot of efficiency to come from. There will be a greater percentage of common parts shared among different models.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    6 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    A Trax EV with a 225+ mile range would be just about the smartest EV move GM could make.

    Gotta have 300+ and I don't see a charge port door in GM's typical location on the fender.  Would be a cool little trucklet with the whisper diesel.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, ocnblu said:

    Gotta have 300+ and I don't see a charge port door in GM's typical location on the fender.  Would be a cool little trucklet with the whisper diesel.

    I agree that a small Trucklet EV would make total sense especially as it would fit in for the local city and county gov that need a truck that actually drives very little for park maintenance, as well as for inner city dwellers that want a mini truck for Home Depot or Lowes runs.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    23 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    A Trax EV with a 225+ mile range would be just about the smartest EV move GM could make.

    Trax is too small, Equinox size is better.  GM needs a crossover in between Equinox and Traverse too, that is a good place to put an EV.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 11/16/2017 at 11:44 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

    As companies get better at EVs, they'll continue to be simpler to build than ICEs. That's where I expect a lot of efficiency to come from. There will be a greater percentage of common parts shared among different models.

    Efficiency can too easily equate to totally boring homogeny.  This should be seen as a real threat to the enjoyment of the personal car, and when enjoyment diminishes, lower sales follow, and on and on.

    This is why I will continue to rail against automotive electrification... it instills a numbing sameness that will suck all the joy out.

    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    6 hours ago, ocnblu said:

    Efficiency can too easily equate to totally boring homogeny.  This should be seen as a real threat to the enjoyment of the personal car, and when enjoyment diminishes, lower sales follow, and on and on.

    This is why I will continue to rail against automotive electrification... it instills a numbing sameness that will suck all the joy out.

    Did someone forget about those F&F days?:P

    There too many folks in this world to all be doing the same, exact thing . Not that I was a big fan of fart cans and wings, but some of us just want to enjoy our rides, not matter what they are. We really can't change the times my friend, only finding a way to make it our own.

    Besides, ICE will never truly go away....just won't be as big.....

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    12 hours ago, ocnblu said:

    Efficiency can too easily equate to totally boring homogeny.  This should be seen as a real threat to the enjoyment of the personal car, and when enjoyment diminishes, lower sales follow, and on and on.

    This is why I will continue to rail against automotive electrification... it instills a numbing sameness that will suck all the joy out.

    You do realize that your 1st paragraph has NOTHING to do with EVs, right?

    Hate on EVs all you want...homogeny started a looooong time ago....

    Example:

     

    Camaro

    4thgen_steering.jpg

    Firebird

    pontiac-firebird-interior-1.jpg

    Only the the steering wheel is different...

    Camaro

    L03RS-2.jpg

     

    Firebird

    205596d1283122138-classic-cool-diy-tbi-d

     

    Monte Carlo

    stock-monte-carlo-305-ho-v8-great-color-

     

    Oldsmobile 1986 Cutlass Supreme 442

    Cutlass-442-1986-engine.jpg

    And of course the not so high output 5.0s found in California Corvettes, Caprices, Fleetwoods and the like!

    In the other thread you were saying that it be the same platform and only the shell will differentiate???

    Like this?

    gm-a-body-2-and-4-door-sedans.jpg

    gm-w-body-sedans.jpg

    gm-n-body-sedans-calais-grand-am-skylark

    gm-h-body-coupes.jpg?resize=572,573

    GM homogenized its engines in the 1970s...over 40 years ago!

    The 1980s gave us what I posted above...

    It only got worse from there?

    NO!

    It got better differentiated.

    The EVs will be the same...better differentiation between the cars...

    Hell...EVs cant get any worse than this sameness:

    2002_chevrolet_camaro_2dr-hatchback_z28_

     

    5e6076eb-5718-4528-afe8-71d54c3d5e4e_zps

     

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    13 hours ago, ocnblu said:

    Efficiency can too easily equate to totally boring homogeny.  This should be seen as a real threat to the enjoyment of the personal car, and when enjoyment diminishes, lower sales follow, and on and on.

    This is why I will continue to rail against automotive electrification... it instills a numbing sameness that will suck all the joy out.

    You're about 3 decades late.  The Generic Asian Sedan put most of the sameness into cars that we have today. 

    • Agree 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    57 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    You're about 3 decades late.  The Generic Asian Sedan put most of the sameness into cars that we have today. 

    Nah, you're wrong.  What's happened up to now is nowhere near the sameness we are in for.

    • Disagree 3
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    15 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

    The red arrow, does that mean I'm a hottie below the belt?

    If it makes you hot that you think another male thinks you are hot below the belt...than sure...

    Why not!

    Just to let you know though...I knew at a very early age that I dig females. Only females.

    But I am comfortable with MY sexuality to help you come out of the closet if it means that I got to compliment your...um...manhood...

    Enjoy...and good luck in your newfound sexuality...

