7 ms·

GM is investing almost $1B in new V8 engines

20 points by bluedino 4y ago

saturn5k 4y ago
"GM expects to still be selling a lot of gas trucks and SUVs for years to come, likely in part because towing range in electric vehicles still sucks."
- matt-attack 4y ago
  I have to imagine that towing has the same impact on range for gas trucks as it does electric trucks. It's just that gas trucks don't mind stopping for fuel more often. If charging were as ubiquitous as gas stations, would the same ultimately be true of e-towing?
  - albntomat0 4y ago
    What’s the current state of the art for electric charging times? There’s a big difference in frequent 5 minute stops for gas, where a 30 minute charge would be a deal breaker.
    - Tagbert 4y ago
      Hyundai/Kia EVs take 18 minutes for 0-80% charging. After 80% the charging rate slows down on most EVs as fast charging to 100% will cause more 'wear' on the battery. Most drivers do more frequent, but faster stops charging to 80%.
      - bdcravens 4y ago
        That assumes a 150kw+ charger, which aren't super common. I did a trip from Houston to San Diego in my Kia EV6, and those chargers (I believe Electrify America is the only one with those speeds) were roughly every 60-100 miles. Many areas you can't even find one close enough to not run out on the freeway (for instance, anywhere in Texas south of San Antonio). Slower level 3 chargers will typically take 3x as long, and the level 2 chargers that are common will typically take 5-8 hours.
        travisporter 4y ago
        Interested in getting a ev myself looks like 800v egmp is thr way to go. Would be interested in seeinf how your trip went! Care to throw a blog up?
        bdcravens 4y ago
        I took pics at each charging stop, and do plan on doing a write up "soon" :-)
        TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
        150kW+ is also super expensive. Charging Enyaq iv80 on Ionity in France and Italy for 0,79EUR/kWh for 1 hour so I can go 2 hours at 130km/h on highway to another Ionity charger. You can also try the slower charger, but it is really hit or miss regarding compatibility with your car. Yes, everything has CCS, but what's the point when you can't start charging session because there is some software incompatibility. Happened to me repeatedly.
  - daveguy 4y ago
    You'd still need to solve the 5 min to full issue. Higher throughout 30 minutes fillups, even if they're ubiquitous would be a major negative. Particularly for lots of fillups. That may be some crazy 200A 440V standard (and battery tech to match) or battery swaps.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      The EU is standardizing a 3MW charger. There are passenger vehicles that can charge 10%-80% at 250-300kW which is roughly equivalent to a gallon every minute and a half to two minutes. Stopping for 20 minutes every two hours isn't as prphibitive as people like to imagine.
      - bdcravens 4y ago
        I have one of those cars (Kia EV6), and when at a 350kW charger, I've never seen it go over 180kW. As for every 2 hours, that's only true once there are more fast chargers, especially on long stretches of freeway between major cities. I did a drive from Houston to San Diego, and we had to stop every 60-90 minutes, not because we needed it, but because the fastest charging locations (Electrify America) weren't close enough to skip any. Also, freeway range is far less than city range, due to wind resistance.
        daveguy 4y ago
        Wow. 400A * 440V delivery is 176kW. I didn't know that was already standard for commercial fillups. How long does it take to fill up with that? Is a "3MW charger" of GP a bunch of these at once? Or nominally a bunch of 2x these (350kW delivery) that typically only do 180kW for safety conditions or compatibility? I guess they are already being spec'd for "as fast as gas", now they just need to be as prevalent? (and work at a full 350kW, but that should come with time and improved standards)
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        There's a few different standards being discussed, with battery buffering being a major component in most proposals. Using 2 750kW bays for a truck was one proposal. There is a limitation imposed by the size and cooling capacity of the battery too, although that improves every year. The current marketing buzz phrase is 20 minutes to 80%. Daimler is proposing 3,000A and 1.25kV https://insideevs.com/news/535918/megawatt-charging-system-ev-trucks/ https://insideevs.com/news/535918/megawatt-charging-system-e...
  - prennert 4y ago
    Sounds like the trailers could carry batteries. Then you could get to same range as without trailer.
selectodude 4y ago
There are a lot of situations where the energy density of gasoline is still impossible to avoid, namely aviation and trucking. A net-zero kerosene process will absolutely be a part of a carbon-free future and it's naive to assume otherwise.
- kjksf 4y ago
  Kerosene? Maybe. A net-zero kerosene? No, because it's a made up stuff, like Toyota's self-charging ICE cars or "clean" coal, gas or whatever. BTW: Tesla just released a semi truck that does 500 miles fully loaded and it's a v1 technology. It's already good enough for most trucking and an EV semi 10 years from now will be both cheaper and longer range than that.
  - travisporter 4y ago
    Well net zero fuels are a theoretical possibility, and it's a big startup scene. I'd wait for more Tesla semis on the road before agreeing with that SF to LA semi test. I think they can pull it off, but the economics should make sense.
    - cduzz 4y ago
