Volt!

[Omaha Steve]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/volt.html



Jon Cohn, in a post about the benefits of rescuing the auto industry, explains how the Chevy Volt works:

The Volt is a new kind of vehicle. When you drive a conventional hybrid, such as the Toyota Prius, the car is constantly switching back and forth between electric and gasoline power. When you drive a Volt, the car draws exclusively on electric power until the battery is depleted. Only then does the car switch over to gas. Under normal driving conditions, you could go about 40 miles on the battery alone.

You can recharge the battery at home overnight, or in just a few hours if you have the right equipment, so that the car is ready to go on electric power again the next day. If you're using your car only for short drives, like a quick commute to and from work, it's theoretically possible you'd never use a drop of gasoline. Even now, the EPA isn't certain how to calculate the Volt's mileage.

That sounds like a great city car. And while I have no particular opinion on whether the Volt and its descendants will dominate the market, it is the case that being first to market with version one of something important also allows you to be first to market with version two, and version two and beyond is often where things get interesting.

Also: E.J. Dionne lauds the auto bailout.

Photo credit: By Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press

By Ezra Klein | August 2, 2010; 3:51 PM ET

[BeatleBoot]

1. It's a Gem

While the initial low volume means higher manufacturing cost and thus higher price, the price will come down as time passes - like any new technology.

And the benefits mean a step in the right direction.

Thank you President Obama!

We ain't dead in Detroit, just been dormant for a while.

Stay tuned.

[Pab Sungenis]

2. It gets even better.

The gasoline engine isn't used to pull the car, it's used to recharge the battery when it gets low. This actually ends up using less gasoline than if it was used for the drive train. So even when it switches over to use gasoline, you get more MPG than you do with similar sized gasoline-powered cars or current hybrids when in "gas mode."

[Beetwasher]

85. That's Terrific, I Didn't Know That!

:thumbsup:

[Statistical]

112. The EPA rating is 50mpg city.

The generator can run at a fixed speed optimized for gallons per watts conversation. This provides a level of fuel efficiency that is simply impossible with a gasoline powered engine. A conventional engine needs to operate under a larger range of torque and speeds. You can't optimize an engine for "everything" thus while sometimes the engine is running at optimal efficiency a lot of the time it isn't.

Good engineers model driver behavior and set shift points so that common speeds (like 65 mph) end up at the "sweet spot" in engines performance. Still a variable speed engine is never going to be as efficient as a single speed high efficiency generator.

[johnaries]

3. I've been wondering about this concept for several years.

I mean, what has a car's alternator always done? Recharge the battery. The advantages of an electric car in terms of acceleration and performance have been known for years. The only problem has always been recharging. So, why not include a small "lawn-mower" type engine that does nothing but recharge the battery via an alternator-type device.

For the life of me, I don't know why no-one has done this sooner.

[Statistical]

10. Battery cost & weight.

Electric motors are relatively cheap (much cheaper than an internal combustion engine) however batteries are expensive.

That is today. Cost of lithium-ion batteries has fallen by a factor of 4 since 1995. Thus the $7,000 battery pack in the Volt would have cost $28,000 in 1995. Everything else being the same the production cost would have been in the high $60,000s.

Simply not economical. The good news is that future breakthroughs in battery technology will continue.

I have no doubt that the 2015 version of Volt will not only be cheaper but have a larger range AND more efficient generator.

[Coastal Skies]

4. RE: RE-VOLTING

As a Newbie at this forum I'll try to be gentle..

While I am in full agreement on both freedom from fossil fuel and buying American.

There is something about a close to $42,000 base price tag for a vehicle that's electric mode is limited to 40 miles. Then there is the fact that it is a General Motors Car. Ok, let's let the past stay in the past. I'm not spending 40+ grand for a prototype vehicle that I'm not sure if the company's going to be in business a year or two from now. Then of course another question that comes to bear, is just how is the electricity generated that charges the batteries when ever the vehicle is not moving or on house power which I believe is the correct term. I expect General Motors to be capable of producing a competitive vehicle at a competitive price and not a dressed up golf cart at the price of a Lincoln Town Car!!

They didn't go bankrupt by accident....

BTW, Who in this economy has $45,000 to help G.M. fatten up the excecs?? Not me.. This is a horrible time to release such an expensive vehicle on an already burdened consumer.

Respectfully,
Coastal Skies

[reclinerhead]

5. Grrrrr

As another newbie, I think your post sucks - and I'll bet a virtual nickel that you're a disgruntled Toyota owner. Did you even read the article? Dressed up golf cart?

I'm happy for GM and especially for the people in Michigan. There are a ton of suppliers and local businesses that will benefit, and god knows that they need the jobs - battery manufacturing is hopefully just the start. (I'm in California but nearly all my family all lives around Lansing and Kalamazoo).

[Coastal Skies]

8. Interesting perspective.

Since you brought up battery manufacturing. There is a huge array of toxic chemicals and gases that are by products of battery production and disposal.

Yes, Golf cart. For a price of $45K, (with fees off the lot and minimal options), the vehicle should have Dynamic braking. It has a high mass due to the battery weight and with dynamic braking anytime your foot is off the accelerator it's charging the batteries while slowing the vehicle. This lowers the toxins introduced into the environment by reducing the brake dust created by conventional friction brakes and your brakes last a very longtime. It also charges the batteries with normally wasted energy that goes into reducing vehicle speed by friction braking.

Then of course there is G.M. business ethics. Let me put it in a single word.. TARP...2 times no less and still went belly-up??

Also General Motors cars are More expensive and offer less. for instance a camaro is several thousand dollars more than a Mustang. The camaro is slower, less fuel efficent, heavier, costs more, handles worse and has a huge 6.2L engine with a gas guzzler tax, lower resale value, and less consumer confidence. Why on earth would I even consider purchasing a General Motors vehicle????

