Lutz' track record at predicting what will sell and the future of the automotive industry has been hit-and-miss. Tesla may fail due to mismanagement, and based on numerous, very public mis-steps by Elon Musk it may be time for him to hand the reins over to someone else.
However, that's not to say that electric cars aren't viable. At this point in time, I don't believe Lutz would dare make that prediction. As the article points out, Lutz once said that Toyota's hybrid developments were nothing by a PR stunt. That was a poor prediction; look where Toyota is now, considered a leader in hybrid cars. Prius is a popular FAMILY of hybrid cars, with I think 3 models in production of different sizes, plus plug-in variants. Almost every other mainstream automaker also has some form of hybrid cars available and in development. Why? Efficiency of internal combustion engines themselves has just about peaked. Manufacturers need new tech to meet future efficiency and emissions standards.
Prior to Cadillac introducing the electric starter on gas engines in 1912, it looked as though steam power may actually win the war between internal combustion gasoline, battery electric and steam on which would become the dominant automotive powerplant. Each of the 3 propulsion methods had pros and cons.
Companies like Stanley and Doble took steam power as far as they could, using the materials science available at the time. At one time, a Stanley Steamer held the land speed record. However the "writing was on the wall" that steam had peaked while ICE tech was competitive on price, power, efficiency and convenience and would continue improving with further development. Stanley manufacturing ended in 1924. Doble hung in there and took steam development to its pinnacle, but ultimately folded in 1931.
We have now had 100+ years of improving ICE tech, and I think it's just about where steam was in the mid-1920's. Small turbocharged engines with computer-optimized combustion chambers, many-speed or CVT transmissions, variable valve timing, cylinder deactivation, stop-start systems, all under computer control. We've come a long way in optimizing the entire system of a drivetrain with an ICE at its heart. The easy improvements are all in the past. Continued gains will be small or increasingly difficult and expensive to achieve.
Automakers were hoping that new combustion cycles like GDI and HCCI would be the next revolution in ICE. But what they have found is that, when you make a gas engine that behaves like a diesel to extract more work from the fuel, it has the same problems as diesel. It's just a matter of time before governments crack down on particulate emissions (soot) from GDI engines. HCCI prototypes existed 10 years ago. So far, I believe Mazda is the only automaker to bring an HCCI-like gas engine to market, which they call Skyactiv-X, designed to run on a combination of spark and compression ignition. Even then, they've incorporated mild hybrid tech to improve the engine's fuel economy further.
Mazda’s New Skyactiv-X Engine Gives New Life to Internal Combustion
Meanwhile, there have been myriad improvements in batteries and compact high-torque motors, but until recently there was little investment in automotive applications because of entrenched interests. At the same time, there are still a lot of new developments to be discovered and commercialized in battery tech in terms of increasing energy density, decreasing recharge times, and bringing costs down. Pure-electric cars have only captured a miniscule percentage of the auto market so far, but there is a lot of pent-up demand, as evidenced by the number of Tesla Model 3 preorders. If manufacturers can get the range up and the initial cost down to where it makes sense for mainstream consumers, they will jump on the electric bandwagon.
As an aside, I see hydrogen fuel cell cars as a dead end. Hydrogen has always been touted as the "fuel of the future", and I predict it will remain so indefinitely. I have followed hydrogen developments for ~30 years because I initially thought hydrogen was promising. Today I think automakers still work on hydrogen prototypes partly to hedge their bets, and partly because governments give them grants and a lot of the developments are also applicable to gas-hybrid and pure-electric cars.
Thank you for your informed discussion of the various technologies - it is refreshing.
Lutz was a principal lead person in the design of the LH cars, the Chrysler Concorde, Dodge Intrepid and the Eagle Vision and some of their derivitives for the 1994-7 period. They were outstanding products in my opinion in terms of overall design and handling and just about everything else but raw power. Lutz is very competent in these areas, no doubt. But as you say, his other opinions are hit and miss, and his sizeable ego tends to get in the way of his clear thinking at times IMO.
The electric vehicle is here to stay just because Global Warming isn't going away no matter what some would have you believe, even in high places. And developing the new technology will also be the driver for new jobs on the cutting edge that has always made America great.
The most cost effective technology for fuel economy is currently the Sky Activ Technology from Mazda. It even beats downsize/turbo.
I have seen the technical studies evaluating a variety of technologies, and these two are at the top of the list. We will have to wait and see how well they do with Sky Activ - X technology, but it will not be the long term solution either but will help us in getting to one.
Hybrids are an interim solution as the fuel efficiency standards ratchet up and are there as interim solutions for cost effectiveness reasons before the planned roll out of new technologies that are ultimately the goal further down the road.
Battery technology is extremely hard to develop due to the time it takes to evaluate the various chemistry options and changes due to the inability to guage long term effects such as lifespan and performance as the cells age and a myriad of other concerns. But like with everything else new, the technology will continually improve and evolve to where we do have good solutions. California, for example, is planning on achieving a fully renewal energy based electrical generation system of power sources by 2040 to completely phase out combustion based generation plants. This is where the technology development will center going forward. So enjoy your combustion engine based vehicles while they are still around. EVs are simply the future for these reasons. EVs will even displace diesels for urban commercial purposes increasingly since they have high torque at low speeds to help motivate heavy duty trucks in high density areas. Diesel will continue in longer line haul applications until quick charging and better energy storage systems are developed for batteries.
Fuel cells are a pipe dream IMO as well, as hydrogen is hard to store or distribute through normal methods. Hydrogen is really a "pipe nightmare" since it embrittles pipes that causes them to ultimately fail, thereby wreaking havoc on the infrastructure.
Investing in reviving coal mining takes us backward in the goal of developing cutting edge technology that is the real source of new jobs, as long as industry doesn't ship the jobs associated with building the new technologies overseas. That is what needs to stop.