      The future's a big place; there are plenty of use cases for a truck where it's fine to have a 200-500 mile battery for hauling stuff on the last mile or between warehouses. There are plenty of other use cases where you need lots more energy density. It's silly to assume the same vehicle needs to be able to do either on alternating sundays. For trucking, at least, a modular approach seems reasonable where some are all electric and some are hybrid where you chose the maximum generator output based on your expected duty cycle. A truck to lug cement over the Rocky Mountains on a daily basis will have a different load curve from one hauling across Texas. Hybrid focused ICE engines will likely be quite different from those designed as the primary motivation for cars, and there are probably not many situations where a v8's the right size. (Hybrid where they only run a generator to charge a battery will likely be optimized for only a couple RPMs and loads intermittent operation, etc)
  - 4y ago
DwnVoteHoneyPot 4y ago
The future is combustion, plus hybrids, plus electric. Getting rid of investment into combustion and hybrids is mistake similar to the mistake of neglecting nuclear for electricity generation. An analogy is the people still use the post office, despite email, text messages, instant messages, and video calls.
- kjksf 4y ago
  Combustion and hybrids will be banned in most markets by 2035-40. Until then, it'll market of declining sales year after year. Investing in anything in them is a huge mistake. It's like investing in improving black and white tv at a time when color tv have 10% market share and growing 50% a year. Car companies have no choice but to sell ICE for a while. The demand is still there and they can't convert to EV production overnight. Yet, the winner of tomorrow will be companies that convert to EV quickly and without going bankrupt. Spending $1B on non-EV technology is not going to help GM do that.
  - billylindeman 4y ago
    When the electrical grid begins to collapse under the weight of "migrating to EV," people will be quite happy these legacy companies didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are massive needs that ICE is still servicing, and will continue to service for many decades to come.
    - orwin 4y ago
      If "Many decades" is two to three, probably yes, else i don't think so. Oil EROI is declining faster than ever. New oil wells have shorter and shorter lives. Russia's aggression is just moving the timetable two or three years ahead of time.
    - bdcravens 4y ago
      "Smart phones will never succeed. The cellular networks will collapse under the weight of all that data" - someone in 2006
htag 4y ago
This is the right move for GM. * These 'generations' last about 10 years. The are sold in a wide variety of products: Chevy, GMC, Cadillac, sports cars, trucks, and SUVs. * Full transition to electric is at least 10 years away. This is the right time to make a 10yr investment. * These vehicles are probably going to be some of the last to have really compelling electric options. Lots of sport car enthusiast find the engine to be part of the experience, and may never feel an electric car is a replacement (I'm that way with motorcycles). SUVs and Trucks are often used in ways and places unsuited for EVs, but this is changing overtime. * GM has ~$240B in assets. On the scale of GM this is just another gear turning. * Only a percent or two of GMs sales are EVs. They should invest in things their customers are buying. * This isn't the end of GM and EVs. They were in on this early with the Volt, and have shown continued investment.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  I'm certain they could sell more EVs if they made it a priority. I had to wait a couple of months for them to manufacture my Chevy Bolt, in which time I could have gotten cold feet or bought one from someone else. Apparently now there are 4 people on a waiting list at the dealership, which has 0 EVs in their inventory.
- pupppet 4y ago
  > * Full transition to electric is at least 10 years away. This is the right time to make a 10yr investment. Wouldn’t that mean they need to invest in electric now so they have something ready in 10 years?
  - Rebelgecko 4y ago
    I don't think those goals are mutually exclusive
    - pupppet 4y ago
      Except with a billion investment in the V8 and 64 million in EVs, GM has decided they are.
chiph 4y ago
> Defiance Operations in Ohio – GM will invest $55 million in the Defiance facility. $47 million will be invested to prepare the facility to build a variety of block castings to support future V-8 engine programs. In addition, the investment includes $8 million to build a casting development cell for castings to support future EV strategies. The investment in castings is a good one. They probably won't be creating large scale chassis castings like Tesla does, but electric motor & inverter housings for EVs are about the same size as engine blocks, so retrofitting this facility to create both is a good use of money.
sacnoradhq 4y ago
I can already smell the parallel arguments for not stopping hunting whales for fuel, continued use of lead paint and asbestos, whining about freon, and the health "benefits" of tobacco. Ban ICEs now. The sooner, the better. They're an unsustainable threat to our survival, excess death-causing, petrostate-supporting cancer that we can already replace with clean EVs now. Those against rapid decarbonization of economies are delusional, suicidal, sociopathically greedy, or stupid because there's no rational evidence to counter the hard science of reality.

