backtop


Print 76 comment(s) - last by XtremeM3.. on Oct 20 at 3:04 AM


Eight 2011 Chevy Volts took the 1200-mile roadtrip.  (Source: Jeffrey Sauger for General Motors)
The Volt is withstanding the rigors of road testing admirably

The first preproduction models of the 2011 Chevy Volt hybrid electric plug-in vehicle were built earlier this year.  Since then, the vehicle has been put through a number of rigorous tests.  Starting yesterday, a fleet of eight Volts launched on the most ambitious test of the vehicle to date: a 1,200 mile road trip.

Chevrolet Volt chief engineer Andrew Farah is among those making the round trip from the Milford Proving Ground through Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, before returning home.  The drive will take a few days and will require approximately 4 tanks of gas.

The drive is dubbed the "65-Percent Drive" according to Autoblog, which in GM-speak means the test drive made when 65 percent of the vehicle's hardware and software is done.  Reportedly, GM is actually about 90 percent done, but is just sticking to its traditional naming.  GM will complete 70, 80, 90 and 100 percent drives in coming months.

One thing GM is still tweaking is how much power from the gas-engine generator to put directly to the electric drive motor, versus using the generator power to charge the batteries.  GM is finding that frequently putting the power directly to the motor improves performance.  However, the generator will still charge the batteries in some cases, as well.

The engine will be run between 1,200 and 4,000 rpm, using factors like speed and power load requirements to decide on the necessary speed.  GM wants to keep the engine between 30 to 100 percent load, as higher loads reduce pumping losses.  GM was tight lipped about fuel economy under the old method (sustained charge) or the new method (variable speed, some power going directly to the electric motor). 

The company did say that the prototypes are getting good mileage -- over 300 miles on a tank of gas -- when operating in generator mode.  This is in addition to the vehicle's 40 mile all-electric range.  Another interesting test will be when GM runs the car's gas engine on E85 ethanol fuel.  The vehicles are FlexFuel designs, so they can enjoy both gas and ethanol.

As to the battery mode, the batteries are performing well and aren't getting too cold or too hot, both conditions which can degrade performance.  The cars aren't yet reaching the 40 mile target on a charge, but GM expects to pass that milestone on the next test, with tweaking.  On the trip, GM is testing vehicles both running on a depleted battery charge, and a full charge.

GM is also looking to fine tune and minimize noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH).  Currently, the gas engine typically won't turn on until the car is moving, at which point the noise will be drowned out by the wind and road noises.  GM, nonetheless, is pleased with the performance, and plans to further reduce NVH by tweaking vehicle parameters that effect the road and wind noise.

Other GM engineers were off testing Volts at Pikes Peak in Colorado.  One key concern is whether the Volt will reach a "tipping point", where the gas engine can't sustain battery charging, and the battery becomes depleted below the typical minimum of 30 percent charge.  Even a strenuous 14-mile trip to the 14,000-foot summit was unable to overwhelm the 100 hp generator, though, so it appears that the "tipping point" will never be reached in real world situations  -- if GM's claims hold true.

A critical test to come will be how the vehicle performs in cold weather.  In cold weather, the Volt starts with the generator running, to help heat up vehicle and jump-start performance.  Battery performance typically suffers incrementally worse degradation, the colder it gets (this is a major argument for ultracapacitors which perform favorably, but are more expensive).



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Not bad
By judasmachine on 10/16/2009 9:35:09 AM , Rating: 4
Looks better than a Cobalt.

Anyone else notice the pervy UPS driver?




RE: Not bad
By SiliconJon on 10/16/2009 10:20:57 AM , Rating: 3
Pervy? I can't make out what's on his sign. What does it say, what does it say!


RE: Not bad
By SiliconJon on 10/16/2009 10:24:00 AM , Rating: 2
Nevermind...zoom, learn to use it Jon. "Hey (or Hi) Good Lookin"

So is he referring the fella driving the Volt?


RE: Not bad
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 10/16/2009 11:29:29 AM , Rating: 1
The sign says "14ct Gold" and then something else.


RE: Not bad
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 10/16/2009 11:30:49 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder if he gets canned for the canned come on sign.