Do you know what Ford has done over the last two years? While G.M. execs were robbing the store via your tax dollars. Ford has re-designed ALL of the Ford engines for higher fuel efficency. A 2011 5.0L Mustang does NOT have a gas guzzler tax as every other car in it's class does. The reason why I bring this up is Typical of General Motors they have put all the eggs in one basket. What is the market share of a volt? .01% .001% .0001% . How much is that going to help the fuel consumption? Alternatively EVERY 2011 Ford now gets better fuel enconomy than just 1 or 2 years ago. I believe that Ford has roughly 18% of the market share. That will drastically reduce our dependency on oil compared. I spilt more fuel filling my lawn mower than a volt would save me.

The $7,500 tax credit effectively nets maybe $1,000 of actual in hand cash that I could spend.. , no thanks. I'm more worried about untried technology, warranty, and spare parts.

This type of engineering reminds me of the 1972 VEGA with Aluminum Cylinder Bores. The engines needed a complete overhaul every 20K to 30K miles. What is needed here is not a better battery, it is a total house cleaning of Gneral Motors management..

Respectfully submitted,
Coastal Skies

[Statistical]

18. You are utterly uniformed.

I mean it is ok to have an opinion but is it too much to be an informed opinion.

"the vehicle should have Dynamic braking. It has a high mass due to the battery weight and with dynamic braking anytime your foot is off the accelerator it's charging the batteries while slowing the vehicle. "

the term is regenerative breaking and the Volt does have regenerative breaking.

". Ford has re-designed ALL of the Ford engines for higher fuel efficiency."
As has every manufacturer. Chevy has 8 vehicles with 30+ mpg (it will have 10 in 2011 when you include the Cruze -40mpg and the Volt - 50mpg gasoline - 230mpg combined).

"The $7,500 tax credit effectively nets maybe $1,000 of actual in hand cash that I could spend.. , no thanks. I'm more worried about untried technology, warranty, and spare parts. "
No once again wrong (3 out of 3). Tax credit is direct money. Tax deduction reduces taxable income thus returns a fraction (depending on marginal rates). If you get a $7,500 credit your refund check will be exactly $7,500 more.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Statistical]

24. No data is needed you ignorance is on easily verifiable topics.

It would be like asking me to prove the sun goes around the earth. I am not going to waste my finding cites for that. You are either ignorant or trying to push and agenda.

1) The Chevy Volt, Nissan Leaf, Tesla roadster, and Toyota Prius all use regenerative braking. No EV or hybrid in production uses dynamic breaking because there is no point. So your point about Volt being inferior in that respect is false

Dynamic braking = motion converted to electricity and electricity dissipated via heat via resistors.
Regenerative braking = motion converted to electricity which is then captured and returned to storage pool (batteries).

Both have the advantage of reducing the amount of frictional (conventional) braking force needed. Regenerative braking has the added benefit of recharging the batteries in the process. Waste energy is recaptured which is the closest thing to a free lunch in physics.

"Regenerative braking is not the same as dynamic braking, which dissipates the electrical energy as heat and does not maintain energy in a usable form."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_brake

2) Chevy has a lineup of high efficiency vehicles similar to Ford and other companies. The change from 2010 to 2011 isn't material.

3) Just because you don't understand the difference between a tax credit and a tax deduction isn't my fault. I got a refund check of $11,900 from IRS one year. There is no hard limit on how large a refund check could be. Those who took advantage of the home buyer tax credit got an $8,000 addition to their refund so many likely got an even larger refund that that.

No where in my post was there a personal attack. Your post of course had multiple.

[Coastal Skies]

28. Maybe for you,

"Regenerative braking is not the same as dynamic braking, which dissipates the electrical energy as heat and does not maintain energy in a usable form."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_brake



1) This is where a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Explain the electrical and mechanical differences between Dynamic braking and regenerative braking as why that statement above is true in the limited context that you of course chose to use. I usually don't go to a dictionary for engineering terms because they are basic and limited.


"Chevy has a lineup of high efficiency vehicles. The change from 2010 to 2011 isn't material"

2) INteresting.. Maybe to you. So exactly what did G.M. do with all the tarp money if they didn't improve the vehicle line??????

3)"Just because you don't understand the difference between a tax credit and a tax deduction isn't my fault."
"No where in my post was there a personal attack."
I'll let that one speak for itself

[Statistical]

35. Regenerative braking energy is stored. Dynamic braking energy is released as heat.

In both systems motors are attached to method of propulsion.

In dynamic braking the goal is to simply slow the vehicle without friction (or reduced friction). In a electrical system the motion of motors cause current to flow and the torque causes vehicle to slow. The energy isn't stored, rather it is shunted to bank of resistors. The resistors convert electrical energy into heat. The heat is dissipated. The vehicle is slowed without any direct friction.

In regenerative breaking the same motors exist however instead of shunting energy into resistors it flows into the battery thus recharging it and allowing for future acceleration.

Dynamic braking: motion -> motor -> electrical energy -> resistors -> wasted heat energy
Regenerative braking: motion -> motors -> electrical energy -> battery -> chemical reaction -> stored electrical energy

No EV or hybrid car uses dynamic breaking. Thus claiming that the Volt is inferior because it doesn't have dynamic braking is false. It (along with every other EV & hybrid car) uses the superior regenerative braking technology to recharge battery pack with braking energy.

Most locomotives use dynamic breaking because it is cheaper (especially with amount of energy involved in braking a train). However GE and others have been introducing regenerative (marked at hybrid) locomotives. Since locomotives don't have much "stop and go" traveling the gains of regenerative system is no as much as in a car.


"Me: Just because you don't understand the difference between a tax credit and a tax deduction isn't my fault. No where in my post was there a personal attack."
"You: I'll let that one speak for itself"

You don't understand the difference between a tax credit and a tax deduction. You also show no willingness to learn from your inaccuracies even when corrected so it isn't a personal attack. It is simply the truth.

A $1000 tax deduction = reduces taxable income by $1000 thus reduces taxes by marginal tax rate. For someone in the 25% bracket that is $250.