20 points by bluedino 4y ago

"GM expects to still be selling a lot of gas trucks and SUVs for years to come, likely in part because towing range in electric vehicles still sucks."

matt-attack 4y ago
I have to imagine that towing has the same impact on range for gas trucks as it does electric trucks. It's just that gas trucks don't mind stopping for fuel more often. If charging were as ubiquitous as gas stations, would the same ultimately be true of e-towing?
- albntomat0 4y ago
  What’s the current state of the art for electric charging times? There’s a big difference in frequent 5 minute stops for gas, where a 30 minute charge would be a deal breaker.
  - Tagbert 4y ago
    Hyundai/Kia EVs take 18 minutes for 0-80% charging. After 80% the charging rate slows down on most EVs as fast charging to 100% will cause more 'wear' on the battery. Most drivers do more frequent, but faster stops charging to 80%.
    - bdcravens 4y ago
      That assumes a 150kw+ charger, which aren't super common. I did a trip from Houston to San Diego in my Kia EV6, and those chargers (I believe Electrify America is the only one with those speeds) were roughly every 60-100 miles. Many areas you can't even find one close enough to not run out on the freeway (for instance, anywhere in Texas south of San Antonio). Slower level 3 chargers will typically take 3x as long, and the level 2 chargers that are common will typically take 5-8 hours.
      - travisporter 4y ago
        Interested in getting a ev myself looks like 800v egmp is thr way to go. Would be interested in seeinf how your trip went! Care to throw a blog up?
        bdcravens 4y ago
        I took pics at each charging stop, and do plan on doing a write up "soon" :-)
      - TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
        150kW+ is also super expensive. Charging Enyaq iv80 on Ionity in France and Italy for 0,79EUR/kWh for 1 hour so I can go 2 hours at 130km/h on highway to another Ionity charger. You can also try the slower charger, but it is really hit or miss regarding compatibility with your car. Yes, everything has CCS, but what's the point when you can't start charging session because there is some software incompatibility. Happened to me repeatedly.
- daveguy 4y ago
  You'd still need to solve the 5 min to full issue. Higher throughout 30 minutes fillups, even if they're ubiquitous would be a major negative. Particularly for lots of fillups. That may be some crazy 200A 440V standard (and battery tech to match) or battery swaps.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    The EU is standardizing a 3MW charger. There are passenger vehicles that can charge 10%-80% at 250-300kW which is roughly equivalent to a gallon every minute and a half to two minutes. Stopping for 20 minutes every two hours isn't as prphibitive as people like to imagine.
    - bdcravens 4y ago
      I have one of those cars (Kia EV6), and when at a 350kW charger, I've never seen it go over 180kW. As for every 2 hours, that's only true once there are more fast chargers, especially on long stretches of freeway between major cities. I did a drive from Houston to San Diego, and we had to stop every 60-90 minutes, not because we needed it, but because the fastest charging locations (Electrify America) weren't close enough to skip any. Also, freeway range is far less than city range, due to wind resistance.
      - daveguy 4y ago
        Wow. 400A * 440V delivery is 176kW. I didn't know that was already standard for commercial fillups. How long does it take to fill up with that? Is a "3MW charger" of GP a bunch of these at once? Or nominally a bunch of 2x these (350kW delivery) that typically only do 180kW for safety conditions or compatibility? I guess they are already being spec'd for "as fast as gas", now they just need to be as prevalent? (and work at a full 350kW, but that should come with time and improved standards)
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        There's a few different standards being discussed, with battery buffering being a major component in most proposals. Using 2 750kW bays for a truck was one proposal. There is a limitation imposed by the size and cooling capacity of the battery too, although that improves every year. The current marketing buzz phrase is 20 minutes to 80%. Daimler is proposing 3,000A and 1.25kV https://insideevs.com/news/535918/megawatt-charging-system-ev-trucks/ https://insideevs.com/news/535918/megawatt-charging-system-e...
- prennert 4y ago
  Sounds like the trailers could carry batteries. Then you could get to same range as without trailer.

selectodude 4y ago

There are a lot of situations where the energy density of gasoline is still impossible to avoid, namely aviation and trucking. A net-zero kerosene process will absolutely be a part of a carbon-free future and it's naive to assume otherwise.