RE: Not bad
By Camikazi on 10/16/2009 7:01:10 PM , Rating: 3
Don't know much about UPS Union huh? It takes A LOT more then just that to even come close to getting fired, especially a feeder driver. Those guys driving those trucks usually have 20+ years working in UPS and aren't going anywhere.


RE: Not bad
By Davelo on 10/16/2009 12:34:21 PM , Rating: 3
It says "Hi Good Lookin". I think he's trying to score some action on the road.


RE: Not bad
By Jeffk464 on 10/16/2009 11:21:30 PM , Rating: 2
common guys, that was setup and referring to the car.


RE: Not bad
By Aeonic on 10/16/2009 10:32:52 AM , Rating: 5
Nice find, I would have never noticed.

If you ask me, the guy should have his eyes on the road and worry about the family broke down on the shoulder that he's about to kill rather than hamming it up for the camera.


RE: Not bad
By 91TTZ on 10/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: Not bad
By 67STANG on 10/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: Not bad
By lostvyking on 10/16/2009 12:27:19 PM , Rating: 4
I have a 2009 Cobalt (2-door, 2.2 ltr./4cyl/manual transmission)...Columbus Day weekend I got 517 miles on a single 13 gallon tank of gas. In support of the Volt and the efforts the good folks at Chevrolet are putting into it, I hope it gets better than the 40 mpg I got from my Cobalt.


RE: Not bad
By Hiawa23 on 10/16/2009 4:24:58 PM , Rating: 2
I have a 2009 Cobalt (2-door, 2.2 ltr./4cyl/manual transmission)...Columbus Day weekend I got 517 miles on a single 13 gallon tank of gas. In support of the Volt and the efforts the good folks at Chevrolet are putting into it, I hope it gets better than the 40 mpg I got from my Cobalt.

Wow, I am jealous. I have 2006 Mitsu Lancer Ralliart 2.4l & the best it does is 250-260/tank. The manual says it's a 13gallon tank but that can't be cause the most it will allow me to put in it is 10gallons.


RE: Not bad
By lewisc on 10/16/2009 1:32:53 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt he was looking at the driver. From the sample of workers in the first photo, 93% white, 100% male. Must be one hell of an office Christmas party - mistletoe, you say?


RE: Not bad
By Noya on 10/16/2009 4:47:27 PM , Rating: 1
Come on, you know it's setup.


RE: Not bad
By bobny1 on 10/17/09, Rating: 0
RE: Not bad
By XtremeM3 on 10/20/2009 3:04:14 AM , Rating: 2
I hope that is an attempt at humor, since you've also got a 20 gallon gas tank on your "oddy" - so basically saying that the 12.5 - 15mpg you are getting is comparable. I truly hope that was an attempt at humor, because a bad joke would give me more hope for Daily Tech reader intelligence than the blatant ignorance displayed with the attempt of a true comparison of the two.


a tank is a tank...
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 10/16/2009 11:27:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The drive will take a few days and will require approximately 4 tanks of gas.


quote:
over 300 miles on a tank of gas


Okay, but how much volume in the "tank?" 2 gallons? 87 gallons?




RE: a tank is a tank...
By bissimo on 10/16/2009 11:36:16 AM , Rating: 2
My thought exactly. My 2000 Bonneville goes further than 1200 miles on 4 (16 gallon) tanks.


RE: a tank is a tank...
By Spivonious on 10/16/2009 12:41:55 PM , Rating: 2
My Focus goes 400 (all highway) miles on a 13 gallon tank.

GM has to do better than this, unless the tank is really small.


RE: a tank is a tank...
By kattanna on 10/16/2009 12:58:29 PM , Rating: 2
i found this

http://gm-volt.com/2009/05/26/volt-chief-engineer-...

quote:
I was recently told by Volt vehicle line executive Frank Weber that “the gas tank will be between 6 and 10 gallons.


10 gallons would be very unimpressive.

6 gallons on the other hand, being 50 MPG, is.


RE: a tank is a tank...
By Spuke on 10/16/2009 1:28:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
6 gallons on the other hand, being 50 MPG, is.
I have to agree here. 6 gallon tank and getting 300 miles out it would be impressive. I'd rather have more range but it would be much cheaper to fill. Where I live regular is $2.79 to $2.95 a gal so it would cost $17-$18 to fill up. Pretty cheap gas wise. I wonder if the maintenance schedule is like their other cars. My Solstice (Pontiac) is very cheap to maintain (oil and air/oil filter changes only until 100k miles).


