Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Add to that that even coal plants are getting cleaner each year (thus any vehicle powered by said plants gets cleaner as it ages as well), unlike ICE cars that get DIRTIER as they age, and the fact that it's easier to regulate and clean a single central pollution point than a million individual poorly maintained pollution points.
As coal plants get "cleaner," EVs already on the road will see battery capacities begin to degrade, reducing their range, hampering their performance, and requiring more frequent charges.
An ICEV might get dirtier with age, but routine maintenance ensures that dirtiness is merely relative to new standards which might be introduced. A properly maintained vehicle should have no trouble at all performing at least as efficiently as it did when it was brand new.
If this is not the case, then even the Dolt, with it's turbocharged, three banger will run dirtier and dirtier over time as it too is an ICE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc63
So do you see threads about the Focus decrying it's ability to tow, 'cause some people need to tow? Do you see threads about the S2k being a bad thing for Honda top produce becaeru it can't carry a family like a minivan can? DO you see threads complaining about the inability of an F150 to carve twisty backroads liek a Miata?
So why is a single electric car model, produced by a company that builds cars that cover those other needs, being required to be everything to everybody by posters here?
I'm sorry, but I just don't get this logic. The Focus isn't being marketed as a tow rig. The S2K isn't being advertised as a people hauler. Ford doesn't spin the F150 as a track day special.
GM, on the other hand, is marketing this thing as some sort of act of unparalleled brilliance. The reality is, it's scarcely more advanced than the Prius (which has been around more than a decade now), but costs almost a third more after a government incentive.
Why is GM being held to such high standards? Well, let's see...
1. They lied to get a bailout.
2. They lied about paying it off.
3. They tried to sell Opel, who is responsible for the bulk of their current "winners."
4. They claimed the Volt would get 230mpg, later retracting this claim due to being called upon to prove it.
5. They said they were done with badge engineering, but here's the Malibu, Lacrosse, and Regal, all the same Opel Insignia underneath.
6. Maximum Bob Lutz claimed he would best anyone in a CTS-V. Then he had a professional driver in a questionably "stock" car lap everyone and claimed "victory."
7. Now they've brought a $40,000 compact novelty to market during a recession and are trying to hype it up as being some kind of radical innovation? Sorry. I don't buy that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc63
it's the EV that does away with the range anxiety of pure EVS, paving the way for a true conversion away from petroleum powered cars in a way that things like this didn't:
It's not an EV. It's a hybrid. It's a different TYPE of hybrid, but it is NOT an EV. An EV has no gas engine on-board. This is a $40,000 Hammerhead Eagle i-Thrust with a generator under the hood. It is NOT an EV.
You don't pave the way away from petroleum-powered vehicles in a car with a turbocharged engine under the hood that requires you to stop at a gas station. Furthermore, you do not reduce dependence on fossil fuels with electric vehicles powered - indirectly - by coal and natural gas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc63
Unliek a Prius, which would stil use gasoline on my commute (and a few million others) the Volt would not use ANY gasoline to go back and forth to work on and do most routine errands. And unlike a pure EV like the Leaf, if I have to go over it's electric range, there IS a backup generator that will get me there and back with no worries.
The Prius can be driven on pure electric power. The range is something like 20 miles, but it's also nearly $10,000 cheaper than the Dolt, even after the $7500 government handout.
If nothing else I say appeals to your inner gearhead, consider the Volt has lead to my actually having something GOOD to say about the PRIUS!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc63
Again, for the vast majority of buyers, ther gas engine will rarely run, so that's a huge reduction right there. And seriously, yore an idiot of you think that adding a fleet of these cars will increase the pollution output of a caol plant over what it's already putting out anuyhow, AND that a coal plant, at elast in modern times, is a heavy polluter anyhow.
How do you know the vast majority of buyers will never need to drive more than 40 miles, or that most owners will see a full 40 mile range on battery power? Are you suggesting that people will buy a $40,000 car and only drive to and from work?
Why am I an idiot for thinking a fleet of these will add to the pollution of a coal power plant? More electrical demand from the grid requires more electrical power generation at the plant. More power generation requires more fuel. More fuel burned equals more plant emissions. It's pretty straight forward, this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc63
How is taking any sales away from Toyota by GM a game changer? How is leapfrogging the traditional hybrid and introducing a useable EV during a time when people are really concerned with the price of oil a game changer? how is turning the traditional EV from a car liek I just pictured into a useable car that drives liek a real car and can be used without fear of running out of juice somewhere a game changer?