A $100 tax credit = directly reduces taxes paid by $1000. For someone in the 25% bracket (or any bracket) that reduces tax paid by $1,000.

Your claim that $7,500 tax credit provides $1,200 spending money is 100% false (along with every other claim you made). There is no way to coddle you on this ignorance. A $7,500 tax DEDUCTION might provide $1,200 higher refund (depending on marginal rate) but a $7,500 tax credit would provide $7,500.

[Coastal Skies]

43. Your still not answering the question!

Why is dynamic braking allowed to burn off the induced electrical EMF as heat and not reclaimed?

[Statistical]

53. Cost.

There is no real benefit (in terms of ROI) to storing energy in some systems.

Take a locomotive. It accelerates, then maintains a constant speed, then decelerates into station. The amount of potential energy that can be captured is limited by battery capacity (which is expensive). You get a very low multiplier on capacity. Now a course with some hills might increase that multiplier some (store on way down, use on the way up) but overall the multiplier is very low. The low multiplier means the ROI for regenerative over dymamic is very low. Regenerative is more complex, and more costly yet provides very little increased benefit.

Now on a car the exact opposite is true the acceleration pattern in a day of driving is far more chaotic. Much more acceleration and deceleration cycles for the same distance. The battery bank tends to be much higher in relationship to the amount of energy per braking. Overall this creates a system where there is a much higher multiplier in energy "saved". There is no reason to use dynamic braking on a car. None.

Dynamic braking is INFERIOR to regenerative braking. Thus your claim that the Volt is flawed because it lacks it is false.
The Volt (along with every other EV & hybrid) uses the superior regenerative braking technology.

Your claims are false:

Your claim that Volt doesn't use dynamic braking thus is inferior - false
Your claim Chevy doesn't have high efficiency vehicles - false
Your claim that $7,500 tax credit only results in $1,200 increased revenue - false

Your claims are false.

[Coastal Skies]

63. Wrong Again!

The reason why loco's are allowed to burn off the juice is,

1) One they don't run on batteries. They don't need the juice.

QUESTION: How much dynamic braking as oppossed to pnuematic braking does a train experience at 100 mph, 50mph, and 10 mph. I'll except percentages and then i can explain to you why I made the claims. Until you understand the electrical therory you won't understand why I made the claim that reg is inferior.

2)Cost, efficiency, braking effort..From the braking perspective, we are talking stopping something. So exactly where is Regenerative superior, in higher cost, less efficiency and less braking effort.

"Regenerative is more complex, and more costly yet provides very little increased benefit" DO I HEAR THE WORD INFERIOR??

This dispels two of your own claims
a)"Dynamic braking is INFERIOR to regenerative braking. Thus your claim that the Volt is flawed because it lacks it is false.


The reality here is that hopefully the Bums at G.M. will get off there butts and develop a system that contains the power and advantages of dynamic braking while still charging the batteries which is secondary to stoppong the vehicle

[Coastal Skies]

51. WHY, is it an accident? or on purpose>

[EOTE]

21. You know very little about cars, don't you?

I had to stop reading your post when I got to your ridiculous comparison of the Mustang and Camaro. All fanboyism aside, we're talking about objective numbers here, not subjective opinions. First of all, both the Mustang GT and Camaro SS base at a little under 31 grand, they cost exactly the same. The Camaro is slower? Then how is it that it runs a 13 second flat quarter mile while the Mustang runs a 13.9? How does the Camaro tick off a 4.9 second 0-60 time while the Mustang does it in 5.6? Also, the current (as in 2010) Camaro gets better fuel economy than the current Mustang GT in spite of the Camaro having a much larger engine. You talk about Ford's new 5 liter when it's not even available yet. Why you're comparing a brand new Ford engine with an engine that's been available in some form or another from GM for more than a decade is well beyond me. Get your facts straight, then maybe we can talk.

[Coastal Skies]

25. Put your facts where your mouth is, yee of little knowledge

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_1003_2011_ford_mustang_gt_premium_test/test_numbers.html

12.8 sec @ 111 mph, the car typically run about a 12.7 @112+

This is the Motortrend road test for 1/4 mile times. Where did you get 13.9 secs The inventor of the volt?



Heres' the price data Mustang is $4K cheaper and even the 6cyl destroys the RS both in performance and price

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/b9bae4325b6d27dbfefe2c07775a541f.pdf

[EOTE]

26. Derrrrrr. Please read before responding.

You're talking about the 2011 Mustang, which isn't even out! I'm comparing both available models. The current SS is a good deal faster than the current GT. Also, that Mustang has a base price several thousand higher than the current GT Premium, making it a good deal more expensive than the SS. Once again, you are wrong. Dead wrong. Get your damn facts straight.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EOTE]

36. You may have driving one a while ago, but they're just coming out this month.

Also, your completely ludicrous comparison is still ridiculous. Will you concede that comparing 2010 to 2010 models that the Camaro is the superior performer in just about every way (including fuel economy)? Probably not, because you don't seem all that bright, but the objective numbers will bear that out. So now, we've got a single year where Ford has unveiled a brand new engine and you're acting like this is completely indicative of both company's futures. When GM came out with their LS1 powered Camaros, were you dancing on Ford's grave because the LS1 Camaros so dominated the Mustangs? Then when the LS2 powered Camaros came out and once again fully thrashed the Mustangs, did you react the same? Now Ford comes out with a brand new engine, and manages to barely eek out the performance of a V8 Camaro (while still being more expensive than the Camaro, look it up, dumbass) and you act like it's a one sided battle. I've shown plenty of data, you've only showed your idiotic opinions. Get a clue.

[Coastal Skies]

42. I've provided links that you are incorrect, wher's yours?

[EOTE]

44. Here you go.

Mustang as equipped is more expensive than the Camaro, lacks IRS and gets slaughtered by it performance wise.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/reviews/comparisons/4309423
I wouldn't count on you being able to make sense of any of this objective data, though. Grunts seem to be more your style.