RE: a tank is a tank...
By Keeir on 10/16/2009 2:22:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wonder if the maintenance schedule is like their other cars. My Solstice (Pontiac) is very cheap to maintain (oil and air/oil filter changes only until 100k miles).


Designed correctly, Electric Cars would need very little maintainence. No transmission at all. Brakes should have litte/no wear. Since engine will be used rarely if ever, imagine oil changes in the 1 year+ range. Maybe GM will require changes of the Batteries Coolant System...


RE: a tank is a tank...
By invidious on 10/16/2009 2:42:41 PM , Rating: 1
The volt is not an EV, its a hybrid. It has breakbads so yes they will need to be replaced. It has an engine so it will need oil.

Also your assumption that a perfect EV would not have breakpads is incorrect. Electromagnetic breaks do not work fast enough to compare to break pads.


RE: a tank is a tank...
By mcnabney on 10/16/2009 2:48:20 PM , Rating: 3
This car will only put wear on the brakepads when stopping suddenly or sharply. I would imagine that this would at least triple their life expectancy.


RE: a tank is a tank...
By Keeir on 10/16/2009 7:13:11 PM , Rating: 2
Errr... maybe you missed the "Little" part? Most electric motors are capable of providing 70%+ of braking needs. GM is actually adding two Regen Modes. One mode will feature heavy regen once you release the gas pedal. In this mode, its entirely possible that brakepads/brakes that used to last ~50,000 miles will corrode before they wear out from actual use. It depends on what type/quality GM decides to put on the Volt. At 40,000 a pop, I hope its some that "never wear out". I guess also if your the type that speeds to stop signs and redlights you might have an issue too.


RE: a tank is a tank...
By Alexvrb on 10/17/2009 3:44:53 PM , Rating: 2
A modern set of good quality, properly coated, well lubricated brake pads will last a long time in typical circumstances before they corrode beyond safe use. Especially given that modern calipers are well coated (and sometimes made of aluminum), and they use phenolic pistons. So I don't think this will be much of a concern.

The rotors on the other hand... if they use steel rotors, those will rust out eventually no matter what. You'll be using the pads just often enough (under heavy braking) to keep the rotor and pad contact surfaces pretty clean. They could even coat everything but the contact surface of the rotor, but that would generally be overkill. Rotors are cheap enough (even OE or Wagner/Raybestos/Bendix) that replacing them in 5+ years due to rust is still a lot cheaper than using something outrageously expensive like carbon-ceramic rotors (typically used for their high-performance properties only).


RE: a tank is a tank...
By Jeffk464 on 10/18/2009 10:49:43 AM , Rating: 2
they are good enough to stop a mag lev train.


RE: a tank is a tank...
By kmmatney on 10/16/2009 4:21:17 PM , Rating: 2
I change my oil in my car about once a year (1999 Toyota Camry V6). I only drive about 7K a year, though. The car has 90K miles total, and is running fine with the infrequent oil changes. I do use synthetic or syntheic blend oil. and the manual did say you could change the oil very 7500 miles if you don't tow and drive normally. Its a complete waste to change oil every 3K miles.


RE: a tank is a tank...
By kmmatney on 10/16/2009 4:30:05 PM , Rating: 2
This link is interesting - Mobil 1 synthetic was still good after 18000 miles (my limit is 12K between changes):

http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/mobil1....


RE: a tank is a tank...
By Spuke on 10/16/2009 5:56:48 PM , Rating: 2
My commute is 66 miles round trip so the gas engine will get used although only about half the time. So I would probably cut my oil changes in half too. I have a manual transmission so no money savings there (typical driver probably never changes the clutch unless going to a high performance unit). I'd imagine they would use 100k mile coolant like my present car.


RE: a tank is a tank...
By Odysseus145 on 10/16/2009 7:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
My 98 Grand Cherokee will get nearly 500 (highway) miles on a tank.

So what if it's a 23 gallon tank?


RE: a tank is a tank...
By Belard on 10/17/2009 6:38:11 AM , Rating: 2
I get about 350~370miles on my 15 gallon tank in a 99 Mercury so I get about 27~30mpg.

So how is 300 miles supposed to be good? If its a gas gallon tank, that would be better.