I dunno, you tell me.
If the Volt had an MSRP of $20,000, it would be a game changer. It would a knockout, a home run, a touchdown, a superlative feather in a changed GM's cap. Sadly, though, it's still $10,000+ more than a Prius, offers only marginal benefits over the Prius, and, being a brand new GM model, will keep many buyers away for the sheer fact that every brand new GM model in the last thirty years has been wrought with problems, design/manufacturing flaws, and ends up being worthless on the used market.
Maybe you see GM waking up and smelling the coffee, but I see GM as trying to pass of the same slipshod, second tier, mediocrity they've been bringing to the table since the 80s. They talk a big game about quality and performance and care, but for as big as they are (still) and as much taxpayer funding as they've managed to weasel out of Washington, they STILL aren't hitting homeruns. I don't know if they lack the talent or are just plain lazy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc63
Because it gets people into these cars that woudl noprmally not have taken the chance on new tech? Has that happened before? It certainly is changing the game. WHther or not THAT change is a good one is up for debate, but it's certainly a change, right?
Does this $7,500 tax credit apply to ANY product EV, or is this just another way of funneling cash to GM? What happens to the Nissan Leaf when you apply the same credit?
Oh snap. Nissan Leaf MSRP is less than $33,000, meaning you could buy the Leaf, which is a TRUE EV (no gas engine), and has more than DOUBLE the EV range (100miles) for $25,500. With many articles mentioning GM drafted the lease offer to compete directly with the Leaf, it seems this was their target all along. Shame they couldn't compete on price, or pure EV power, or even range. But hey, buy American, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc63
Of course you say it. I don't. Of course, GM only makes 3 cars, according to you.
Hanlon's Razor. I expect more from GM.
All the financial support they've received, and after three plus years of hyping this thing, they come out and announce it to great fanfare - being inferior in every way, and coming in a solid $10,000 more expensive than the nearest competitor.
Sorry, Chief. I'm not seeing it. If the game has changed, it's because the rest of the players have left GM behind (again).
There is a thread on this subject on the "Politics and Other Controversies" forum, with personal attacks on the President and rants against "Big Government" thrown in for your enjoyment.
Question for anybody knowledgable on the subject of electric power plants - Say, theoretically, these kinds of cars become a big hit. Everybody and their grandma gets one and starts charging it every night. (Ok, grandma only charges it once a week to get to church on sunday) What happens to our supply of electric power? At what point would this begin to affect the availability of electricity, or for that matter, the price? I'm not sure, but aren't most power plants coal-burning? I know we have a ton of it in this country, but do we have anywhere near the capacity to burn enough of it to generate the demand for daily commuting?
I'm not saying the first year of sales is going to kill the power grid (I dont even know why it's called a "grid") but has anybody thought about where all this "wave of the future" power is going to come from if we all were driving some variant of this machine?
I thought about it and then I saw the Hyundai Equus for 55k and I said... to hell with the Volt... GM can go to hell to... I hated when they took taxpayers money and borrowed taxpayers to pay back the taxpayers money...
Can you at least get the facts straight? They paid back the loans not with new borrowed money but money they made at the exact same time the original loans were made. GM sold the government stock and then used the money from that stock sale to pay off part of the loans.
The government intends to recoupe all or most of their money when GM does an IPO and the government sells it's stock. Saying "they borrowed more to pay back the old loans" is not only wrong but displays that you know very little about finance.
Can you at least get the facts straight? They paid back the loans not with new borrowed money but money they made at the exact same time the original loans were made. GM sold the government stock and then used the money from that stock sale to pay off part of the loans.
The government intends to recoupe all or most of their money when GM does an IPO and the government sells it's stock. Saying "they borrowed more to pay back the old loans" is not only wrong but displays that you know very little about finance.
I think your attempting to white wash what they did. While I don't think it was horrible of them, the announcement and marketing about it left a bad taste in my mouth and I am a GM supporter.
They took money in the escrow fund from the bailout where the government acquired ownership. They then used that money to pay off the loans that were given to GM BEFORE the bailout. This was a slick and intelligent financial decision. The loan they paid off was an obligation and had to be carried on the balance sheet. This was money that HAD to be paid back by GM to the government. They did essentially use taxpayer money to pay back taxpayer money and eliminate an obligation. Now, as you stated, the only money the government will see from GM is whatever the stock brings at an IPO. I still think the government will get most if not all it's money back, but that is tied to how well GM performs.