kjksf 4y ago
Kerosene? Maybe. A net-zero kerosene? No, because it's a made up stuff, like Toyota's self-charging ICE cars or "clean" coal, gas or whatever. BTW: Tesla just released a semi truck that does 500 miles fully loaded and it's a v1 technology. It's already good enough for most trucking and an EV semi 10 years from now will be both cheaper and longer range than that.
- travisporter 4y ago
  Well net zero fuels are a theoretical possibility, and it's a big startup scene. I'd wait for more Tesla semis on the road before agreeing with that SF to LA semi test. I think they can pull it off, but the economics should make sense.
  - cduzz 4y ago
    The future's a big place; there are plenty of use cases for a truck where it's fine to have a 200-500 mile battery for hauling stuff on the last mile or between warehouses. There are plenty of other use cases where you need lots more energy density. It's silly to assume the same vehicle needs to be able to do either on alternating sundays. For trucking, at least, a modular approach seems reasonable where some are all electric and some are hybrid where you chose the maximum generator output based on your expected duty cycle. A truck to lug cement over the Rocky Mountains on a daily basis will have a different load curve from one hauling across Texas. Hybrid focused ICE engines will likely be quite different from those designed as the primary motivation for cars, and there are probably not many situations where a v8's the right size. (Hybrid where they only run a generator to charge a battery will likely be optimized for only a couple RPMs and loads intermittent operation, etc)
- 4y ago

DwnVoteHoneyPot 4y ago

The future is combustion, plus hybrids, plus electric. Getting rid of investment into combustion and hybrids is mistake similar to the mistake of neglecting nuclear for electricity generation. An analogy is the people still use the post office, despite email, text messages, instant messages, and video calls.

kjksf 4y ago
Combustion and hybrids will be banned in most markets by 2035-40. Until then, it'll market of declining sales year after year. Investing in anything in them is a huge mistake. It's like investing in improving black and white tv at a time when color tv have 10% market share and growing 50% a year. Car companies have no choice but to sell ICE for a while. The demand is still there and they can't convert to EV production overnight. Yet, the winner of tomorrow will be companies that convert to EV quickly and without going bankrupt. Spending $1B on non-EV technology is not going to help GM do that.
- billylindeman 4y ago
  When the electrical grid begins to collapse under the weight of "migrating to EV," people will be quite happy these legacy companies didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are massive needs that ICE is still servicing, and will continue to service for many decades to come.
  - orwin 4y ago
    If "Many decades" is two to three, probably yes, else i don't think so. Oil EROI is declining faster than ever. New oil wells have shorter and shorter lives. Russia's aggression is just moving the timetable two or three years ahead of time.
  - bdcravens 4y ago
    "Smart phones will never succeed. The cellular networks will collapse under the weight of all that data" - someone in 2006

htag 4y ago

This is the right move for GM. * These 'generations' last about 10 years. The are sold in a wide variety of products: Chevy, GMC, Cadillac, sports cars, trucks, and SUVs. * Full transition to electric is at least 10 years away. This is the right time to make a 10yr investment. * These vehicles are probably going to be some of the last to have really compelling electric options. Lots of sport car enthusiast find the engine to be part of the experience, and may never feel an electric car is a replacement (I'm that way with motorcycles). SUVs and Trucks are often used in ways and places unsuited for EVs, but this is changing overtime. * GM has ~$240B in assets. On the scale of GM this is just another gear turning. * Only a percent or two of GMs sales are EVs. They should invest in things their customers are buying. * This isn't the end of GM and EVs. They were in on this early with the Volt, and have shown continued investment.

DangitBobby 4y ago
I'm certain they could sell more EVs if they made it a priority. I had to wait a couple of months for them to manufacture my Chevy Bolt, in which time I could have gotten cold feet or bought one from someone else. Apparently now there are 4 people on a waiting list at the dealership, which has 0 EVs in their inventory.
pupppet 4y ago
> * Full transition to electric is at least 10 years away. This is the right time to make a 10yr investment. Wouldn’t that mean they need to invest in electric now so they have something ready in 10 years?
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  I don't think those goals are mutually exclusive
  - pupppet 4y ago
    Except with a billion investment in the V8 and 64 million in EVs, GM has decided they are.

chiph 4y ago

> Defiance Operations in Ohio – GM will invest $55 million in the Defiance facility. $47 million will be invested to prepare the facility to build a variety of block castings to support future V-8 engine programs. In addition, the investment includes $8 million to build a casting development cell for castings to support future EV strategies. The investment in castings is a good one. They probably won't be creating large scale chassis castings like Tesla does, but electric motor & inverter housings for EVs are about the same size as engine blocks, so retrofitting this facility to create both is a good use of money.

sacnoradhq 4y ago

I can already smell the parallel arguments for not stopping hunting whales for fuel, continued use of lead paint and asbestos, whining about freon, and the health "benefits" of tobacco. Ban ICEs now. The sooner, the better. They're an unsustainable threat to our survival, excess death-causing, petrostate-supporting cancer that we can already replace with clean EVs now. Those against rapid decarbonization of economies are delusional, suicidal, sociopathically greedy, or stupid because there's no rational evidence to counter the hard science of reality.