[Coastal Skies]

48. You pick a mechanical magazine to compare cars?That's objective

Obviously you combed the internet to find a non car magazine to prove your invalid point. Show me with a respected car magazine like I did, Motor Trend etc..

[EOTE]

54. Wow, your ignorance is only exceeded by your petulance.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/09q3/2010_chevy_camaro_ss_vs._2010_ford_mustang_gt_2009_dodge_challenger_r_t-comparison_tests/2010_ford_mustang_gt_page_4

Do you think that Popular Mechanic's objective tests are less objective than Motortrend's? Give me a fucking break. You won't find a single source anywhere that has the 2010 GT beating the SS in objective tests. It's faster, brakes better and is cheaper. In all objective categories, it owns. Now read the link and sit down, you little child.

[Coastal Skies]

72. Keep cursing it shows your high intelect

Oh,
I see what it is.

You don't want to compare the 436 H.P. Camaro to the 414 HP Mustang which beats it by an average .5secs 1/4 mile as reported by several magazines.

Here's the deal folks. He wants to compare the 4.6L Mustang 281 cubic inches 300HP 2010 Mustang to the 2010/2011 6.2L 383 cubic inch 436 h.p. engine. Which the Camaro just barely beats.
He refuses to allow a fairer comparision of a 5.0L 302 cubic inch 414 h.p. engined Mustang which while still being a full 1.2 liters 73 cubic inches smaller just beats the Camaro to death and gets way better fuel economy. Typical General Motors, Chevy guy, avoids a heads up fair race at all costs. This is the attitude that put GM in the tank

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EOTE]

99. Still working on that, are you?

You've yet to provide a single bit of evidence showing the objective performance of the 2010 GT to be superior to the SS, I've provided you multiple links. So once again, I'd like to know. When GM was embarassing Ford with all of its objective performance numbers (including fuel economy), did that mean that Ford was in the can and GM was ahead of the pack? To be logically consistent, you'd have to say so, but we all know that logic (or basic math or reading) isn't your strong point.

[Vickers]

52. Accusing a DUer of being a Republican is against the rules, Coastal Skies. n/t

[Coastal Skies]

73. Opps, Sorry I had to check, you know Closet G.O.P's LoL

[Vickers]

74. Do I ever. n/t

[Statistical]

80. I think your irony was lost on him/her. n/t

[Vickers]

142. Me too.

:P

[blondeatlast]

98. Well, let's just say I recognize "closet GOPs" and Vickers isn't one. nt

[Vickers]

143. Thank you, my old friend.

:hi:

[EOTE]

27. And damn, you're not even trying to be honest about your comparisons.

Comparing a 2011 Mustang to a 2010 Camaro. Pretty damned pathetic. You're quite aware that the current Camaro bests the current Mustang in every objective performance test (including fuel economy), but you bring in a vehicle which isn't even shipping yet to make your point. Bravo.

[Coastal Skies]

31. 2011 mustang's been out for months! WAKE UP!! I've driven one

[EOTE]

40. They're just being shipped this month.

That you've driven one means absolutely nothing to this conversation.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coastal Skies]

50. What mechanic illustrated, Why am I buying a hammer or saw?

[EOTE]

55. Show me 1 evaluation putting the 2010 GT above the SS in objective performance.

I've shown you two, all you can do is spout off at your mouth. You're dead wrong. And none of your whining is going to change that.

[EOTE]

71. Don't like Car and Driver either?

I'm sorry, I'm trying to find a Sesame Street link that's evaluated both cars, but I'm unable to find one. Perhaps children should just stick to childish things.

[Fastcars]

32. Mustang Guy Here

And I agree the newest Mustang is better than the newest Camaro. Though it is close enough that brand loyalty is going to drive most purchasers decision if they are comparing the two. Both are great cars. 400+ hp, 20+ mpg sub 13 second qtr mile times in cars with all the bells and whistles. The good old days for cars is now.

Dynamic braking uses the engine and driveline to help slow a vehicle in addition to the actual brakes, called a "Jake brake" on a big rig. Regenerative braking is a system that uses the forward momentum of a vehicle while it is decelerating to charge the batteries.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coastal Skies]

16. ??

Hi,
Can you please back up you statements with some facts? I'd really like to hear your technical expertise on the subject as well as your data on the volt and General Motors, tarp etc.
Or is this just some form of personal attack?

[Statistical]

20. Only one question: do you like pizza? n/t

[Coastal Skies]

91. I'm not into racial slurs.. this is offensive....

[tkmorris]

102. It's not a racial slur

I won't get into what it is, but trust me, it aint about race friend.

[Coastal Skies]

106. I find inside jokes just as offensive as racial slurs,.

Anything that separates us from each other as humans I find offensive.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blondeatlast]

119. Bless your heart--you do that to an anonymous poster, yes, please do, indeed.

:rofl:

[Coastal Skies]

121. What is this Bless your Heart thing?

Keep thinking your anonymous.

And as for your comment.. I'll say bingo I must have hit a nerve.

Bless Your Heart

[Omaha Steve]

6. GM cars are still backed by the US Government

There is an at the time of purchase $7,500 tax credit from the US Government on the Volt.

"I'm not sure if the company's going to be in business a year or two from now"

Tax payers are on the hook with GM and Chrysler. Sales for those two are way up since the bottom of last year for ALL car makers and GM is up more than any other car maker. But if American's like you don't want to buy GM, the taxpayers will be on the hook for more.

We bought 2 GM's last year. One before and one after their bankruptcy. First NEW cars since 1979. That was 30 years. We traded in a clunker and a Nissan for my Cobalt.

But if your buying American with your reasoning you can get a Ford. No complaint from me.

[Statistical]

13. Price is $36,000 after rebate ($28,000 in CA).

"limited to 40 miles"
How many miles do you drive a day on average in your daily commute? For most Americans they will run 70%-90% on electrical power. The 40 mile "limit" is simply a compromise between usability and cost. GM could have gone with a 60 mile battery pack but with current batteries prices that would have added another $3,000 or so to the price of vehicle.