Loads
By Alphafox78 on 10/16/2009 11:01:10 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
GM wants to keep the engine between 30 to 100 percent load, as higher loads reduce pumping losses


whats higher than 100% load??




RE: Loads
By 91TTZ on 10/16/2009 11:14:02 AM , Rating: 3
They don't mean higher than 100%. They mean that the closer you get to wide open throttle, the more efficient the engine operates due to lower pumping losses. At idle or at low throttle settings your butterfly valve is nearly closed which is a huge restriction in the intake (obviously).


RE: Loads
By mcnabney on 10/16/2009 2:55:26 PM , Rating: 2
You are missing something.

The small gas engine on the Volt does not have a throttle. It is either on and running or off. This allows it to be tuned to operate at peak efficiency and without the additional complexity typical automobile engine have.

When it is running any additional power not sent to the wheels is stored in the battery.


RE: Loads
By mcnabney on 10/16/2009 3:08:52 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I am really not understanding the need for a 100hp generator. The battery is used for strong acceleration. Why would they design it to need 75k watts. That is insane. In fact, I am uncertain of the car's electrical system being able to handle voltage that high.


RE: Loads
By mcnabney on 10/16/2009 3:13:52 PM , Rating: 2
Just checked. It is a 71hp (53KW)generator. That sounds about right.

Also, this is never mentioned, but the car could easily power your house in the event of a blackout/disaster. In fact, it could power 5-10 homes.


RE: Loads
By Keeir on 10/16/2009 7:40:42 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly, this was not part of the Feature set for Volt 1.0.
I think it would be a great value add... It is supposedly part of the studies for Volt 2.0


RE: Loads
By Spuke on 10/16/2009 7:09:11 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The small gas engine on the Volt does not have a throttle. It is either on and running or off.
Read the article. It says the gas engine will run between 1200 and 4000 rpm so, yes, it will have a throttle.

quote:
This allows it to be tuned to operate at peak efficiency and without the additional complexity typical automobile engine have.
There's nothing complex about a throttle. You have a hole with a round plate in the middle. A computer keyboard is more complicated.


Chevy volt concept drawings
By ChickenMcTest on 10/16/2009 11:35:11 AM , Rating: 3
I wonder if any one at Chevy got to see the Chevy Volt concept drawings? They looked really cool!




RE: Chevy volt concept drawings
By IcePickFreak on 10/16/2009 11:46:13 AM , Rating: 3
I agree. It seems like every few months when they post new pictures the thing changed a little bit more, and now it looks like a Prius/Insight hybrid-hybrid. Would be interesting to see a collection of all the pictures released of the Volt since they started hyping it up a few years ago.


RE: Chevy volt concept drawings
By xprojected on 10/16/2009 12:46:39 PM , Rating: 3
Concept drawings are usually greatly exaggerated, with 24" wheels and windows about a foot high. This wouldn't exactly translate well to production, especially for a car which is supposed to be efficient.


Who knew...
By SublimeSimplicity on 10/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: Who knew...
By kattanna on 10/16/2009 11:30:42 AM , Rating: 2
it was the next line that really made me chuckle

quote:
GM is finding that frequently putting the power directly to the motor improves performance


really? if i add more power directly into the electric motor, i get better performance?


RE: Who knew...
By bobsmith1492 on 10/16/2009 12:21:36 PM , Rating: 2
The funny thing is, li-ion and li-op batteries are actually about 99.99% efficient. So technically you're correct, but realistically battery efficiency isn't the problem, it's the power supply and charger circuits that interface to the battery.


RE: Who knew...
By neilrieck on 10/17/2009 8:18:09 AM , Rating: 1
If GM would have used this body on the EV1 (which they killed in 2002), electric vehicles would be much more common place today.

p.s. even though GM walked away from EV1 and associated technology, GM's competition in the AAMA (Toyota, Honda, and Nissan) stayed the course. Guess which companies didn't need any bail-out money?


Fuel Tank Capacity
By btc909 on 10/16/2009 5:09:25 PM , Rating: 2
The original fuel tank size on the 600 mile range Volt was 12 gallons. I'm thinking the revised tank is in the 6-8 gallon range.

Well it better be closer to 6 if your maximum mileage range is 300 miles.