     

    Edited by oldshurst442
    • Like 1
    • Haha 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • How did their engineers find a way to offer both with great space? It is a large 'engine bay'.  At this point, even if I said that 2 cu.ft is nonexistent, if the Audi could offer a frunk that size, Cadillac should have done the same.  I have realized that  people associate EVs with frunks and this is why you and I (and I think @David too) might criticize Cadillac for a missed opportunity with the Lyric.    Forget about Silverados and Hummers, they gave the mid-engine Corvette a trunk and frunk when a mid-engined supercar, even as a Corvette, could have forgone a frunk, but they KNEW it would benefit Corvette because people EXPECT storage space in a Corvette.    GM missed the part that people ALSO expect frunks in EVs...  ESPECIALLY in the market that the Lyriq resides in.  yeah......that would be the proper wording. Its not a big deal by ANY means.  Just disappointing. 
    • Thanks for the information. The Model X seems to have an abundance of space, everywhere.  The Lyriq just seems to have such a large "engine bay" that could/should still be able to have at least 2 cubic feet of space available. It isn't like their rear cargo space is THAT much larger than what they chose to compare it to.  It's a perfectly fine vehicle and the lack of a small frunk wouldn't stop me, it's just a little disappointing it doesn't have one when I feel like they could have engineered one in and still had a large boot. 
    • At 2.12 and 0.95 cu.ft for the Audi and Jag's frunk respectfully is a non-issue for the Lyriq not having a frunk. Maximizing the back trunk space as what the GM guys are saying for the Lyriq and the reason why they did it that way by-passing the need for a frunk sounds like marketing BS, until you realize that Audi and Jag's frunk space is nonexistent...   To which GM's words then kinda make sense as the Lyriq does in fact offer more room back there.   Frunk space is kinda expected though, for EVs, so there is that... Tesla Model X for a comparison as Tesla is the benchmark....   https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/modelx/en_us/GUID-91E5877F-3CD2-4B3B-B2B8-B5DB4A6C0A05.html     Cargo Volume Table 1. 5-Seater Cargo Volumes Area Volume (liters) Volume (cubic ft) Front trunk 183 6.5 Behind first row, second row folded flat 2,410 85.1 Behind second row 1,050 37.1 Maximum total cargo volume with driver and front passenger 2,593 91.6 Maximum total cargo volume with 5 passengers 1,233 43.5 Table 2. 6-Seater Cargo Volumes Area Volume (liters) Volume (cubic ft) Front trunk 183 6.5 Behind first row, second row in max cargo position, third row folded flat 2,431 85.8 Behind second row, third row folded flat 935 33 Behind third row 425 15 Maximum total cargo volume with driver and front passenger 2,614 92.3 Maximum total cargo volume with 6 passengers 608 21.5 Table 3. 7-Seater Cargo Volumes Area Volume (liters) Volume (cubic ft) Front trunk 183 6.5 Behind first row, second row folded flat 2,314 81.7 Behind second row, third row folded flat 957 33.8 Behind third row 425 15 Maximum total cargo volume with driver and front passenger 2,497 88.2 Maximum total cargo volume with 7 passengers 608 21.5       The Lyriq's cargo space is plentiful and it would seem like an engineering choice to favour rear space over the use of a frunk.  Is it a sound engineering choice? Possibly yes as the powertrain bits need not be crammed.   Is it a sound MARKETING choice? Time will tell as many folk really dont understand engineering choices all to well...   Nor do they seem to care.  If they want a frunk, they WANT a phoquing frunk... 
    • Lyriq Chief Engineer, Jamie Brewer, recently explained to GM Authority that the team decided to prioritize rear cargo space over two separate cargo areas. Thus, the 2023 Cadillac Lyriq will have a larger traditional rear storage area. In fact, according to Brewer, that enables the Lyriq to boast the “largest cargo volume in its competitive set.” That made us wonder what, exactly, is the Lyriq’s competitive set. According to Cadillac spokesperson, Katie Minter, it consists of the Audi e-tron and Jaguar I-Pace. “Lyriq is aimed at customers that are looking for a luxury SUV with outstanding styling, ride and handling and seamlessly integrated technology. In this instance, we’re looking at vehicles such as the Audi e-tron and Jaguar I-Pace,” Minter told GM Authority in an emailed statement. So then, Lyriq has a maximum cargo volume of 60.8 cubic feet behind the first row seats and 28.0 cubic feet behind the second row. When compared to the Audi e-tron and the Jaguar I-Pace, the Lyriq does offer more space in the back. 2023 Cadillac Lyriq Cargo vs. e-tron I-Pace   Cadillac Lyriq Audi e-tron Jaguar I-Pace Rear cargo volume behind second row (cu. ft.) 28.0 28.5 25.3 Rear cargo volume behind first row (cu. ft.) 60.8 56.5 51.0 Frunk cargo volume (cu. ft.) N/A 2.12 0.95 Total front & rear cargo volume (cu. ft.)* 28.0 30.62 26.25 * With second row seats upright However, both the e-tron and the I-Pace feature frunks (2.12 cubic feet in the e-tron, 0.95 cubic feet in the I-Pace respectively), allowing the e-tron to have slightly more total cargo volume (combined frunk and rear cargo area). https://gmauthority.com/blog/2021/05/heres-why-the-2023-cadillac-lyriq-doesnt-have-a-frunk/  
    • That's probably a better worded way to put it. It's a missed opportunity.  They're all liquid cooled at this point and I can't imagine Ford and Tesla are having battery cooling issues, at least I haven't heard of any yet and I've watched a fair amount on the Mach-E and know somebody with a pair of Teslas in Nevada.  I don't believe lack of cooling has ever been a factor in an EV catching fire. It's always something shorting and sparking with poor connection(s) somewhere.  I'd also like to learn why. They have to have a good justification, I know they're not a bunch of idiots who "didn't think of it".  I just don't want the press release answer of "we needed the space for packaging". 
  • Social Stream

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. bobo
      bobo
      (54 years old)
    2. loki
      loki
      (39 years old)

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We  Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...