The issue I had with it is that it should have been done quietly and with little fanfare, not a massive press conference with the Chairman of the Board declaring that they had repaid the loans in full. They tried to spin it as if a new, healthy, vibrant GM had repaid the loans with earnings and this was not the case.
So, no it wasn't a bad thing to do and was financially quite smart as they removed a large debt obligation, but it should never have been marketed the way it was.
Question for anybody knowledgable on the subject of electric power plants - Say, theoretically, these kinds of cars become a big hit. Everybody and their grandma gets one and starts charging it every night. (Ok, grandma only charges it once a week to get to church on sunday) What happens to our supply of electric power? At what point would this begin to affect the availability of electricity, or for that matter, the price? I'm not sure, but aren't most power plants coal-burning? I know we have a ton of it in this country, but do we have anywhere near the capacity to burn enough of it to generate the demand for daily commuting?
I'm not saying the first year of sales is going to kill the power grid (I dont even know why it's called a "grid") but has anybody thought about where all this "wave of the future" power is going to come from if we all were driving some variant of this machine?
If thecoalman was around he could explain it very well. I'll try, but might get it a bit wrong.
As I understand it most coal-burning power plants run at a constant rate unless there is a major need for power during, say, a heat wave. The amount of generated power is equal to what a city needs during the peak daylight hours. At night the same amount of electricity is generated, but it isn't all used.
The assumption is that the majority of EVs will be plugged in overnight and use that electricity being generated, but otherwise unused.
As coal plants get "cleaner," EVs already on the road will see battery capacities begin to degrade, reducing their range, hampering their performance, and requiring more frequent charges.
You are correct that overtime the batteries will degrade, but the batteries in use on current and soon to be released EV's are engineered for at least 10 years of consistent operation. This is the trick with EV's, building and engineering batteries that can handle the charge/discharge cycle and retain performance. So, you are right, but with an engineered 10 year life span, it is of little issue.
Quote:
An ICEV might get dirtier with age, but routine maintenance ensures that dirtiness is merely relative to new standards which might be introduced. A properly maintained vehicle should have no trouble at all performing at least as efficiently as it did when it was brand new.
If this is not the case, then even the Dolt, with it's turbocharged, three banger will run dirtier and dirtier over time as it too is an ICE.
The Volt does not use a turbo charged 3 cylinder. It uses a small naturally aspirated 4 cylinder engine. The platform was also engineered to use a wide variety of engines as the generator including diesel and hydrogen. I would argue that diesel should have been the planned fuel from the beginning.
Quote:
I'm sorry, but I just don't get this logic. The Focus isn't being marketed as a tow rig. The S2K isn't being advertised as a people hauler. Ford doesn't spin the F150 as a track day special.
GM, on the other hand, is marketing this thing as some sort of act of unparalleled brilliance. The reality is, it's scarcely more advanced than the Prius (which has been around more than a decade now), but costs almost a third more after a government incentive.
The brilliance of the Volt is that it IS a complete departure from what has come before it. Currently you have a choice of a hybrid like the Prius which has minimal and restricted electric only driving and still uses the gas engine as the primary method for driving the wheels. You also have a pure EV that is limited in range to between 100 and 150 miles before requiring a long charge interval.
The Volt splits the difference. It gives you 40 miles of normal driving on your electric charge, but then also carries it's own generator to continue driving however long you want as long as you put gas in it. The engine does not drive the wheels in anyway and this is the major departure. The Volt is essentially an EV with a generator onboard. The vehicle works exactly the same as an EV in the drive components, except it affords you essentially unlimited range with the generator onboard.
Quote:
Why is GM being held to such high standards? Well, let's see...
1. They lied to get a bailout.
2. They lied about paying it off.
3. They tried to sell Opel, who is responsible for the bulk of their current "winners."
4. They claimed the Volt would get 230mpg, later retracting this claim due to being called upon to prove it.
5. They said they were done with badge engineering, but here's the Malibu, Lacrosse, and Regal, all the same Opel Insignia underneath.
6. Maximum Bob Lutz claimed he would best anyone in a CTS-V. Then he had a professional driver in a questionably "stock" car lap everyone and claimed "victory."
7. Now they've brought a $40,000 compact novelty to market during a recession and are trying to hype it up as being some kind of radical innovation? Sorry. I don't buy that.
1. By this I assume you are talking about the first loan given to GM before they headed to bankruptcy and the real bailout/takeover. They did say that the loan was all the needed, so I can accept your lie statement, but business conditions were rapidly changing then. They took whatever they could get to try and right the ship.