On a 06 Magnum 3.5L 5 Speed using 16 gallons of fuel I'm getting 340 miles. 21MPG is about right for this vehicle.




looks
By mdogs444 on 10/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: looks
By reader1 on 10/16/2009 9:30:18 AM , Rating: 5
*pfft*, cars. Mah horse drawn buggy is just fahn.


RE: looks
By Hiawa23 on 10/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: looks
By Keeir on 10/16/2009 2:09:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Since this vehicle will be out of the price range of mostly everyone I guess it's another fantasy that someone will find a way to keep gas prices down cause for most, gas powered vehicles is it.


You know... http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/15/report-only-one...

Average purchase price of a GM Auto in Sept 2009? 35,069!
Average purchase price of all Autos in Sept. 2009? 30,327!

Expected Price of Volt post rebate? 32,500-35,000 or less.

So please explain to me how a good 40%+ of the car buyers today are willing to plunk down more than the cost of the Volt. Yet the "Volt is out of the price range of mostly everyone".

Keep in mind that with the dramatically lower cost for Electricity, the Volt will easily save a 25-30 MPG car driver 5,000+ USD over 100,000 miles. Know someone who purchased a car worth more than 27,000? That person can afford a Volt! Know a person with a Truck/SUV more than 20,000? That person can afford a Volt!

Car buyers buy based on precieved value. Some drivers will significantly value the electric drive and preception of zero emissions and flexibility. Of course, not everyone will or should.

The Volt is not the cheapest Compact Car. It is also not the most expensive. Here is a quick list of more expensive cars in the same size range: BMW 3 Series (All), Audi A3/A4, Anything with a V6, Impreza (All but the base model), Volvo C30, Most Mini S types, Acura TSX, MazdaSpeed3... well the list goes on and on and on. GM must deliever a value package that meets the cost, but end price does indeed give them a chance at it.


RE: looks
By mcnabney on 10/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: looks
By Spuke on 10/16/2009 2:40:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The Volt is a compact car that offer neither high performance nor luxury features, so comparing it to BMWs, Cadillacs, and Acuras just isn't comparing apples to apples.
Can you post a link to the final specs of the Volt? I'm interested in seeing them. Thanks.


RE: looks
By mcnabney on 10/16/2009 3:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt

The peak output from the motors turning the wheels is 160hp. That doesn't sound like V6 power to me since this car isn't going to be terribly light. Because these are electic motors I imagine that the torque will be good, but I have never driven an electric car before. The Tesla Roadster provides 248hp at the wheels, but that is a much lighter vehicle.


RE: looks
By Keeir on 10/16/2009 7:03:06 PM , Rating: 3
Hrm...

I think your trying to look at one number and come to a conclusion about driving experience from just that one number.

Here's another number
273 lb-ft of torque
http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=...

Yow! Thats alot of twist for a family sedan, even one at 3,500 lbs.

As to the Roadster. Somehow, it achieves a sub 4 0-60 time with only ~100 hp/1000 lbs. Most gasoline cars in the same zone require ~130 hp/1000 lbs...

Conclusion- In the Segment of cars that include Prius and Insight, it should be no contest for the Volt. No, its not going to do better than a WRX STi or MazdaSpeed3. However, the Volt should be better than almost all base model compact/midsize cars and power issues shouldn't be a concern for anyone driving a non-performance car today.


RE: looks
By Keeir on 10/16/2009 7:38:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Volt is a compact car that offer neither high performance nor luxury features, so comparing it to BMWs, Cadillacs, and Acuras just isn't comparing apples to apples.


Hrm. Define "Luxury Features". Only seen Leather Interior. Heated Seats are definately there. Dual Screens, so Nav/Fancy Electronics are there. Fog Lights too.

Volt will provide a feature that no other car on the road currently will offer. 40 miles Electric + Unlimited Range with current infrastructure. There is no Apples to Apples comparison.

People get caught up in the initial price of the Volt at ~32,000 (after rebate). This does not look at the long term. People also somehow think the Volt must be the Cheapest Car on the Road.

The Volt has to offer a reasonable value proposition to customers. The 10 year cost of owning a Volt for the end customer, (I estimate around 40,000) is close enough to Prius (38,000), Civic DX (34,000), Fusion Hybrid (43,000), Accord I4 (46,000) to give the Volt a shot at this mark. Other cars clearly offer the value in the same segments and same price. Cars the same size offer the value at significantly higher prices (328i is more like 53,000+ 10 year, A3 2.0T is close to 48,000+). Its possible for GM to get the value proposition right for the Volt. Its also possible for them to mess it up completely.