Why do you find the 40 miles limited. You get the first 40 miles at an insanely cheap price (about 2 cent per mile using $0.10 per kwh national average) after than you are forced to "only" get 50mpg from the gasoline reserves. OH NOES. Unlimited range at "only" 50mpg plus first 40 miles each day at 80% cheaper than any other vehicle on the road.

"Then of course another question that comes to bear, is just how is the electricity generated that charges the batteries "
Um it has a high efficiency generator. gasoline -> electricity -> battery -> electric motor.

[JNelson6563]

29. I disagree. With pretty much all of it.

As a Newbie at this forum I'll try to be gentle..

I gather you don't regularly need to employ diplomacy out in the real world.

While I am in full agreement on both freedom from fossil fuel and buying American.

Yet the text that follows indicates otherwise on the "buying American". You sound just like all the other DUers who are so devoted to our union brothers and sisters but would rather die than actually buy a car made by them.

There is something about a close to $42,000 base price tag for a vehicle that's electric mode is limited to 40 miles.

Ok, you either don't have a clue or you are being intellectually dishonest here. We are dealing with NEW technology. The sort of batteries needed have fallen in price dramatically in recent years and, with the increased production about to happen, this price dropping will not only continue, it will do so even faster. (BTW, great fan of Buy American, the battery production increase that is happening is due to the Volt and is happening right here in MI, where the jobless rates have long been among the worst).



Then there is the fact that it is a General Motors Car. Ok, let's let the past stay in the past.

Surely you don't think anyone sees you as an objective observer here. You obviously have some sort of issue re: GM.

I'm not spending 40+ grand for a prototype vehicle that I'm not sure if the company's going to be in business a year or two from now.

Your Buy American claims grow weaker with nearly every word you type! Do you remember when the stock markets first re-opened after 9/11? Of course they plummeted. Still, there were some who thought otherwise. I remember seeing people being interviewed who wanted to buy stock and do their part to keep the market from completely tanking. They wanted us to recover and they actually did whatever little they could to help it do so.

Then of course another question that comes to bear, is just how is the electricity generated that charges the batteries when ever the vehicle is not moving or on house power which I believe is the correct term.

The only solid point in your whole post. Here in Michigan there is a growing movement to make better use of things like our vast water supply, not to mention the wind! Alternative energy is the key and, believe it or not, right here in yucky ol' Michigan, we are making that happen too.



I expect General Motors to be capable of producing a competitive vehicle at a competitive price and not a dressed up golf cart at the price of a Lincoln Town Car!!

GM will continue to improve the design and take advantage of the increased production of the batteries and drop the price. As to your opinion of the design...you're certainly entitled to it though it does make clear you're hardly bringing any sort of objective view to it in the first place.

They didn't go bankrupt by accident....

No doubt it was a long range goal they finally achieved! Oy.

BTW, Who in this economy has $45,000 to help G.M. fatten up the excecs?? Not me.. This is a horrible time to release such an expensive vehicle on an already burdened consumer.

Judging by the cars I see all around me, every day, I would say that apparently a lot of people can afford to buy this car. Thankfully they won't all approach the notion with your particular brand of Buy American attitude.

Julie--who knows a stinky pantload when she smells one

[Coastal Skies]

38. O.K. Children it's Kindergarden with Mr. Nelson,

[JNelson6563]

57. Wrong again, I'm a Ms.

[Coastal Skies]

96. Let me guess

School teacher or other professional educator?

[blondeatlast]

103. Hopefully not the one who taught you, since you called her a "Mr." twice. nt

[JNelson6563]

145. haha Nope, wrong again.

[Coastal Skies]

39. O.K. Children it's Kindergarden with Mr. Nelson,

[blondeatlast]

68. Bless your heart. nt

[guruoo]

78. Consider it to be another step in the right direction. nt

[Orsino]

127. I bought three Japanese hybrids in 2005...

...because the only American hybrid available at the time was a fucking SUV...that didn't beat the mileage of the car it would have replaced.

Now that America is making a car that seems incredibly well-suited to my commute, I can't afford it. Ah, well. Maybe by the next generation.

[Veeger]

7. If I could afford a $41,000+ automobile

I would buy me a Corvette.

[Coastal Skies]

9. RE: +1 for Veeger

Exactly!!!!!

[blondeatlast]

12. What, pray tell, is your admiration of John Edwards based upon?

Please be specific, if you would--I supported him for a while in the primaries so I'm quite familiar with his record.

10 + 9 = anchovies?

[Coastal Skies]

19. RE: John Edwards

My avatar is John Edwards not for admiration, but disgust. I don't want people to forget that they almost put this man in the white house.
And yes, I met him at Riverside Church in 07 on M.L.K. day. Not impressed in the least. Nice suit though!

[blondeatlast]

22. So, whom do you admire in current politics, and why? nt

[Coastal Skies]

90. Declined

After the provacative, sarcastic, and emotionally abusive responses that I have received here today, I don't feel comfortable answering your question.
Consider that the next time a new person comes here.
Thanks for your input!
Respectfully, Coastal Skies

[tkmorris]

108. Pleading the 5th eh?

The replies you are getting have little to do with you being new. They have more to do with your argument, which is frankly poor at best, and completely disingenuous at worst. Add that to your selection of Mr. Edwards as your avatar (I despise George Bush. Would he make a good avatar? No, the idea is ridiculous) and your refusal to name even one pol you actually LIKE and the picture you are painting of yourself isn't pretty.

Say I fly to a place I've never been, step off the plane, get hammered, wander the streets naked, yell insults at the residents, and pee in the Azalea bushes. Do you think I'm going to be presented with the keys to the city?

In any case, do rock on. :headbang:

[Coastal Skies]

111. Thanks for your input

Bless your heart

[blondeatlast]

114. From your very first response--YOU ATTACKED. Bless your heart--and don't let the door

hitcha where the good Lord splitcha. Keep doing your "good works."