2. This I agree with you on. I'm not upset about the move from a financial perspective, but it should have never been touted the way it was.
3. Selling Opel was a move that not many even within GM agreed with. The platforms would still be shared if the sale went through. The reason for wanting to sell Opel was that it is not a strong business unit and required a lot of capital to fix. The capital was found and they have decided to retain it. I agree that selling Opel would have been a mistake.
4. The 230 MPG claim was generated using the EPA's standard hybrid testing protocol to determine MPG. The Volt is a very different car and requires a different testing method. So, they were right and wrong. According to the EPA test the car gets 230 MPG, but they did forget to mention that the testing criteria is flawed for a car like the Volt.
5. Find me a brand that doesn't "badge engineer" or platform share. Just because the vehicles are designed to use the same platform, does not mean they are badge engineered jobs. I think we could line up the Malibu, Regal and LaCrosse and find plenty of difference between them. This is not the same as GM did for many years, where the only difference between the cars was related to boddy cladding and badges.
6. Lutz's challenge was lost by Lutz to a young kid from Long Island driving a new M3. The kid had quite a bit of amateur SCCA experience. The CTS-V did win the challenge though as two CTS-V's also placed in 2nd and 3rd behind Heinricy's time. Heinricy was there to show what the true potential of the car could be. Lutz lost, the CTS-V won. From what I understand Lutz and the guy with the M3 (Michael Cooper) have become friends.
7. The price is out of line. I won't argue that. I would argue that at $30k it would have been an absolute homerun. The car is evolutionary (note the missing r), but they do need to get the price down. There is a lot of new tech, particularly battery tech built into that car, but the price is too high.
Quote:
It's not an EV. It's a hybrid. It's a different TYPE of hybrid, but it is NOT an EV. An EV has no gas engine on-board. This is a $40,000 Hammerhead Eagle i-Thrust with a generator under the hood. It is NOT an EV.
You don't pave the way away from petroleum-powered vehicles in a car with a turbocharged engine under the hood that requires you to stop at a gas station. Furthermore, you do not reduce dependence on fossil fuels with electric vehicles powered - indirectly - by coal and natural gas.
Again it's a 4 cylinder gas motor, not a turbo 3 cylinder. The beauty of the Volt is that it gives you essentially unlimited range using gas, while providing the daily driving needs of 75% of the population to be done electric only. This is a bridge technology and as such is the most radical of it's kind. Pure EV's are limited by range, pure hybrids don't offer the electric only range and are still reliant on the gas engine as the primary method of driving the car.
I do agree that the environment is not going to be saved by simply burning more coal and natural gas to power our electric cars. This requires a national energy policy that involves more renewables and nuclear power. That isn't GM's issue, that's a national issue.
Quote:
The Prius can be driven on pure electric power. The range is something like 20 miles, but it's also nearly $10,000 cheaper than the Dolt, even after the $7500 government handout.
If nothing else I say appeals to your inner gearhead, consider the Volt has lead to my actually having something GOOD to say about the PRIUS!
Yes and no. Currently there are only 500 factory built plug in hybrids in test customers hands worldwide. Production and general sale is not slated to begin until late 2011. The current range is 14.5 miles at 60mph. Not nearly the same as what the Volt offers and of little practical use. You won't be getting a day's roundtrip commute out of a plug in Prius. The issue is related to battery design and capacity. To do more would require a larger and more efficient battery pack, that would significantly drive up the cost of the Prius. I have heard one source that stated to make the Prius equal the Volt's performance it would add over $10k to the price tag and mean the complete elimination of the trunk to make room for the batteries. The Prius will need to be redesigned from the ground up to make it able to match the Volt's performance and still be a usable car. With that in consideration it makes the Volt's price point with a much more advanced platform not seem as ridiculous. Though I would agree with you that the Prius in it's current form is still the better buy economically versus the Volt.
Quote:
How do you know the vast majority of buyers will never need to drive more than 40 miles, or that most owners will see a full 40 mile range on battery power? Are you suggesting that people will buy a $40,000 car and only drive to and from work?
It is a national statistic that 75% of Americans drive no more than 33 miles per day, primarily for a commute. The car was engineered to deliver 40 miles on a charge during normal driving on a regular basis. There's that pesky battery technology adding cost to deliver that performance. The advantage of the Volt is that if you need to go more than 40 miles...you can. You can drive as much as you want and only need to fill up the gas tank for the generator. It gives you enough EV driving to handle the majorities daily needs, while still allowing essentially unlimited range, unlike other EV's.
Quote:
Why am I an idiot for thinking a fleet of these will add to the pollution of a coal power plant? More electrical demand from the grid requires more electrical power generation at the plant. More power generation requires more fuel. More fuel burned equals more plant emissions. It's pretty straight forward, this.
True, but that's a national problem to solve and is not tied solely to the Volt.
Quote:
If the Volt had an MSRP of $20,000, it would be a game changer. It would a knockout, a home run, a touchdown, a superlative feather in a changed GM's cap. Sadly, though, it's still $10,000+ more than a Prius, offers only marginal benefits over the Prius, and, being a brand new GM model, will keep many buyers away for the sheer fact that every brand new GM model in the last thirty years has been wrought with problems, design/manufacturing flaws, and ends up being worthless on the used market.
Maybe you see GM waking up and smelling the coffee, but I see GM as trying to pass of the same slipshod, second tier, mediocrity they've been bringing to the table since the 80s. They talk a big game about quality and performance and care, but for as big as they are (still) and as much taxpayer funding as they've managed to weasel out of Washington, they STILL aren't hitting homeruns. I don't know if they lack the talent or are just plain lazy.
Agreed that the price is too high. They were originally aiming for ~$30k, but it's simply not possible to deliver what the Volt does for less with today's technology and do it reliably.
As for the rest...EVERY GM model in the last 30 years was a disaster and failure? They have certainly had a lot of misses and duds, but their current lineup and products are pretty darn good. No, they don't have the spotlight that Ford has, but the Equinox, Malibu, Regal and CTS are highly regarded cars and selling well. They still have a long way to go, but they are getting there.
Quote:
Does this $7,500 tax credit apply to ANY product EV, or is this just another way of funneling cash to GM? What happens to the Nissan Leaf when you apply the same credit?
Oh snap. Nissan Leaf MSRP is less than $33,000, meaning you could buy the Leaf, which is a TRUE EV (no gas engine), and has more than DOUBLE the EV range (100miles) for $25,500. With many articles mentioning GM drafted the lease offer to compete directly with the Leaf, it seems this was their target all along. Shame they couldn't compete on price, or pure EV power, or even range. But hey, buy American, right?
The Leaf will be the first truly commercial EV available. It is a great car. However, the range is only 100 miles of primarily city driving. Testers have found that the range can vary from 60 - 130 miles depending on driving habits. What that means is that the average Leaf owner will get a damn good EV, but they won't be able to drive it for much more than their daily driving needs on electric power before needing a recharge. No one is going to load up their Leaf and go on a long road trip. It is not a far stretch to realize that the extra $7k you would spend on a Volt that can generate it's own power for essentially unlimited range, is a much better value than the Leaf would be. Or, can't you justify $7k for the onboard generator and it's components?
Quote:
Hanlon's Razor. I expect more from GM.
All the financial support they've received, and after three plus years of hyping this thing, they come out and announce it to great fanfare - being inferior in every way, and coming in a solid $10,000 more expensive than the nearest competitor.
Sorry, Chief. I'm not seeing it. If the game has changed, it's because the rest of the players have left GM behind (again).
Read the above and you will see that you are a little off base.
First the 40 mile range. It will vary if it's cold or you are putting the vehicle under load climbing hills or running the AC. That gasoline powered generator will be running more than you think.
Also in "real life", 99% of people are not going to want to be bothered every single day after coming home getting everything set up to charge the vehicle. Sounds good that everyone will do this, but the reality is that people will do this for a week and then just run the batteries off of gasoline. I've seen this all too many times with consumer goods that require all this hooking up and other complicated stuff, they'll do it for a while, but then it will collect dust.
And last, it's estimated that if 5% of the cars out there are electric plug ins, it will collapse the electrical grid, which is out of date and broken down and needs a major upgrade, not to mention modern power plants. Until the environMENTALists let that work happen I really don't want to hear about it or how "green" electric cars are, because they are anything but green.
Getting everything set up to charge the vehicle? "Hooking up and other complicated stuff?" What are you on about? This isn't astrophysics here. You get out, you plug it in just like you would any other appliance, and you walk away. Next morning you unplug it, get in, and drive off.
The Volt is not going to collapse the electrical grid. Good grief. If they can build entire subdivisions across the country without collapsing the grid, a handful of cars isn't gonna do it either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