RE: looks
By Fenixgoon on 10/16/2009 11:37:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Amazingly similar look to a Prius right there.


the laws of aerodynamics apply to all cars.

the "egg shape" for a small car is basically the most optimal shape people have found for reducing drag. that's why the volt, prius, and insight look the way they do.


RE: looks
By Spuke on 10/16/2009 12:03:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the "egg shape" for a small car is basically the most optimal shape people have found for reducing drag.
Yawn. It's the most optimal shape for good aero, interior room, and other compromises. The new E350 Coupe is nearly the same CD as a Prius and doesn't look butt ugly.

2010 Toyota Prius: .25
2010 Mercedes-Benz E350 Coupe: .24


RE: looks
By theapparition on 10/16/2009 1:06:44 PM , Rating: 4
While true, Cd does not equal drag. You have to multiply by cross-sectional area. That's why some cars can have lower Cd's and yet still have higher drag.

Too much emphasis put on Cd.


RE: looks
By Reclaimer77 on 10/16/2009 2:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
lol yeah I agree. Anyone buying GM right now has to be the dumbest person on Earth. Let's see, they take your tax money to bail them out. They become part of the Federal Government at this point. And then, you give them MORE money to buy a vehicle.

You know what you just did ? You taxed yourself. Good job, moron lol.


RE: looks
By mcnabney on 10/16/2009 2:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
The government owns non-voting shares of GM in exchange for their investment. It doesn't make it part of the Federal government any more than my investment in Microsoft makes me involved in their business. The Feds will sell their stake as soon as they can find a buyer to give them most of their money back (unlikely for the Feds to make money on their GM investment, I know). But your reasoning of avoiding GM because of the investment actually will decrease the government's return and loss more of YOUR tax dollars.
So if you use the investment model of invest in what you buy and buy what you invest in, it is in every US citizen's best interest to buy products that they have invested in.


RE: looks
By Reclaimer77 on 10/16/2009 2:52:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So if you use the investment model of invest in what you buy and buy what you invest in, it is in every US citizen's best interest to buy products that they have invested in.


Investment implies we had a choice. We never did. I didn't choose to invest in GM, so I choose to do the most I can to not support them.

p.s. screw you.


RE: looks
By MadMan007 on 10/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: looks
By mcnabney on 10/16/2009 3:57:37 PM , Rating: 2
The US government 'invests' in tons of things, many of them through private companies. You are using one of those 'investments' right now. The internet cost the US taxpayer billions in giveaways. So you better get offline, hypocrite.

Also, the footprint of GM failing outright - across suppliers, vendors, and employees is huge. My company, who is a vendor, would have lost tens of millions.


RE: looks
By Reclaimer77 on 10/16/2009 4:37:07 PM , Rating: 1
Really the Internet was a private business, who the government gave billions to, fired it's CEO, and then told them how to run their business ???

Brilliant analogy mcnabney !!

I suppose I should get off the roads because taxes pay for that too ? Or did you not actually get my point...

quote:
Also, the footprint of GM failing outright - across suppliers, vendors, and employees is huge. My company, who is a vendor, would have lost tens of millions.


We HAVE lost tens of millions, more. And GM HAS laid off thousands of people and closed tons of dealerships, the same thing that WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF THEY WERE ALLOWED TO GO INTO BANKRUPTCY. Do you get it ?


RE: looks
By mcnabney on 10/16/2009 5:19:40 PM , Rating: 5
Actually, unassisted they would have gone into liquidation. All assets sold, creditors paid in order of seniority. Vendors would have gotten nothing. Warranties would be cancelled. No bank was in a position to assist in a reorganization. Only the Federal government could do it. And yes, firing the leadership was the best thing that happened. There was plenty of griping about management getting the money during the Circuit City selloff period.

And also, who do you think paid for most of the network, routers, and many servers in the early years of the Internet and Web. The Feds through grants and direct investment. What, you think private and public universities just print the money? All they paid for was local servers. The Bells got to keep the wire, but the cost of putting it in was Federal.