[Coastal Skies]

120. Thanks for your input!!

[theophilus]

62. I would buy a Volt or Leaf or Prius, etc. I want to help this planet. IMO a corvette

(unless they follow Tesla and make an electric one-which would be much better) is the problem, not the solution.

[blondeatlast]

15. Then you aren't exactly a target market for the Volt anyway.

:eyes:

BTW, I LOVE anchovies.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

47. Yup, they don't sell to dead people.

[Radical Activist]

128. Who exactly is the target market for this car?

If someone wants an electric car to drive in the city it could have been done for less than half the cost. GM has spent several decades alienating people who care about the environment and fuel economy so I don't know how easy it will be to break into that market.
Who buys this car?

[Statistical]

133. What electric vehicle is half the cost? n/t

[Omaha Steve]

141. $7,500 off the price at time of sale thanks to the US Government + more below

Special pricing for Credit Union and armed forces members.

http://www.lovemycreditunion.org/GM_171.html

[LynneSin]

14. That's the perfect car for us city folks

I realize that this car might not sell to rural USA or even those with really long commutes to work each day. But with my driving habits, if I had a way to charge I'd probably buy gas like 3-4 times a year when I actually do any real travelling outside my normal routine.

[blondeatlast]

17. Yup. As a '99 Camry owner, I'm still very happy--but I can see a Volt in my future.

From what I';ve read so far, I'd buy one when my Camry bites the dust at last.

[AngryAmish]

33. City folk with garages

Park on the street and you are SOL.

[LynneSin]

34. That's true too.

I could never own one - I have to street park.

But perhaps cities could create car charging stations.

[AngryAmish]

41. They should - but do you want to pay for it?

I have a garage. I would not want to pay to install chargers - assume twenty per block - on the ten thousand blocks of Chicago. How much is that? If each block cost half a million to install - then if there are 10,000 blocks then that is $5 billion for Chicago. Then there is maintenance.

Electricians full employment act.

[Statistical]

37. Eventually induction charging will become commonplace.

When that happens you simply park in a designated parking spot and your car charges without any wires.

It will take a lot of EV for it to make sense for regenerative charging to catch on though. The whole chicken or the egg problem.

[AngryAmish]

46. That is even more of a nightmare in infrastructure than charging stations

Back in the day I used to install streetlights. First step is to have the utilities marked. (Actually I did this in a suburb with more space than a city but the principle holds.) Then you dig trenches with a bobcat with a trencher. Then shoot a pneumatic ram across the street. When the ram gets across you tie wire to the air hose and pull wire across that way.

A similar method could be done for charging stations - including piggybacking on streetlights for new wire.

ANYWAY, for this induction charging you need to do at least the above plus jackhammer up large parts of the street to stall the pad. Nightmare.

[Statistical]

58. No more of a nightmare than building 400,000 gas stations in a nationwide network.

Rome wasn't built in a day.

The pad doesn't need to be very big thus amount of asphalt affected is not that much. I have done some paper napkin math. You can get a fairly decent current flow from just a 2 ft square pad. Likely best time to install pads would be when you repave a parking lot. Also might be possible to place the inductive field generator in a security hardened box on the curb or even in the curb for street side parking.

The convenience of parking in a designated spot and your car is automatically recharged will make inductive charging the end game. OF course all this requires international standards for current, voltage, locations, etc. It will take time to develop system. The first ones likely will be proprietary eventually universal standards will develop.

Maybe not this year, or maybe not even this decade but eventually.

[Coastal Skies]

86. WTF??? CORONA, EMF, More radiation

Am I the only one here that thinks this is delusional thinking??

[JVS]

144. How much efficiency loss does induction have compared to cables?

[Coastal Skies]

56. Are you a G.M. stockholder or employee?

[Statistical]

60. Nope.

First of all there are no private GM stockholders.
I am not an employee of GM and have been critical of GM in the past especially during the bailouts.

Also GM (to my knowledge) has no plans for inductive charging. It is a concept that works equally well across an hybrid of EV.

Are you a pizza or do you like pizza? Which brand of pizza is your favorite?

[Coastal Skies]

92. Send me your address, we'll put the chargers there

[Vickers]

59. Man, that car sure scares the FUCK out of some people, huh?

:spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank:

[blondeatlast]

64. It seems to--and I am a happy Toyota owner. I smell a disinformation campaign

from somewhere; I'm just trying to figure out where?

[Vickers]

66. Well, Limpballs was whining about it the other day, and Faux News

had some bonehead complaining about it the other day, but I can't *imagine* any DUers getting their info from those sources...

:eyes:

[blondeatlast]

67. Nah, that could never, ever be, now, could it?

Hmmm...

[seabeckind]

61. Maybe the volt makes many drool

But it makes absolutely no economic sense even if you drive only 40 miles a day and never any more.

It costs $40k. that's about $20k more than a Focus. Assuming you drive 220 days out of the year and get just 20 mpg in the focus you'd probably spend around $1500 a year for gas. That means that volt will pay for itself, all other things being ignored (like the cost to charge it), in just 12 or 13 years.

Thanks, but no thanks. Oh, and explain to me what my incentive would be to replace my 13 year old car which gets 20 mpg?

The only solution to our transportation problem is to treat it like a transportation problem, not a continuance of our previous solution to our transportation requirements. But then auto companies aren't in the transportation business -- they're in the car business.

The volt just continues a failed approach. But hey, it looks good in the shower.

[blondeatlast]

65. Nice that y'all have such fresh talking points...

:eyes:

[Statistical]

69. I think you are ignoring a couple of externalized costs.

For many people the reduction in GHG is worth it. Many of the early adopters of solar never made "economic sense". The value of the energy generated was more than the cost of power from grid. The first generation Prius sold when gas was $1.89 a gallon had the same lack of economics. For some the externalized benefits of reduced GHG, reduced oil consumption, reduced need for foreign wars are worth it.

Still lets look at economics alone:
The price to consumer is $33,500 after $7,500 rebate. It is even lower in CA; $28,000 after state rebate.

Now lets make some assumptions:
Length keeping vehicle: 10 years
Miles driven per year: 12,000
Average cost of gasoline over NEXT 10 years: $5.00*
Alternate vehicle: Ford Fusion ($20,000 sticker, 28mpg combined)

* I am going to go with $5.00 per gallon. Personally I think that is low look at gas prices over last decade. Still the largest metric is what do you think gasoline will be on AVERAGE not this year, or next year but over next decade.

Ford Fusion:
120,000 miles / 28 mpg = 4285 gallons * $5/gallon = $21428 in fuel costs.
So for the Ford Fusion the vehicle + total fuel costs are $41,428 Obviously insurance, financing, maintenance, and repairs are additional.

Chevy Volt:
Lets say in the Volt you get 35 miles per day electric * 250 day (work year) = 87,500 miles and the rest = 32,500 on gasoline. Obviously this is guesstimate but we need to start someone. You could track your driving habits for a year to get better estimate.

National electricity cost is about $0.10 per kWh. Volt uses 250 Wh per mile.
87,500 miles * 0.250 kWh = 21,875 kWh * $0.10 per kWh = $2,188.
32,500 miles / 50 mpg = 650 gallons * $5 = $3,250.

So for the Chevy Volt the vehicle + total fuel costs are $38,940 ($33,438 in CA) Obviously insurance, financing, maintenance, and repairs are additional.

So depending on driving conditions it can make economic sense.

Generally speaking the Volt makes more sense:
* closer your commute if to 40 miles round trip (means you are using the low cost electric portion more)
* the more total miles you drive (even gasoline portion gets 50mpg)
* the higher gasoline prices go (for example if average price was $6.00 per gallon the Fusion would be >$5,000 more)
* the less electrical prices increase (generally speaking electrical prices have followed inflation in the past)
* the more incentives that are offered (like CA)
* the more you value externalized benefits (like reduced GHG)

[Coastal Skies]

75. Boar, Yawn, Snore...

[Statistical]

76. Don't worry I have a feeling you won't be here long. n/t

[Coastal Skies]

81. That's the one thing you've been right about today!

I do believe in principals before personalities.

I was hoping that that was the environment here and it seems that sadly is not the case. There is always a few who want to silence anyone who questions, brings up counterpoints, renders an opinion OTHER THAN THERE OWN!!

What are you afraid of? Does my presence on this forum somehow threaten your manhood? Have you written the moderators to silence me yet?

I can tell you straight out that as a new person here today, My experience as a newcomer here today with you makes me want to reconsider being here.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coastal Skies]

97. Now I'm a disrupter, because my opinion is different, very liberal thinking

Seriously it feels like fox news here!!

[blondeatlast]

100. If you are interested in why you are being questioned so harshly, read below.

Rush Limbaugh used those EXACT same talking points to diss the Volt. I'm no fan of GM, but I'm sure as hell no fan of Rush Limbaugh's.

And so far, the Rush talking-point stuff is the only posting I've seen from you, unlike EOTE, Vickers, Statistical, eta l.

[Coastal Skies]

105. Oh that explains it! Pardon me while I go out and shoot myself!

Thank you,

I did not hear that and understand. yes from the G.O.P., (Greedy Oil Pirates), perspective anything that cuts into oil usage is a no no.

My contention is with G.M. Free enterprise dictates they should have been allowed to go out of business. I at one time in 1983 Purchased a brand new Firebird and it was an OK car. So I don't have issue's with G.M.'s distant past. They need to clean house from the top down to the front line managers. I will do anything in my power to prevent any type of corporate bail out. It is merely putting a band aid on a bleeding Aorta.

Respectfully,
Coastal Skies

[Coastal Skies]

101. RE: ) On the attack

If everyone follows through the link you can see this guy clearly started attacking me from my very 1st post. Where I stated that I was new.

[blondeatlast]

104. Bless your heart. nt

[blondeatlast]

89. Bless your heart. nt

[daleanime]

110. Just a quick question....

have you make any post on DU, outside of this threat? As for your experience, please excuse my honesty when I say that you seem to ask for it. Honest question will usually be treated as such, but I've just spent 10-15 minutes going though the back log here, and you come across as needless combative.


Have a nice day.

[Coastal Skies]

123. Thanks for your input

[Coastal Skies]

131. yes, i have

Thank you for your honesty.

[Touchdown]

113. Riiiight. Our manhood is threatened by "Undeclared".

:rofl:

[blondeatlast]

115. Good Lord, TD--I'm on your side. Reports are that Satan has installed

a MASSIVE refrigeration unit in Hell.

[Touchdown]

116. Oh' c'mon!

You know deep down, I'm adorable!

:hug::rofl:

[Coastal Skies]

125. Thanks for your input :-)

[Statistical]

136. Delete.

Oops.

[Touchdown]

139. I still see a profile.

Maybe my Chrome window isn't regenerating.:shrug:

[Statistical]

140. No I just had a lookup fail.

Clicked on the "deleted name" profile on a recently deleted post without thinking.

[blondeatlast]

79. And yet you keep responding... nt

[Coastal Skies]

82. Another warm welcoming heart, I must have logged onto Fox by accident

Have a great day!

[Statistical]

84. You have an account at Fox? That is hardcore. n/t

[Coastal Skies]

87. Somebody has to keep tabs on you!

[blondeatlast]

88. Oh, believe me, I am! nt

[EOTE]

70. That's quite a specious argument.

If you were to propose an argumentum ad reductio, you could say why would anyone ever buy a Camry when for under $10,000, they could pick up a Tata Nano which gets 2 to 3 times the fuel economy? Obviously everyone has stopped buying all other cars and have moved to the Tata Nano which offers superior fuel economy for the cost. Errrr, or not.

The Volt is in a completely different class as the Focus. Even if the Volt provided the same or even worse fuel economy than the Focus, it would still retail for a good deal more because it's a larger, far more well appointed car. All these ridiculous arguments trying to point to other cars that you can get for cheaper completely neglect this very important fact.

[seabeckind]

94. Thanks for totally missing the point

I have not a clue what blonde is saying about talking points but I'm sure it makes sense from whatever point of view that person has.

The point I am trying to make is that the auto company is once more producing a vehicle which does not satisfy many requirements and then slaps some lipstick on it to convince us that that is what we wanted all along.

The Nissan Leaf is a much better solution to many needs than the Volt. It's not as sexy but it goes 100 miles on a charge. That means that I can use it on those occasions when I need to go to Seattle without charging during the trip.

It also means that I don't have to stand at a gasoline pump ever again except on those occasions when I have to go on a long trip.

It also has a cost much closer to my limit. I can't afford even the $33k. I can probably swing around $22k. I can't remember the figures above but were financing costs factored in?

But ignoring all that, let's actually look at the problem from a societal, transportation needs POV. I take a ferry to Seattle. Why should I carry a ton and a half of vehicle with me on that ferry ride? Why does anyone? Why not just have a station at the ferry terminal in Seattle that lets me check out a car like a luggage cart at the airport? The ferry doesn't have to be as big. It can go faster. It can be much more efficient and save fuel.

And one step further, the ferry ride and total time requirement to get to downtown Seattle is around 2 hours from my house. A high speed mass transit thru Tacoma would get me there in around the same amount of time.

That's what I mean by attacking the problem from an actual requirement standpoint. We are letting our previous approach to solving the problem define the requirements. We are also letting those who have a vested interest in maintaining the current system define the solution. We need a high speed transportation system. Why aren't WE building one?

Once again: Why does my car have to be MY car?

[Coastal Skies]

95. +1 Sea

Very nicely put!

[blue_onyx]

107. The Volt makes way more sense than the Leaf

The Leaf only goes 100 miles before it needs to be charged. What about people who occasionally need to go on road trips longer than 100 miles? This car can't fulfill all the needs of many consumers. Why spend so much money on the Leaf when it's not capable of fulfilling 100% of one's driving needs? If there's any vehicle that "does not satisfy many requirements," it's the Leaf.

The Volt can go 300 miles because it has a small engine that charges the battery after the first 40 miles. The Volt makes far more sense.

[seabeckind]

132. The key word in your post is occasionally

If 99% of your trips are less than 100 miles, why do you have to haul that gas engine around because of the 1%?

Why not just rent that long distance guy when you need it?

Occasionally I have 6 or 7 house guests. When that occurs I rent a multi-passenger vehicle. The rest of the time I don't have to walk around it in my garage or have to haul around a bunch of air.

My youngest car is 14 years old. I wouldn't trust it on a long trip. So I rent a car or use alternate means and then rent when I get there. I can't imagine wasting a bunch of money to get something I only need once in a while.

[Statistical]

134. The 100 mile range isn't guranteed.

Depending on driving conditions, AC usages, temperature, age of battery it can be substantially reduced. Of course the same applies to the Volt but you gain unlimited range in gasoline power.

Say you need to go 38 miles each way.

Worst case scenario with a EV + generator (like Volt) is you burn a little more gas (at 50mpg efficiency).
Worst case scenario with an "100 mile" EV is the car stops dead on the road.

There is a reason why Tesla went with 200+ mile range capacity and even their "entry level" Model S will have 160 mile range. The mileage range is optimistic.

While technically the vehicle has 100 miles range I would consider that similar to airplanes. A certain amount of that range should be placed in reserve and not used when planning trips. 100 mile range = more like 30 mile roundtrip guaranteed.

For multi car household a pure EV makes a lot of sense but I wouldn't be interested in something with only 100 mile range optimistic in the first year. I would consider a Tesla Model S but then against that is going to cost $60,000+.

[blue_onyx]

135. That makes no sense

If I'm going to pay thousands of dollars for a new car, then I'll buy one that fulfill 100% of my needs.

[Touchdown]

118. From certain angles, it sort of looks like a Prius.

I'll wait for the Caddy version!

[Lorien]

122. From the back, yes-the front looks like a grandpa-mobile

I prefer the less expensive Nissan Leaf.

[Touchdown]

124. I'd prefer this...

Rumored to have Volt's power train in 2011.



I'd spend that kind of money for a Caddy, but not for a Chevy.

[Statistical]

130. At highway speeds coefficient of drag becomes more important than weight

in determining energy required to propel the vehicle.

Chevy Volt (2011 generation) C_d 0.26
Toyota Prius (2010 generation) C_d 0.25

Sadly "cool looking" designs rarely have good drag coefficients.

Take this classic.



Most people would assume that it is aerodynamic but really it has a C_d of 0.46 almost double a high efficiency vehicle.

Sadly that "lame-o squashed jelly bean shape" is one of the most effective shapes at minimizing C_d especially at highway speeds.

There are some exceptions though (C_d 0.24)

[Touchdown]

137. I understand that.

I'm not saying Volt's a bad looking car, or that the Prius is ugly either. It just took a while for me to get used to the look.

I've always liked Cadillacs better than Chevrolets, and There's talk of building a Caddy version of this (probably roomier, more luxurious). Perhaps the drag coefficient on the Caddy will be close to the Volt or the Benz you posted.

[Statistical]

138. Yeah I think tyou are right.

The reason to go with the economy segment first is less risk to brand. Likely there will be problem. Hopefully they will be minor problems but you can count on problems. Tesla had problems with hand built $180,000 vehicles in the first year.

Likely they figured it wasn't worth it to risk the premium brand this early in the game.

I figure a caddy version will be out in 3-4 years. By then they will have got kinks ironed out, batteries will be cheaper, the generator will be perfected, and likely they can use a larger battery pack. Imagine 60mpg and 60 mile range pack, in a midsized caddy for smaller price premium than current Volt.

[Radical Activist]

126. They could have made a great city car that's affordable.

But they're afraid of that. They only want to dip their toe in the water by making a car that will please everyone, which will ultimately please no one.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

129. Hype!