GM and Honda to co-develop millions of affordable EVs starting in 2027

Shawn Knight

Posts: 14,243   +158
Staff member
In brief: General Motors and Honda have announced plans to co-develop a series of affordable electric vehicles based on next-gen Ultium battery technology. The partnership will leverage the companies' technology, design and sourcing strategies to enable production in 2027, catering to key markets including North America, South America and China.

The duo will also work toward standardizing processes and equipment to boost output and lower costs.

GM CEO Mary Barra said that by working together, the two will be able to put people into EVs faster than either company could achieve on its own.

"Our plans include a new all-electric product for North America positioned at a price point lower than the upcoming Chevrolet Equinox EV," said Doug Parks, executive VP of Global Product Development, Purchasing and Supply Chain at GM.

Until recently, one major hurdle to adoption was cost. EVs won't become mainstream until they are readily available across a spectrum of price points. Vehicles like the Model 3 have brought us closer to that goal, but more variety is still needed.

The partnership will also help GM deliver on its commitment to eliminate tailpipe emissions from light duty vehicles in the US by 2035 and reach carbon neutrality globally by 2040. Honda, meanwhile, is on track to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.

This isn't the first time the two automakers have joined forces. In 2018, GM and Honda came together to accelerate the development of advanced chemistry battery components for EVs. GM also helped Honda co-develop the Prologue all-electric SUV which is due out as a 2024 model.

Permalink to story.

 

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 6,308   +7,247
I personally love EV.

As they get larger and more spacious and less expensive, they get better and better.

My bottom line is: I need all the typical luxury amenities and autonomous driving in bumper-to-bumper traffic without me needing my hands on the wheel. I like GM's system in the Cadillacs because it watches your eyes to ensure you are paying attention and is hands-free.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,216   +4,268
This is a good development. It's too bad that we're about to cross the point of no return like, right now in 2022 and all of the "Global North" is *increasing* gas and fuel consumption while intel is also getting ready to produce as many ASIC devices for mining as anyone would want meaning it probably will not matter and we'll be inside several climate related refugee crisis situations by 2027

But hey, good going Honda gets a gold star!

If you want to actually change things we need let's just say more drastic actions that are morally questionable, definitively not ''legal" tactics.
 

Morphine Child

Posts: 150   +283
Seems to me that I'm not switching to EVs before 2030. Maybe, just maybe, they make them as practical as diesels for not outrageous price. But we are listening to promises of affordable EVs for 10 years or more...

If not, well then diesel it is till they are banned in Germany altogether.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 3,428   +5,738
This is a good development. It's too bad that we're about to cross the point of no return like, right now in 2022 and all of the "Global North" is *increasing* gas and fuel consumption while intel is also getting ready to produce as many ASIC devices for mining as anyone would want meaning it probably will not matter and we'll be inside several climate related refugee crisis situations by 2027

But hey, good going Honda gets a gold star!

If you want to actually change things we need let's just say more drastic actions that are morally questionable, definitively not ''legal" tactics.
Just checking, is this the “point of no return” in the 70s that would lead to a new ice age, the “point of no return” of the 80s that would result In widespread food shortages by 94 and no drinking water by97, or the “point of no return” in 1995 that would result in Florida being underwater by 2020?

It’s just so hard to remember which climate alarmist narrative we’re championing this week!
I personally love EV.

As they get larger and more spacious and less expensive, they get better and better.

My bottom line is: I need all the typical luxury amenities and autonomous driving in bumper-to-bumper traffic without me needing my hands on the wheel. I like GM's system in the Cadillacs because it watches your eyes to ensure you are paying attention and is hands-free.
We already have a car that you don’t have to drive. It’s called a taxi.

I cannot imagine anything more boring then sitting in a car watching the road but not actively driving.
Seems to me that I'm not switching to EVs before 2030. Maybe, just maybe, they make them as practical as diesels for not outrageous price. But we are listening to promises of affordable EVs for 10 years or more...

If not, well then diesel it is till they are banned in Germany altogether.
EV tech will never be cheap. Batteries are expensive, and current tech isn’t going to scale anywhere near this dramatically in the next 50 years let alone 10.

Remember when GM was going to invest in the green future by eliminating their fuel efficient cars and hybrids? Or when they were betting on hydrogen with nikola motors?
 

psycros

Posts: 4,249   +6,074
Just checking, is this the “point of no return” in the 70s that would lead to a new ice age, the “point of no return” of the 80s that would result In widespread food shortages by 94 and no drinking water by97, or the “point of no return” in 1995 that would result in Florida being underwater by 2020?

It’s just so hard to remember which climate alarmist narrative we’re championing this week!
We already have a car that you don’t have to drive. It’s called a taxi.

I cannot imagine anything more boring then sitting in a car watching the road but not actively driving.
EV tech will never be cheap. Batteries are expensive, and current tech isn’t going to scale anywhere near this dramatically in the next 50 years let alone 10.

Remember when GM was going to invest in the green future by eliminating their fuel efficient cars and hybrids? Or when they were betting on hydrogen with nikola motors?

Hydrogen would work great if fuel cell tech was less expensive. Instant refueling just like gasoline, only minor modifications to existing combustion tech required and most of the existing petrol-based infrastructure could be utilized. But the green cultists and loony left have demonized anything that isn't pure electric and even threatened to punish companies that invest in it, so they stopped. Apparently they'd rather have cars that take hours to fully recharge and are almost entirely dependent on coal-fired power plants.
 

Neatfeatguy

Posts: 882   +1,521
I'm for better ways to do things.....

But are these batteries going to be easily recyclable? If not, then there is a shitton of burning and other non-friendly chemicals needed to get reusable stuff out of these batteries.

The whole idea behind going electric is to have lower output of bad stuff into the atmosphere; that's not really happening once you take all the work to mine, move materials, production, moving more materials, construction, moving more materials, using other methods to generate electricity to charge the vehicles and finally the deconstruction of the vehicle (or at least the batteries).

I just don't see this being a viable thing for everyone, at least not with our current technology and our current methods to recycle and reuse materials. This will be a shitstorm in a decade....an absolute shitstorm.
 

Irata

Posts: 2,170   +3,751
Didn‘t GM shift all their EV activities including development to China ?
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,831   +6,811
EV tech will never be cheap. Batteries are expensive, and current tech isn’t going to scale anywhere near this dramatically in the next 50 years let alone 10.
Never is a very long time. So you think that humanity is standing still, there is no ongoing energy storage research, and humanity will never figure out good energy storage devices for electric cars nor better electric generation sources? I always love an optimist. :dizzy:
Hydrogen would work great if fuel cell tech was less expensive. Instant refueling just like gasoline, only minor modifications to existing combustion tech required and most of the existing petrol-based infrastructure could be utilized. But the green cultists and loony left have demonized anything that isn't pure electric and even threatened to punish companies that invest in it, so they stopped. Apparently they'd rather have cars that take hours to fully recharge and are almost entirely dependent on coal-fired power plants.
And the looney right have demonized anything but fossil fuels, and infact, if the looney right manages to get back into power in the US, they will attempt to revert any progress made towards electrification.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,831   +6,811
I'm for better ways to do things.....

But are these batteries going to be easily recyclable? If not, then there is a shitton of burning and other non-friendly chemicals needed to get reusable stuff out of these batteries.

The whole idea behind going electric is to have lower output of bad stuff into the atmosphere; that's not really happening once you take all the work to mine, move materials, production, moving more materials, construction, moving more materials, using other methods to generate electricity to charge the vehicles and finally the deconstruction of the vehicle (or at least the batteries).
The complete production cycle on fossil fuels is also quite dirty.
I just don't see this being a viable thing for everyone, at least not with our current technology and our current methods to recycle and reuse materials. This will be a shitstorm in a decade....an absolute shitstorm.
Maybe you will do some research on the tech and get back to us and let us know whether your shitstorm will pan out, or whether you are just injecting hot air in the form of fear, uncertainty, and doubt into the conversation?

Or perhaps you also think humanity is standing still, is unaware of the problems, and is not working, actively, to find a solution? :rolleyes:
 

kiwigraeme

Posts: 1,125   +824
Just checking, is this the “point of no return” in the 70s that would lead to a new ice age, the “point of no return” of the 80s that would result In widespread food shortages by 94 and no drinking water by97, or the “point of no return” in 1995 that would result in Florida being underwater by 2020?

Come on let's have a decent debate - and not throw out BS that is just emotive and not really true

I have posted 3 times about that iceage thing - it was Newsweek Time magazine story to sell editions.

I won't write about it again - read here
https://time.com/5670942/time-magazine-ice-age-cover-hoax/

So please don't repeat this BS again and again

The other stuff - no idea probably taken one scientist or a extreme edge case

Food production , quality water , the world water system and rising water levels are all very serious concerns .
The USA where rivers catch on fire - where water tables fall 100s of metres - where surface contaminates and saltwater seep into it .

You do know food export is water export ? how much water for a tonne of wheat, beef, almonds, avocados etc .
I think you have been seeing some more 100 year only storm surges .
But you are old like me - and have incredible fear to give up even any benefits for our grandchildren - plants and fauna

As I have stated all those farmers who don't believe in manmade climate change - are preparing more for floods , droughts , insects, fungi etc .
I notice climate change every year - plants flowering on warm winter days - less frost - earlier spring . Maybe you don't see it .

End of day what s wrong in spending trillions on water infrastructure - increasing floodplains , bringing back wetlands - building a million micro dams - wet areas for city storm water run off to take out contaminates like heavy metals .
Updating pipes to stop 20 to 30% of drinking water losses .

The thing is we should be doing lots of these things anyway .

Brazil with it's Amazon - will become desert like if it fails to look after it - read about sky rivers .
 

emmzo

Posts: 635   +835
Hydrogen would work great if fuel cell tech was less expensive. Instant refueling just like gasoline, only minor modifications to existing combustion tech required and most of the existing petrol-based infrastructure could be utilized. But the green cultists and loony left have demonized anything that isn't pure electric and even threatened to punish companies that invest in it, so they stopped. Apparently they'd rather have cars that take hours to fully recharge and are almost entirely dependent on coal-fired power plants.
At least the left saw a future beyond fossil fuels, even if I also don't agree with most of their agenda. I also think hydrogen has better potential than lithium now and in the long run and I suspect there's powerful interests keeping it second fiddle, even if the technology is better.
 

Uncle Al

Posts: 8,937   +7,902
One factor that needs to be promoted are inexpensive solar panel(s) that come with the EV to promote people getting off the grid as much as possible. Certainly won't be practical for apartment and rental dwellings but just having the cheap option will help.
 

kiwigraeme

Posts: 1,125   +824
Hydrogen would work great if fuel cell tech was less expensive. Instant refueling just like gasoline, only minor modifications to existing combustion tech required and most of the existing petrol-based infrastructure could be utilized. But the green cultists and loony left have demonized anything that isn't pure electric and even threatened to punish companies that invest in it, so they stopped. Apparently they'd rather have cars that take hours to fully recharge and are almost entirely dependent on coal-fired power plants.
I haven't heard the loony left demonising it - there is still a lot of investment into it - from memory esp. for trucks . Toyota and Japan backed it a lot .
I mean hydrogen is explosive , expensive to make - hard to store/compact .
All those things are being worked on - solar to hydrogen , genetically modified bacteria - things like carbon nano tubes to hold it ( can't remember offhand actually substance - what impressed me was - you could compacted it more - it put into something carbon buckyballs - not sure again - but that sounds counter intuitive - if takes up less space when you combine it with extra stuff )- plus it made it safer
Same as fuel cells - people still working on them - Lithium alternatives - that are nearly as power dense , don't use precious earth metals - can charge quick enough and as many times ( the good thing here - magnitudes less fire risk )
Even though EVs have been around for over 120 years - Things will take off - all the things that are coming in CPU design etc - are happening in other tech - better material science - AI - more powerful PCs modellng etc . Manufacturing techniques - I mean Google AI is getting good at protein folding and that stuff is super hard
 

Neatfeatguy

Posts: 882   +1,521
The complete production cycle on fossil fuels is also quite dirty.

Maybe you will do some research on the tech and get back to us and let us know whether your shitstorm will pan out, or whether you are just injecting hot air in the form of fear, uncertainty, and doubt into the conversation?

Or perhaps you also think humanity is standing still, is unaware of the problems, and is not working, actively, to find a solution? :rolleyes:

Yep, got my multi-billion dollar company researching it right now. I hate having to do the heavy lifting for these companies and government bodies that should be on top of all this since they're the ones pushing EV, but I guess I can take one for the team.

I also like how folks think fossil fuels take no part in the production of electric vehicles or they forget they're needed, for many places, to power electric vehicles.
 

kiwigraeme

Posts: 1,125   +824
Yep, got my multi-billion dollar company researching it right now. I hate having to do the heavy lifting for these companies and government bodies that should be on top of all this since they're the ones pushing EV, but I guess I can take one for the team.

I also like how folks think fossil fuels take no part in the production of electric vehicles or they forget they're needed, for many places, to power electric vehicles.
In NZ - the North Island uses a lot of dirty coal ( from Indonesia for Power-gen)- we closed down a lot of our coal mining - stop gas exploration . South Island Hydro dams - but less people .
Scientists are well aware of costs of EV and they are not super clean - but they still come out ahead of ICE for carbon footprints . Yeah I get it many pushing EV are unaware

The 4 stroke ICE have had huge subsidies and same for OIL/Coal Producers in tax credits or funds for research .

Govts must make a better future as pain free as possible.
What has hurt us from the past?
No getting plastic bags at supermarket - not really
Seat belts - not really
Drink driving - for some people - especially if rural - probably
Using DDT to wipe out bugs ?
I think most thinks people get annoyed about is health and safety - and govt rules enforced blindly

In the USA - probably Insurance/Health Care has done more to limit people's lives .
Biggest cost going forward to most people - carbon tax on flying/tourism - making it more expensive - maybe meat prices too.
No one will tax children just yet - the biggest carbon footprint