RE: looks
By MadMan007 on 10/16/2009 5:26:58 PM , Rating: 3
Your logical and factual debating points are not wanted here! Away with thee!


RE: looks
By mcnabney on 10/17/2009 1:53:58 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry. I'll go back to work.

/accountant


RE: looks
By Reclaimer77 on 10/16/2009 5:39:08 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong. ALL BANKRUPTCIES for a company that large are federally assisted. All of those things would have happened anyway. The goal wasn't to "save GM", the goal was to keep the unions ( and their campaign contributions ) and take over the company.

Do all you people watch MSNBC or something ? Have you actually noticed who's running GM now and what their board of directors is made up of ? There are more union guys and politicians running the company than actual car people now.

And weather or not GM's CEO " had to go " isn't even the issue here. The President fired him, which is beyond unconstitutional. This kind of stuff is the EXACT reason businesses and government don't mix and why we were against the bailouts.

What happened to GM is just wrong. Period. It's wrong for the taxpayer, and in the longrun it will be bad for them as well as the country.


RE: looks
By mcnabney on 10/17/2009 1:51:41 PM , Rating: 2
They are all managed by Federal bankruptcy courts, but financing is typically arranged from large banking/investment institutions. For example, Enron and MCI/Worldcom didn't cost the Feds anything. I even believe that the court costs were paid from the remaining assets. The Chrysler bankruptcy involved Fiat and some cash there, but for the most part the court just assisted in negotiating new terms for some debts and discharging others. Before that can be done the entire financial structure of the business has to be studied to make sure there aren't tangential assests that can be liquidated. For example, in the GM bankruptcy the Saab and Hummer brands were sold. Saturn would have been, but Penske flaked-out. In GM's case the Feds played the role of a large bank by buying a major percentage of the business ownership after the previous shares were cancelled. This actually worked out as it should. The equity investors were punished first by getting nothing. Second, the bond holders only received a fraction of their matured value (that is where a lot of US funds went to). Third, management was fired w/o parachutes. Fourth, employee stakes were converted to shares which made them dependant on future prospects to have any value. If the whole thing fails, the Feds won't be able to sell their equity stake in the future to get there money back. Long story short - if you want the US taxpayers to get their investment back, buy GM products.


RE: looks
By Reclaimer77 on 10/17/2009 2:42:55 PM , Rating: 2
Ok I see we have fundamental differences of opinion that aren't going to be resolved by picking at the edges of arguments.

I'm apposed to the concept that any business is "too large to fail" and that it's up to the taxpayers, in a big recession I might add, to pick up the tab and bail them out. Especially without even a vote ! Taxation without representation ring a bell to you ? We weren't even given a CHANCE to have an honest and democratic debate on this issue. This is NOT the way things should be done. I, and a great many other Americans, are honestly sick and tired of crap being rammed down our throats before anyone even knows what's going on or has a say in it. The TARP, the Auto Bailouts, the "Stimulus", Tax and Trade, and now Universal Healthcare.

Period. No iff's, and's or buts. And I find your assertion that it's our patriotic duty to buy into the farce that is Government Motors, frankly, offensive.


*sigh*....not yet?
By Souka on 10/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: *sigh*....not yet?
By kaoken on 10/16/2009 12:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
Well that's what they are working on : )


RE: *sigh*....not yet?
By Spuke on 10/16/2009 1:43:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not "mad" at GM or the Gov. But feel a bit sadden at the situation...that's all.
Now I understand why corporations are reluctant to discuss products that have not been introduced. The ignorant masses always seem to know better than the experts designing and building the products.


RE: *sigh*....not yet?
By Keeir on 10/16/2009 2:31:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Not at 40miles yet? And that's with their trained drivers doing their best? Come on!


Errr... are you blind? Notice that there are missing headlights? Bumbers and stuff that don't quite align.

I also image the software is very rough at this stage (more than 1 year to showtime). Pretty much, I think getting within 5% of the goal of 40 would be typical at this stage of development.

quote:
So GM will say "40 mile range" but in reality when "Joe Plumber" drives it'll be more like 20 miles.


GM has stated that the Goal is to achieve 40+ miles on the EPA City Driving Cycle. Computer modeling is given them well past 40 miles AER on the EPA city. Real-world does not yet match the modeling, but thats scarely a surprize.


"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes














botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki