backtop

Print 150 comment(s) - last by peter60.. on Aug 13 at 5:01 AM

Chevy Volt
Chevy joins the party, but has found its plug-in hybrid car may be a bit too pricey for car buyers

General Motors and other U.S. automakers sat back and watched as foreign-based automakers, led by the Toyota with the Prius, developed newer, more advanced green energy efficient cars.  A step behind, they are now trying to play catch-up, leading to some very interesting results for car buyers in the market for a fuel efficient vehicle.

The Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in hybrid car capable of traveling 40 miles on a full charge, uses a lithium-ion battery pack able to be recharged in a household power outlet or can be trickled charged using the car's onboard gasoline engine "range extender."  Instead of just mimicking the Honda Insight and Toyota Prius, however, Chevy hoped to offer a sportier vehicle -- which inadvertently drove up the price of the car.

GM Executive Bob Lutz, who spearheaded the Volt's development, also noted a retail price tag believed to be in the high $20,000s has turned out to be significantly more.  Due to expensive parts used in the car, including an $8,000 battery, more expensive drivetrain, and other parts, the average transaction for a Chevy Volt is somewhere near $43,000.

"When I said I hope to sell it in the 20s, I just thought, well, if a conventional car of that size with a conventional four-cylinder engine, we can sell it for $15,000 or $16,000, then let's notionally add $8,000 for the battery and we're at $25,000," Lutz told AdAge.com.  "That's the way my brain worked on that one."

GM had to modify several standard systems it uses for its compact-car architecture -- a setback because it wasn't ready before -- which drove the price of manufacturing through the roof.

Volt buyers are eligible for a $7,500 federal tax credit, but that money won't be seen for several months after the car's purchase, while the owner must deal with financing and insuring the car.

Chevrolet will likely find it very difficult to sell the $40,000 Chevy Volt, especially with competition from Toyota, Honda, and other carmakers.  For example, Nissan recently announced the 2010 Nissan LEAF EV zero-emissions vehicle that has already been dubbed a possible "Volt-killer," though auto industry insiders say it's far too early to say such things.

Automakers have shown a renewed interest in hybrids, biofuels, and electric cars, as car shoppers also shift away from regular gasoline to greener technologies.  After GM opened its Global Battery Systems Lab last June, there was a concern GM saw only a short-term market for electric vehicles, which is no longer true.  Despite a more serious effort to develop fuel efficient vehicles, Chevrolet may likely find it very difficult to sell its expensive Volt in the face of new, cheaper competition.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
You get an "E" for effort
By 3minence on 8/3/2009 3:33:58 PM , Rating: 5
While I applaud the imagination and desire to create something new (something Detroit has seriously lacked as of late), a $40k+ car that looks like a sub-$20k car is not going to work. I'm afraid the Volt is itself a Volt killer.




RE: You get an "E" for effort
By yomamafor1 on 8/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: You get an "E" for effort
By FITCamaro on 8/3/2009 4:03:10 PM , Rating: 5
You have many incorrect notions about the car.

When the battery hits a predetermined charge level, the gas generator kicks on to recharge the battery, not drive the wheels. While performance may be reduced, the main thing is you can drive it for hundreds of miles with only needing to stop for gas rather than be SOL like with a pure electric car.

And where do you read the gas engine will shut off at stops? From what I've read it will stay on until the battery is charged or you run out of gas. It doesn't care what you're doing. I'm sure once you plug it in though it'll stop running.

How is it useless past 40 miles? Again, it will go hundreds of miles a day. A true electric car goes as far as its battery takes you and thats it. I can drive 600 miles a day in a Volt if I want to.

Now that's not to say that it's price tag won't kill it. But it is far from useless. It is merely expensive. In reality it is the better design for a hybrid because it does not depend on any one particular kind of technology to recharge the battery. You could take out the gas engine and replace it with a fuel cell if you wanted. Or a bigger battery. Or a diesel. The car won't really care. You could even technically remove the gas engine altogether to lighten the car and depend solely on the battery.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By KeyMasterOfGozer on 8/3/2009 4:33:50 PM , Rating: 5
You are definitely more correct than the post you are replying to.

The Volt's battery system is actually very complex and is designed to have a 40 miles range at the end of it's 10 year life. One of the ways it does this is by maintaining a charge on the battery between 80% and 30%. Charging the battery more than 80% would reduce battery life, as would reducing the charge to 0%. (BTW the 40 miles happen in the 80-30% range, the battery is oversized to accommodate this).

The reason I bring this up is that the 1.4L engine never charges the battery above the 30%. It is much cheaper to charge the battery from an electrical outlet as is the design.

Some people here complain that the 1.4L engine is not powerful enough. That would normally be true, except that the electric motor does not get power from the 1.4L engine, it gets it from the battery, which has plenty to give still at 30% to make up for the difference. You can go below 30% for short periods of time if you need to accelerate to pass or something, and also gain back charge as you brake.

In a regular gas engine car, the motor must run at a wide range of RPMs, because the motor turning turns your wheels, which need to go at an infinitely variable speed. In the generator engine in the Volt, the engine does not need to vary it's RPMs, since it does not drive the wheels directly, so it can be highly tuned at specific frequencies to be much more efficient.

The reason the 40 Mile limit was chosen for the battery is that 80% of Americans have a commute of 40 miles or less.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By Lerianis on 8/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: You get an "E" for effort
By Keeir on 8/3/2009 5:45:39 PM , Rating: 5
Any figures? Facts?

http://www.epa.gov/OMS/climate/420f05004.htm

EPA believes the average less than 10 year old car of the Volt type gets 12,000 miles per year, or about 34 miles per day assuming roughly equal miles each day. Based on this, I would say more than 40% of Volt size cars are driven less than 40 miles a day, and more than 60% are driven less than 40 miles between charging opportunities.

Besides, Volt will go infinate number of miles. The idea is to pick a level which the battery is likely to be used 100% each and every time. Batteries degrade based on time as well as usage. Making a big battery that doesn't get used is a waste of money and resources.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By drmo on 8/3/2009 5:55:05 PM , Rating: 3
Another couple of average miles studies/polls:
About 80% of commutes are 20 miles or less in first one, average of 16 miles for second (one way). Of course, if it is longer, then the gas engine will charge the battery, or you could convince your work to provide an outlet for this "eco-friendly" car.

http://www.bts.gov/publications/omnistats/volume_0...

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Traffic/story?id=...


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By Samus on 8/4/2009 7:32:35 AM , Rating: 3
drmo is right. you can't just divide the EPA estimated annual travel (12,000 miles) by 365 days and say people drive 34 miles a day, because most people don't drive 365 days a year. that's a ridiculous assumption.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By Tsuwamono on 8/3/2009 7:22:05 PM , Rating: 5
I drive about 7 KILOMETERS one way.. so 14 KM/day.. I don't know anyone who drives 40 MILES or 64.37 km ONE WAY to work.

I'd say get a job closer to you. I drive 7km to work, dad drives 5km, girlfriend drives 5km, best friend drives 8km, 99% of my co-workers drive less then 10km to work. I know of maybe one co-worker who drives from out side the city which is about 25km.

I think anyone driving over 40 MILES to work one way is retarded.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By Keeir on 8/3/2009 7:33:25 PM , Rating: 2
From your use of KM, your not from the US.

Unfortunely, due to Sprawl in the US and dual income households (more than 70%), its not uncommon for 1 person to be required to drive more than 40 miles one way. This can be as little as 45 minutes of travel times as well.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By Tsuwamono on 8/3/2009 7:43:55 PM , Rating: 1
Canada is a lot bigger then the USA land wise and I find the trick to getting you and your spouse living within 10 minutes each of your work place is to move...

My girlfriend and I have a place right in the middle between her work place and mine. That way its fair.. Its actually alittle closer for her but i pretend not to notice. lol


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By Keeir on 8/3/2009 9:33:22 PM , Rating: 4
Its not the size of land, but the sprawl. Canadians tend to live in much tigher communities than the US. Look at Seattle Versus Vancouver BC (Similar Location, Climate, Age, and People)

Seattle Metro Area= 157 people/Km^2
Vancover Metro Area= 755 people/Km^2

What would it take to get you to commute 40 miles one way? Housing that is 100,000 USD cheaper? A job that pays 10,000 more a year? Not wanting to move your kids from thier current school area? Temporary Assignment? Actually getting a job in your field? (Not everyone has a career type that lends itself to "job anywhere")

All of these factors do occur. I doubt many people -want- to live 40+ miles road distance from work, but for a variety of factors this occurs and can occur easily in the US.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By Iaiken on 8/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: You get an "E" for effort
By Keeir on 8/4/2009 7:35:06 PM , Rating: 2
You know

Every time I might possibly feel bad about not knowing something about Canada, someone reminds me how ignorant many of "those who think its terrible people don't know about X" are in relation to the United States.

#1. Numbers are Metro numbers, not Urban. This means I am including the greater Vancouver Area, such as Richmond, Surrey, etc. Even including some drastically unpopulated areas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GVRD_-_Vancouver...

I find Metro numbers much more fair to compare cities. Some Cities "Urban" numbers are unfairly affected by things such as Sport Stadiums, Docking, Tourist Attractions, etc.

#2. Seattle -Also- Has a mountain range next to it. In fact though, it has something far worse. A huge lake called Lake Washington. (And a Smaller Lake, Lake Sammamish). In fact, looking from straight from downtown, Vancover has more than 90 degree of settlement possibility. Seattle is lucky to have much more than 50 degree.

However, having been in both locations, I can say that overall Seattle is the more limiting place. Vancouver could have alot more sprawl, but they chose to limit the size of thier roads in and out of the city to the point where commuting from even 10 miles outside of downtown must be extremely frustrating. Seattle on the other hand, has 4 major access roads to downtown. Allowing much greater sprawl.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By Iaiken on 8/5/2009 10:33:52 AM , Rating: 2
Having BEEN to both areas numerous times I can safely say that the difference between the greater Vancouver area and the greater Seattle area are enormous.

First of all, half of the municipalities that make up metro Vancouver are either buttressed up against a mountain or climbing up a hill. Usable land is in much shorter supply than Seattle, which causes them to build up. Entire sections of Burnaby and other cities in the tighter areas are dedicated to high rise condo and apartments. Add the national border with the United States to the south and Vancouver has nowhere to go.

The population density of Vancouver is a major factor the metro population density value in that it is twice that of Seattle's. Again, this is because it is rife with high rise condos and appartments because the city proper is surrounded by water on every side.

Finally, your numbers are wrong. The US census population density for Seattle, Washington was 492.0/mi^2. Which will NEVER convert over to 157 people/Km^2 NO MATTER HOW BADLY YOU WANT TO BE RIGHT.

Perhaps you might want to take a look at both areas via satellite (or even just google maps aerial view) before you start spewing "facts". Perhaps you might want to make sure your numbers are right. Perhaps you might want to actually be right, but that's probably not going to happen here since I've lived in both areas and have even been into the surrounding areas of (including the mountains of Vancouver and the foothills of Washington). With the exception of Mt Rainier, Seattle is a good 70 miles from the nearest real mountain range.

You... spew... 'facts'... :P


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By Iaiken on 8/5/2009 10:35:07 AM , Rating: 2
And that quoted population density was from the 2004 US Census report on metropolitan population density.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By Keeir on 8/5/2009 2:03:26 PM , Rating: 2
Great, you can use Google Maps

Notice that the Lower Mainland is mostly farms? Or at least a large number of farms.

If the Lower Mainland was in the United States, it would be carpeted with .125-.5 acre homes. People would commute from Langley and Abbotsford to Burnaby and Downtown Vancouver. Kinda of like how the surround areas of Seattle are...

Mate, your so wrong on so many levels, your really like the kettle calling the pot black.

1 square mile= 2.58998811 square kilometers

That results from your number as 189.96 people/square kilometer. I was using 2009 Est. Census numbers. Seems to me the difference between our numbers 157 to 190 is rather small at 20% and does nothing to change the point.

Snoqualimie Pass, the "Center" of a real mountain range, is less than 50 miles from Downtown Seattle. Yes, its not as close Vancouver is to the Canadian Rockies, but 70 miles is close to twice the distance.

quote:
Usable land is in much shorter supply than Seattle, which causes them to build up.


Because of Seattle Roads, I-5 (70 mph+), I-90 (70 mph+), etc there is alot easier time. How do you get to Downtown Vancouver if you live outside? Oak St? (30 mph with Stoplights) Hastings St? (40 mph with Stoplights). I suppose you can take Kingsway to Main, but thats going to be less than 40 mph average even with light traffic post Burnaby. Seattle? You can go 70 mph and a limited access highway through downtown.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By Keeir on 8/5/2009 2:03:27 PM , Rating: 2
Great, you can use Google Maps

Notice that the Lower Mainland is mostly farms? Or at least a large number of farms.

If the Lower Mainland was in the United States, it would be carpeted with .125-.5 acre homes. People would commute from Langley and Abbotsford to Burnaby and Downtown Vancouver. Kinda of like how the surround areas of Seattle are...

Mate, your so wrong on so many levels, your really like the kettle calling the pot black.

1 square mile= 2.58998811 square kilometers

That results from your number as 189.96 people/square kilometer. I was using 2009 Est. Census numbers. Seems to me the difference between our numbers 157 to 190 is rather small at 20% and does nothing to change the point.

Snoqualimie Pass, the "Center" of a real mountain range, is less than 50 miles from Downtown Seattle. Yes, its not as close Vancouver is to the Canadian Rockies, but 70 miles is close to twice the distance.

quote:
Usable land is in much shorter supply than Seattle, which causes them to build up.


Because of Seattle Roads, I-5 (70 mph+), I-90 (70 mph+), etc there is alot easier time. How do you get to Downtown Vancouver if you live outside? Oak St? (30 mph with Stoplights) Hastings St? (40 mph with Stoplights). I suppose you can take Kingsway to Main, but thats going to be less than 40 mph average even with light traffic post Burnaby. Seattle? You can go 70 mph and a limited access highway through downtown.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By FITCamaro on 8/3/2009 11:31:32 PM , Rating: 2
I drove 75 miles each way for 9 months right after I got out of college.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By Titanius on 8/4/2009 8:44:45 AM , Rating: 2
I live 69 Km away from where I work. I live out in Eastern Canada more specifically in one of the Atlantic provinces. The area I'm located in, which is very common for that area of Canada, is a bunch of small towns about 30 Km aways from each other. I live in a town that I like living in and I'm established there. But then work started disappearing in the area and I had to find another job, I found one 69 Km away from where I live. I don't have a choice like you (you lucky bum), and I resent being called retarded because you fail to understand that not everybody is in the same boat as you are.

BTW, 69 Km one-way commute is nothing, 35 minutes drive, and it gives me time to myself, something I don't get a whole lot at home or work.

Would I like to work closer to home? Definitely. Can I find a job closer to home? In today's world and with things the way they are, slim to none...for now.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By Yawgm0th on 8/4/2009 12:30:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I drive about 7 KILOMETERS one way.. so 14 KM/day.. I don't know anyone who drives 40 MILES or 64.37 km ONE WAY to work.
Most of my coworkers here in Minneapolis drive at least 10 miles each way. I drive about 18. I know of at least five who drive over 40 miles each way, commuting from as far as Saint Cloud about 65 miles away.

American metropolises are invariably surrounded by suburbs and exurbs for many miles, with a majority of denizens commuting to the city itself or at least the surrounding suburbs. The Twin Cities metro area, depending on how you define it, is a circle with about a 50 mile diameter before you get into what could be considered "exurbs". Larger metropolitan areas like New York or Los Angeles are substantially longer.

Having longer than an hour commute each way sucks, but even with gas is can be cheaper than actually living in a city. People like to live in smaller, less dense areas as well. And if the money is good, A few hours of driving a day isn't worth packing up and moving.

Admittedly, I would probably never choose to live as far away as forty miles, but I'm happy to live 20 or 25 away. Beats the hell out of living near north Minneapolis.

quote:

I think anyone driving over 40 MILES to work one way is retarded.
I think classifying a geographical and cultural difference you evidently don't understand at all as retarded is retarded. ;)


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By teldar on 8/3/2009 9:32:54 PM , Rating: 2
i would bet MOST people DO have a commute of 40 miles round trip or less.

Maybe if you live on the east coast, or in a super huge city that you work downtown and CANNOT afford to live near work, YOU drive more than that. I would imagine that most people in most cities are significantly less than 20 miles.

And if they had designed for 100 miles on one charge, say hellp to the $55k volt.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By Jeffk464 on 8/4/2009 1:38:13 PM , Rating: 3
Call me crazy, but if your commute doesn't fit within the 40 mile a day range just don't buy the car. I think a lot of people will end up paying a premium for this car because it fits their needs and they are environmentalists. I doubt very much Rush Limbaugh will be buying one, some people take pride in being hard on the environment for some reason.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By Keeir on 8/4/2009 7:55:53 PM , Rating: 3
And even if its more than 40 miles, you still save 40 miles of gas.

If your commute is longer than 40 miles, I repeat, you still have 4/5 a gallon of gas each day (Over the next best Auto). In fact, the Volt is ideal for people who drive slightly more than 40 miles a day. IE, someone who uses 100% of the battery capacity as often as possible.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By MrBlastman on 8/3/09, Rating: 0
RE: You get an "E" for effort
By FITCamaro on 8/3/2009 11:33:32 PM , Rating: 3
Must be that Christopher1 guy. I hope someone finds this guy, rips off his nuts, and then shoots him in the face.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By rdeegvainl on 8/4/2009 8:51:36 AM , Rating: 1
While I do agree with your sentiments about this poster, this discussion is not the place for your ad hominem attacks.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By kyp275 on 8/4/2009 10:40:37 AM , Rating: 2
more like, this discussion is the wrong thread :P


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By MrPoletski on 8/4/2009 7:06:54 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
In a regular gas engine car, the motor must run at a wide range of RPMs, because the motor turning turns your wheels, which need to go at an infinitely variable speed. In the generator engine in the Volt, the engine does not need to vary it's RPMs, since it does not drive the wheels directly, so it can be highly tuned at specific frequencies to be much more efficient.


The power of the electric motor just needs to be sufficient to turn the alternator. But the RPM will almost certainly vary due to the differing amount of torque resistance the alternator will exert, dependant on the current load present at the other side (i.e. lower rpm with lower charge because of higher current requirements). I can't imagine the RPM changing significantly, it's the kind of thing you tune to an acceptable margin. I imagine in the worst case scenario it might lose 5% of its RPM, any bigger and you're being wasteful with your engine, any smaller and you start to loose charging speed at low battery levels.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By yomamafor1 on 8/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: You get an "E" for effort
By teldar on 8/3/2009 9:36:10 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
From what I've read, the Volt's engine does NOT charges the battery.

Then what you've heard is completely wrong.
The engine runs the electric motor?
Are you serious?
Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about?
ALL the engine does is charges the battery.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By Keeir on 8/3/2009 9:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
Going to do my best at diagram

Engine --> Generator --> Motor <--> Battery

The Engine will run a Generator. Engine Max output is expected to be in the 80hp range as the Generator will produce as most 53kW (~71 hp).

The ICE Engine will run in one of a small number of power bands. Points of high relative efficiency.

Electricial Engery thus produced will go first to the Motor. Any Extra Energy will go into the Battery. Any extra energy required by motor that doesn't justify the ICE Engine moving to the next powerband will be supplied by the Battery.

GM is doing it this way to avoid excessive cycling of the battery. If the ICE "recharged" the battery and then the battery powered the motor, this would lead to more cycles of the battery and lower the overall battery life.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By Keeir on 8/4/2009 12:39:59 AM , Rating: 5
I am guessing from the downrating people guess I am not telling the truth.

http://gm-volt.com/2008/08/25/what-happens-in-the-...

http://media.gm.com/volt/eflex/works.html

http://media.gm.com/volt/eflex/prop_an.html

(look at around 3/4 the way through)

This all makes sense. It doesn't make sense to take electrical power, charge a battery with that power (loss), to discharge the battery (loss) to then power a motor.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By Starcub on 8/4/2009 1:06:20 PM , Rating: 2
What you said makes a lot of sense. I was thinking the same thing actually: I couldn't imagine why they would want to use an ICE to charge a battery. Nevertheless, this design still does use an ICE to charge the battery, even if it is only 'overflow'; thus introducing some inefficiency wrt an all electric design. Thanks for the clarification.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By Keeir on 8/3/2009 9:50:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
From what I've read, the Volt's engine does NOT charges the battery. It only powers the electric motor. So if the electric motors are not moving (i.e. idle), the gas engine would've been shut off. I've obtained this information from Automobile Magazine's test drive of the Volt.


No one outside GM has been allowed to drive the Volt with it's gasoline powered generator on. Period.

The idea of the Volt is that the gasoline engine will only ever provide average power requirements and the battery will provide the rest. This has been stated so many times by GM that its painful that Automobile Magazine got it wrong.

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/

This shows the Tesla Roadsters Power Usage at Various Speeds. The generator on the Volt produces at most 53kW. Lets look at what speed that gets us on the Telsa... 96 mph? To Maintain "highway" speeds, 70mph, a measily 22kW is required. Very reasonable 30 hp from a max 70 hp source (engine probably needs to produce 35 hp to ensure the generator outputs 22 kW). I wouldn't call this
putting the engine to the limit.

In fact, a GM design case has been driving "highway speeds" (probably more like 55mph) up a 5% grade forever.

I recommend visiting gm-volt.com, Autobloggreen, or any other site besides Automobile Magazine to actually get a hold on what the Volt does.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By PrinceGaz on 8/3/2009 5:04:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
However once the battery is depleted, drivers would have to use the on board 1.4L engine that outputs a mere ~100 hp to power the electric motors, which in turns will only churn out ~100 hp.


A couple of points about that. I don't know what the engine's power output is, but if it is 100hp, then you should assume up to 10% total loss in the generator or alternator stage, and a further up to 10% total loss in the electric motor meaning you could be looking at as little as 81hp delivered to the wheels. That's not good.

But and this is critical: the engine can run continuously at maximum power charging the batteries once they are below a particular level, regardless of how you are driving. You wouldn't use the motor's maximum 165hp all the time, in fact it is unlikely you would ever need an *average* of over 80hp for anything other than blasting around a race-track 'Top Gear' style. To all intents and purposes, it will be like you have the full 165hp available indefinitely (until you run out of petrol/diesel anyway) for all typical driving conditions (city driving, motorway driving at 70+ mph, driving on hilly rural roads).

The only scenario where I can see the batteries running out of power with the engine running constantly on full power is a long quite fast climb up from lowlands to a mountainous region where the full 165hp may be desired for an extended duration.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By Keeir on 8/3/2009 5:36:27 PM , Rating: 3
#1. The generator outputs a maximum of 53 kW of power according the early specs.

#2. Motor is approx 110 kW of power.

#3. Full power will be availible for only ~5 minutes past charge depletetion point. However, GM has stated that the 53 kW of power is more than suffiecent for steady state even at the high ends.

Back of the evenlope

Power= Speed * (Rolling Resistance + Air Resistance)
(53kW - Losses)= X m/S * ( 15,500 N * .007 + .5 * .27 * 1.23 kg/m^3 * 2.52m^2 * X m/S * X m/S)

Asumming 75% efficieny of the entire system, leads to ~44 meters per second or ~100 mph.

Thus passes the reasonability test that 53 kW generator plus ~3 kWh of back of battery will allow full power under almost all driving conditions.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By Tsuwamono on 8/3/2009 7:17:26 PM , Rating: 1
50-100miles? I moved from Brockville to Ottawa because I work in ottawa.. but you're telling me most Americans drive that distance every day?

Heres a link to those places since 99.99% will no know where brockville is.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Fr...


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By therealnickdanger on 8/3/2009 3:51:04 PM , Rating: 2
LOL Very well said.

If I had $40,000+ to spend on a car right now, I would rather get a C6 and enjoy its 28MPG+ (highway) for my commute. Granted, the way I drive my cars, I probably would only get 10MPG out of the thing...

Oh well, SMILES per gallon, as I always say.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By FITCamaro on 8/3/2009 4:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
Throw a supercharger or turbo on it and you'll get better mpg too. ;)


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By RU482 on 8/3/2009 4:21:04 PM , Rating: 2
umm, if price is already a problem, throwing a turbo/super on the car isn't going to help


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By Tsuwamono on 8/3/2009 7:26:41 PM , Rating: 3
You fail at humour.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By FITCamaro on 8/3/2009 11:37:37 PM , Rating: 2
Someone buying a Vette isn't caring about the price.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By therealnickdanger on 8/3/2009 11:51:29 PM , Rating: 3
To the contrary - buying a Vette is very much about the price! Where else can you spend ~$50,000 and get Ferarri-stomping performance?


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By Noya on 8/4/2009 12:34:45 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
$50,000 and get Ferarri-stomping performance


Have they updated the base model vette? The $70k Zo6 can't even match the F430.


By therealnickdanger on 8/4/2009 11:15:32 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The $70k Zo6 can't even match the F430.


It can't? I'm pretty sure it nails the quarter more than a full second over the F430, has a higher top speed, brakes better, and holds higher Gs in a turn. Overall, it scores consistantly faster lap times over the F430. Sure, the Ferrari is UNDENIABLY higher quality, but it can't BEAT the Vette where it matters: performance.

http://www.automobilemag.com/features/great_drives...

http://www.gmhightechperformance.com/features/0702...

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/06...


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By Mitch101 on 8/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: You get an "E" for effort
By MozeeToby on 8/3/2009 4:38:54 PM , Rating: 2
Keep in mind that they were planning on building a relatively small number of them as a CYA measure in case something went wrong with the new tech. That has to be driving up the cost of production since you won't have the same economies of scale as you would for a full production run.

Having limited numbers will probably allow them to sell the majority of what they planned on producing at any even remotely reasonable cost. I can't imagine there aren't at least 10000 people in the US that will shell out the money for it

I also have to wonder what percentage of that cost is manufacturing vs engineering; will the next Volt be significantly cheaper now that they have paid for the basic engineering or are they going to have to cut features to get the costs down?


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By mogwai403 on 8/3/2009 6:06:37 PM , Rating: 2
With the expected low volumes, the prices are going to be high.

Furthermore, first generation with the initial overhead from R&D, kind of make it difficult to reduce prices.

GM will need to make an image that this is not your typical eletric hybrid and set it into the similar range as the Tesla vehicle


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By Hiawa23 on 8/3/2009 7:44:50 PM , Rating: 2
Automatically out of mass market pricing at that price. Most won't be able to afford that.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By MrPoletski on 8/4/2009 6:59:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm afraid the Volt is itself a Volt killer.


I believe the technical term is 'resistor'


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By Hiawa23 on 8/4/2009 9:39:10 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder how much more power the vehicle will use if you have a amp connected since it runs on electricity. Off topic but curious.


RE: You get an "E" for effort
By peter60 on 8/13/2009 5:01:46 AM , Rating: 2
1000 watt for the base. 60 watt per channel with 7 channels. Then there is the power to drive the disco ball and the spotlight.

Notebook computer 65 watts. Power required to run the inefficient power supply brick is 85 watts. Power to run the device that converts battery power up to mains power to run the power supply brick is 125 watts.

Shaver is 120 watts but only for a couple of minutes unless your friend borrows it to do her legs. Warning! Driving while watching your friend doing anything to her legs is a health hazard.


Volt killer?
By WraithAkaMrak on 8/3/2009 3:41:47 PM , Rating: 3
The way I see it, the Volt and Leaf serve two different markets, with some overlap. The Leaf has a 100mi electric range. The Volt has a 40mi electric range + 400mi after that with the gas generator feeding power to the battery. For many people, the Leaf could definitely handle their daily driving/commute, but won't serve all their transportation needs. The Volt, while definitely more expensive, does provide that extra range when needed (achieving Prius-like mileage after electric range is used up).

Some potential buyers obviously won't be able to afford the Volt, while some won't be able to give up longer range capabilities.




RE: Volt killer?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/3/2009 3:47:37 PM , Rating: 3
But then the question becomes, is all of the Volt's newfangled technology worth twice the price of a 50 mpg Prius?


RE: Volt killer?
By FITCamaro on 8/3/2009 4:05:35 PM , Rating: 2
Guess it depends. Can a Prius run solely off the battery? With the Volt you have the potential to never use any gas.


RE: Volt killer?
By Mojo the Monkey on 8/3/2009 5:03:20 PM , Rating: 2
Or, for argument's sake, what about the plug-in modifications that some companies are performing for the Prius? I believe they involve re-programming the computer, adding additional batteries, and adding a plug-in mechanism. I wonder how far these would go with the new prius design. I know the mechanism is not the same as a volt, but I believe I read they were seeing more than double the MPG.

If these kits could be had for 1/2 the cost difference between the volt and the prius, that fuel cost comparison would be an interesting alternative.


RE: Volt killer?
By ChronoReverse on 8/3/2009 5:09:16 PM , Rating: 2
The Prius' batteries won't take you very far (maybe a kilometer?) but one selling point has always been "stealth mode" which consists of running purely on battery without turning on the gas engine so that it's very quiet.


RE: Volt killer?
By ChronoReverse on 8/3/2009 5:11:29 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, looks like before the 2010 model, this feature was disabled for the North American market.

You can blame the special interests groups complaining the Prius is too quiet.


RE: Volt killer?
By VoodooChicken on 8/3/2009 5:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
And blind people.


RE: Volt killer?
By Tsuwamono on 8/3/2009 7:30:03 PM , Rating: 1
Natural selection.


RE: Volt killer?
By Hiawa23 on 8/3/2009 7:48:16 PM , Rating: 2
If the plug ins are going to be priced similiarly then I think most of us will stick with gasoline vehicles. I owe $40k on my home there is noway I would sink that much into something that depreciates so fast.


RE: Volt killer?
By lco45 on 8/3/2009 9:46:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, the Volt is actually quite a different proposition than the Prius.

The Prius is basically just a car like any other, but with lower fuel consumption. By which I mean that the first mile burns as much fuel as the last mile, just at a lower rate, and all the juggling of power within the car is essentially transparent.

The Volt on the other hand makes the first 40 miles incredibly cheaply, then essentially switches to the old paradigm.
The good thing about this is that every journey over 40 miles has a 'first 40 miles', so unless you're doing hundreds of miles between charges you can expect massively cheaper running than the Prius.

Also this is 1st Gen, prices can only come down from here on, and the price is well within the realms of possibility for many people, unlike the Tesla.

Luke


RE: Volt killer?
By Starcub on 8/4/2009 1:36:12 PM , Rating: 2
$20,000 buys a lot of gas.


RE: Volt killer?
By WraithAkaMrak on 8/3/2009 4:05:48 PM , Rating: 2
The best case for the Volt is for people whose commutes are 40mi or less, round trip, so they can stay in full electric mode for the bulk of their daily driving. Unless you go on a long trip, or are unable to charge it overnight, you'd hardly ever have to stop for gas.

As for a dollar to dollar comparison, it depends on driving habits/commute, available tax credits, and the price of gas. Best case, you're comparing a Volt at $35k after credits to an optioned-up (or future plug-in) $30k+ Prius, with gas back at $4+/gal. But yes, for a number of consumers, a $20k Prius will make more financial sense than a $40k Volt.


RE: Volt killer?
By ebakke on 8/3/2009 5:34:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As for a dollar to dollar comparison, it depends on driving habits/commute, available tax credits, and the price of gas.
And the price of electricity. For some reason people seem to think that plug-in vehicles are somehow going to be recharged through magic juice at home. Unless you're generating electricity, you still have to account for the increased monthly electricity bills.


RE: Volt killer?
By drmo on 8/3/2009 6:06:30 PM , Rating: 2
Does anyone know how much it will cost to charge one?

Even if you assume that you used practically zero gas, and electricity were free (zero annual fuel costs), then it would take over 20 years to recover the cost over a Prius (at $732 annual fuel cost).

But that is assuming the same people will be attracted to buying it, versus maybe it could compete against a Lincoln MKS (at about $40K). Then the fuel cost savings are great; they just won't sell very many.


RE: Volt killer?
By drmo on 8/3/2009 6:29:27 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Volt killer?
By Tsuwamono on 8/3/2009 7:41:22 PM , Rating: 2
48mpg = 4.9L/100km
Source http://www.google.ca/search?q=40+miles+to+km&ie=ut...

I drive about 30 000km per year

30 000/100 = 300

4.9L * 300 = 1470

So 1470L per year.

Gas price we will put at the latest here in Ottawa.
http://www.gasticker.com/pricelist.php?location=10

86.4cents/L

86.4cents or $.864 x 1470 = 1270$ per year

We will say a 14 000$ difference in price and we wont include the fact that the Prius is a garbage car since we dont yet know the quality of the Volt.

so 14 000 / 1270 = 11 years.

so it would take 11 years to save the difference.

However, From the looks of it I could actually fit in the Volt so personally thats more important to me then anything else. I may pick up a Volt for my DD


RE: Volt killer?
By MrPoletski on 8/4/2009 7:09:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, From the looks of it I could actually fit in the Volt


Why is that unusual? did you eat all the pies?


RE: Volt killer?
By sxr7171 on 8/4/2009 12:11:35 AM , Rating: 2
Well there's $7500 coming back to you and he said the price will be $43,000. So you're out about $35,500. But in any case I doubt any of the 10,000 owners are going to be buying this to really save any money as much as to make a statement in their social circles. 10,000 of these should sell easily if the car basically delivers what it promises with no major issues.


RE: Volt killer?
By Tsuwamono on 8/3/2009 7:48:34 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.hydroquebec.com/residential/energywise/...

7.4cents per kw/h

Better then 86cents per litre.


RE: Volt killer?
By Tsuwamono on 8/3/2009 7:52:13 PM , Rating: 2
74 cents sorry.. oops.


RE: Volt killer?
By Veerappan on 8/6/2009 11:03:13 AM , Rating: 2
You were right the first time. $0.074/KwH = 7.4 cents/KwH.

But then compare to prices here in Boston which are more like $0.20/KwH. Yeah, there's the exchange rate, but it's something like $.93 US to $1 CA as of late last week, so close enough.


RE: Volt killer?
By Hiawa23 on 8/4/2009 9:10:54 AM , Rating: 1
And the price of electricity. For some reason people seem to think that plug-in vehicles are somehow going to be recharged through magic juice at home. Unless you're generating electricity, you still have to account for the increased monthly electricity bills.

I agree, I am already getting hosed by Progress Energy as my bill now is the highest it has ever been & I have been in my home for 10 years, & jumped $65 las month. When I called to complain to them they said it was something I was doing but one look at my bill it's clear my bills are now higher due to their ridiculous price hikes, & they want to raise prices even further. I am at my breaking point on my monthly electric bills & I am sure charging a car like that would add quite a bit to the bill since the electric company not only charges for your actual useage but also charges you double cause they also bill for the cost of fuel & all the ridiculous taxes on top of that. I drive about 60 miles a day, my 2006 Lancer Ralliart gets about 270 per the 13 gallon tank, my 1997 Honda Civic DX gets about 300 to it's 11 or 12gallon tank so gas may be cheaper for me depending on the load the plug ins put on your electric bills.


RE: Volt killer?
By Keeir on 8/5/2009 2:11:54 PM , Rating: 2
::Rubs eyes::

Electricity unfortunely has a much greater difference in price across the country.

I pay 0.0803 cents per kWh on my last electricity bill. Thats everything.

Based on what you have said, I think you would use between 240 kWh and 300 kWh per month with the Volt and displace between 40-60 gallons of gas a month. You can afford to pay 5-6 times the per base use for gas as for electricity (and break even with a plug-in).

Since Gas is ~ 3.00 a gallon, is your electricity really 0.50 cents per kWh?? Only when electricity is above this number is gas for your current cars cheaper than electricity.


RE: Volt killer?
By Keeir on 8/3/2009 5:50:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The best case for the Volt is for people whose commutes are 40mi or less, round trip, so they can stay in full electric mode for the bulk of their daily driving. Unless you go on a long trip, or are unable to charge it overnight, you'd hardly ever have to stop for gas.


Actually, the best case for the Volt is people who drive more than 40 miles round trip. IE, someone who uses the entire battery 100% each and every day. I agree, 45 miles is probably the idea distance as gas station stops increase from once a week to once every 6 weeks.


RE: Volt killer?
By Starcub on 8/4/2009 1:52:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually, the best case for the Volt is people who drive more than 40 miles round trip. IE, someone who uses the entire battery 100% each and every day.

No, electricity is far cheaper than gas -- about a full order of mangnitude cheaper. That's why power companies don't use gas to make elecrticity.


RE: Volt killer?
By Keeir on 8/4/2009 8:09:25 PM , Rating: 2
Hahah,

This is generally a big misunderstanding

Regardless of how much or little you drive, a Volt will at most provide 40 AER and displace 40 miles of gasoline.

Someone who only drives 10 miles on average can feel good that not using any gas, but conversely, they are using more battery resources that needed (Lithium is scare) and not getting full cost savings. Let me Illustrate with an Example using 3 dollar gas and 10 cent electricity. Lets also assume the comparison is a Toyota Prius at 50mpg.

Daily Commute 10 miles
Fuel Usage: 0 Gallons
Savings: 0.38 dollars

Daily Commute 30 Miles
Fuel Usage: 0 Gallons
Savings: 1.14 dollars

Daily Commute 50 miles
Fuel Usage: .2 Gallons
Savings: 1.52 dollars

Seems to me the 50 mile commute person maybe using more gas with the Volt than the 30 mile commute person, but they also have the highest savings rate. Volt makes the most sense from 40 miles ---> ?? (Some number based on generator durability)


RE: Volt killer?
By Starcub on 8/5/2009 8:16:58 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know how you generated your numbers, but...

The gas engine in the Prius is supplimented by electricity, so it wouldn't be a fair comparison. I'll use an average gas powered vehicle milage of 30mpg for comparison purposes. The Volt's battery/electric motor gets about 5 miles out of 1KWh. So the Volt, while in all electric operation (drawing only from the battery) would use 6KWh of electricity to go as far the average gas car would go on only one gallon of gas.

Using your cost figures for gas and electricity, the Volt costs $0.60 to go 30 miles while your average gas car costs $3.00. That means that in the Volt, energy from the electrical grid is about 80% more cost efficient than energy generated from a petrolium fueled engine.

Granted the gas engine is tuned specifically to produce electrical energy; if it were, it would probably make sense to do the comparison with the Volt's gas engine, which is tuned specifically to generate electricity. The Volt's gas engine is advertised to get about 50mpg in the Volt.

Even if you re-ran the numbers at 50mpg, grid power would be about 3 times cheaper. So you're rate of savings is going to be much better if you confine your driving to 40 miles or under.


RE: Volt killer?
By Tsuwamono on 8/3/2009 7:28:49 PM , Rating: 2
Show me a Prius for 20 000$ and Ill show you a 10 foot tall midget.


RE: Volt killer?
By Spuke on 8/4/2009 5:35:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Show me a Prius for 20 000$ and Ill show you a 10 foot tall midget.

Here you go. Where's my midget? I earned it!
http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?ct=u&car_id=...


RE: Volt killer?
By djc208 on 8/3/2009 10:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
Is the Prius worth the extra expense over a 30+ MPG compact? Especially with gas as cheap as it is.

This car won't be a hit in the mainstream market, YET. But the original Prius wasn't either (and still isn't really). It's popular with those people who did a lot of driving, and those who wanted to appear eco-friendly.

In that respect this car will have the same market. It will be the latest must-have toy for the eco crowd, and those who will almost always be able to avoid using the engine.

This isn't going to be a run-away success, but it will be the basis for something big, just like the first Prius was in it's day.

If they made any mistake they should have shifted this to the Cadillac platform when the cost analysis rang the price over 30K.


RE: Volt killer?
By sxr7171 on 8/4/2009 12:23:46 AM , Rating: 2
The Prius is another "statement car" it's one that announces to the world that you "care". Now anyway, if someone really wanted to just save on fuel, a VW Jetta TDI would save you more money.

My personal preference though long-term is that I want electric cars to succeed. I think the concept of having the maximum amount of torque at 0 RPM is exciting. No wonder that Tesla can scorch some pavement. I think if people want to invest in electric vehicles and if that means we get a cheaper Tesla or equivalent I'm game.

Besides, while modern diesels are almost unbelievable in the way they perform compared to older diesels, they can never feel like a gasoline engine when you want to have fun.

I also think electric will make for all sorts of exciting developments like being able to get much better weight distributions than we do today. The potential to have electric motors for each wheel with individual control for the ultimate in traction/dynamic control, to have the center of gravity of the car much lower than commonly possible today, I think a lot can come out of electric enthusiast vehicles.


RE: Volt killer?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/4/2009 12:33:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Prius is another "statement car" it's one that announces to the world that you "care". Now anyway, if someone really wanted to just save on fuel, a VW Jetta TDI would save you more money.


Really?

According to the EPA, it would cost $732 in fuel costs to run a Prius for a year compared to $1,032 for the Jetta TDI.

Go to fueleconomy.gov and choose "Compare Side-by-Side" and see for yourself.


RE: Volt killer?
By Noya on 8/4/2009 12:38:52 AM , Rating: 1
Yes, and we know how accurately those numbers transfer to the real world...


RE: Volt killer?
By Keeir on 8/4/2009 12:50:16 AM , Rating: 2
I think he meant overall savings as Jetta TDI are usually a bit cheaper on average than the average Prius. But still, a Prius is dang cheap. I would still take the Jetta TDI sportwagen though over a Prius

Quick cost Comparison of some popular cars including a 40,000 Volt
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tYp3o120V7j...


RE: Volt killer?
By djc208 on 8/4/2009 6:43:15 AM , Rating: 2
Which is primarily due to the difference in the price of diesel compared to gasoline, though the amount of city vs. highway driving you do would also affect these numbers. That difference is entirely due to the higher road taxes charged on diesel fuel.

The big difference is that the diesel should last a lot longer than the gas engine in the Prius (not to mention the batteries). Though the last TDI my dad owned was a real lemon so YMMV.


RE: Volt killer?
By Keeir on 8/4/2009 8:34:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That difference is entirely due to the higher road taxes charged on diesel fuel.


Federal US taxes on Diesel are slightly higher. This is because the US taxes on Diesel and Gasoline roughly correspond to the Energy in each gallon and thus (unintentionly) the C02 release by burning each gallon.

Realistically speaking, if Fuel Taxes are to pay for road maintaince, a gallon of Diesel will create more stress of roads because 1 gallon has more energy and will propel the same mass auto further... so all in all in fairly neat and does not unduely favour one fuel choice.


RE: Volt killer?
By Spuke on 8/4/2009 5:56:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think the concept of having the maximum amount of torque at 0 RPM is exciting.
Too bad NO modern tire can actually apply max torque to the ground. These cars will have traction control so you won't experience full torque at 0 rpm anyways.


RE: Volt killer?
By ArcliteHawaii on 8/3/2009 7:40:00 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. The Volt has the potential to be a primary car for a person or family in any environment, urban or rural, and used for any purpose. The Leaf is really a second car used solely for commuting and errands, or as a primary car for someone who plans to commute and run errands, but travel further exclusively by train, plane, or bus.

The leaf would be a great car for Oahu, as one has to try REALLY hard to drive further than 90 miles in a day...


RE: Volt killer?
By Starcub on 8/4/2009 1:32:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Volt has a 40mi electric range + 400mi after that with the gas generator feeding power to the battery.

Do you have a source on that? Even a normal direct drive ICE would be hard pressed to deliver that kind of range on this class of car. In this design, even at it's most efficient operation, the ICE generator converts menchanical energy to electric and the motor converts it back into mechanical energy. This would seem to be more inefficient, thus I would expect the ICE to deliver much lower range (from what is probably a smaller than normal tank too).


RE: Volt killer?
By WraithAkaMrak on 8/4/2009 4:29:26 PM , Rating: 2
The page I got it from is: http://gm-volt.com/chevy-volt-faqs/

I may have misread their wording. Kicking Tires says the range will be 400 miles total, or 360 miles after the electric range is used:
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2008/07/volt-ga...

The GM-Volt site says the gas tank should be 6-7 gallons. So you would be getting at just over 51mpg if you got the full 360 miles when the gas generator was running (assuming a 7gal tank).

This is all info coming out of GM. I don't think any car magazines/blogs have been able to test range/mpg for the production model Volt yet.


RE: Volt killer?
By Starcub on 8/5/2009 8:20:57 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks. Your post and the one from below would seem to confirm it then. The Volt's gas engine is specifically tuned to produce electricity thereby making it more efficient than a standard ICE would be. I also calculate about 50mpg.


RE: Volt killer?
By Keeir on 8/4/2009 8:43:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
thus I would expect the ICE to deliver much lower range


Consider an ICE that has been modified to run at say 3-4 rpm levels. One insulated completely from shocks from the outside so no fast change in rpms need to be accomplished. Mate this up with the very best in aerodynamics a large automaker can devise (and an offensive shape) and use of lower power accessories and systems. Remind you of something? The Prius which gets 48 mpg highway testing. Now take that isolation a step further back. Yes the Engine-->Generator--> Motor --> Wheel is slighly less efficient thatn Engine--> CVT ---> Wheel, but having the system be insolated will probably save so the EPA testing is close. I expect in "real world" the people traveling 60-65 mph constant state will exceed 50 mph from the Volt's system. Much like the same people exceed 50 mph on the Prius system.


Stupid Detroit.
By UNCjigga on 8/3/2009 4:13:42 PM , Rating: 5
Wow. That's all I can say. I honestly thought the Volt was going to be great for GM. In fact, I was one of those people saying "build this now and I will buy it!" But I made the mistake of taking Lutz at his word that this wouldn't sell for more than $25k. OK, honestly I thought this would push $30k, but then that $7500 tax credit would help even things out. I fully expected this to be more expensive than a Prius or Insight, but at $30k this would still sell.

Not at $40k. This is dead on the vine. Now I shudder to think that people like me, all caught-up in the buzz of plug-in hybrids, may have hastened GM's demise. F*ck no I'm not buying one at $40k!!! Are you f*cking out of your minds?? No matter how "green" or hippie you are, the only green that really counts is what's left in your wallet. But dammit GM, couldn't you figure this out earlier, like before staking your life on this car? Perhaps, in GM's defense, they knew it would be expensive, but were expecting to lease these in a program similar to the EV1. Until they went bankrupt and ran out of financing, that is.

The hard fact is GM is already in a very bad place, and trying to sell Volts at $40k a pop is not going to help them one bit. Now I see it as incredibly stupid that they put resources into this program rather than getting the Cruze out in the US this year. They need a volume seller, something to go toe-to-toe with the best small to mid-size 4-banger cars out there. The Cobalt/G5 are not it.

You may disagree with me and say that the Volt was never supposed to be profitable, but it was about being innovative and getting the US back in front from a technology/R&D perspective. Great. It might help build recognition for the Chevy/GM brand, but if that brand can't survive, what's the point?




RE: Stupid Detroit.
By wookie1 on 8/3/2009 4:43:37 PM , Rating: 5
Don't worry, GM didn't stake their lives on this, the taxpayers have stepped in to indemnify them. I'm thinking that if sales are poor, the gov't incentive can be raised to $10K, $15K, or whatever it takes to ensure the union pensions don't get disturbed.


RE: Stupid Detroit.
By mikefarinha on 8/3/2009 5:05:05 PM , Rating: 5
In other words... keep paying your taxes so I can buy a Chevy volt on the cheap!


RE: Stupid Detroit.
By 67STANG on 8/3/2009 7:21:21 PM , Rating: 5
It should already be cheap. Forget "employee pricing".... don't we get like "owner pricing" or something?


RE: Stupid Detroit.
By Jaybus on 8/3/2009 6:04:48 PM , Rating: 2
I believe it is all due to an attempt to be green, rather than being a profitable and useful car. The $8,000 battery is supposed to last 10 years. Well, I've never had a Li-ion battery last so long in a cell phone or other device, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say it does. Let's even assume it is safe and won't catch fire like a laptop or iPod. That's $800/yr for the battery. Let's assume a 4$/gal gasoline price. That's 200 gal, on which the Prius would go about 10,000 miles. And that doesn't include the cost of charging the battery every night.

More simply, the $20k you save by buying a Prius would be 5,000 gal of fuel or about a quarter million miles. The Prius would be cheaper over the life of the car even if it cost nothing to operate the Volt. Dumb idea.

As for the green-ness, where does the electricity to charge the battery come from? Well, in the US, it is 46% from coal, 21% from nuclear, 20.5% natural gas, 7% hydroelectric, 1.5% petroleum, and 4% renewables. And almost half of the renewables is in the form of wood or wood-based fuels. Get the picture? Over 70% of the electricity for charging the batteries comes from burning fuels. The whole idea of the Volt is flawed from the start. It doesn't surprise me that it costs twice as much. Actually, it looks like it's more than twice as much to me. If this car is for the purpose of being green, then we better start building some nuclear power stations, and fast.


RE: Stupid Detroit.
By Keeir on 8/3/2009 7:31:41 PM , Rating: 2
Lets start from the top.

"Well, I've never had a Li-ion battery last so long in a cell phone or other device, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say it does."

One of the reasons the battery is so expensive ($8,000) is that is being well overdesigned to last as long as possible. A typical laptop or cellphone uses Lithium Cobalt battery chemsity and has no significant battery management system. In contrast, GM is using special Manganese Spirel Lithium batteries from LG. These are not as durable (supposedly) as Iron Phosphate chemisty, but they are much more durable than Lithium Cobalt. And more expensive per kWh. Furthermore, there will be an expensive battery management system, which will attempt to keep the batteries in a "normal" range of temperature. Right now, the ICE engine may start to provide power to heat/cool the batteries to ensure they discharge only within a narrow power band. In addition, GM will only be using around 50% of the initial battery size, to ensure that the battery will provide the same range, even after 10 year/150,000 miles.

But what really does GM in is the 10 year/150,000 mile battery warranty. Lutz has in the past stated GM is essentially including the full price of a second battery pack into the initial cost of a Volt. If a Volt does not need a battery replacement within that time period, GM will make out with huge amounts of profit, but from a management point of view, to price the car at "profitable" levels requires a very high warranty cost.

"More simply, the $20k you save by buying a Prius would be 5,000 gal of fuel or about a quarter million miles. The Prius would be cheaper over the life of the car even if it cost nothing to operate the Volt. Dumb idea."

In reality, provided your lucky and get the 7,500 government subsidy, the cost difference between equivlent Prius and Volt is likely to be much closer to 10,000. Over the Warranty Period, the Prius will be less expensive than the Volt. But the difference is more like 500 dollars a year. Some may consider the better performance, and ability to drive without gas worth it. I think many of those will find the Leaf + Used ICE a better option...

"If this car is for the purpose of being green, then we better start building some nuclear power stations, and fast"

A Prius emits around 180 grams of C02 per Mile. A Volt using todays power system would emit ~ 120 grams of C02 per Mile for the first 40 miles, and then 180 grams of C02 per Mile after that... Yes, if we built up Nuclear to replace all Coal, that figure would fall to ~ 30 grams of C02 per mile.

In conclusion, I think the #1 thing the government could do to help the Volt would be allow a standard battery warranty to be issued and GM can have the option to upsell a 10 year/150,000 warranty. Or maybe allow GM to "pre-sell" a battery at year 5/7 to meet the warrnaty. I know I would be willing to take the risk of replacing the battery 5-7 years down the road rather than forced to pay for it upfront. I would also be okay with knowing I get my battery replaced at year 5-7, rather than hoping for a battery problem to get it replaced.


RE: Stupid Detroit.
By Jaybus on 8/3/2009 9:19:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, if we built up Nuclear to replace all Coal, that figure would fall to ~ 30 grams of C02 per mile.

I remain hopeful of EVs. What I was getting at is that if they do become popular, where is the energy going to come from? Those nuclear stations are already running at 80 -90% capacity. And coal is not far behind that. I don't think it is a matter of replacing coal plants, but rather adding capacity. The 1470 coal plants in the US have 336,040 MW of capacity, 228.6 MW on avg. The 389 wind plants have 16,596 MW of capacity, 42.6 MW on avg. The 104 nuclear plants have 105,764 MW of capacity, 1,016 MW on avg.
quote:
I think the #1 thing the government could do to help the Volt would be allow a standard battery warranty to be issued...

I would put it at #2. #1 would be allowing power companies to go forward with constructing nuclear plants. Without extra capacity, EVs can never make much difference. And nukes are the only clean source that appears to have a realistic chance of providing that much added capacity..


RE: Stupid Detroit.
By ArcliteHawaii on 8/3/2009 7:47:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Over 70% of the electricity for charging the batteries comes from burning fuels.

First, this number is falling. Every year more and more electricity is coming form non-polluting sources, both worldwide and in the US.

Second, coal, natural gas, and biomass plants are much more efficient and converting the fuel into electricity than an ICE is at converting gasoline into motion. Gasoline engines are 20-25% efficient. A combined-cycle natural gas plant is 89% efficient, with 7% losses to the end-user. The electric motors are also about 90% efficient. So it's more efficient to power cars by electricity, even burning fossil fuels for that electricity than it is to burn the gasoline in the car.

Now if someone invents a 50% efficient ICE, then it would be a different story.


RE: Stupid Detroit.
By Aeonic on 8/4/2009 10:10:15 AM , Rating: 2
I think also on the Volt's side is that the gas to power the cars has to be refined and distributed, and all the infrastructure and gas stations and what not... I know coal and NG don't just magically appear at power plants, and power lines don't magically appear and maintain themselves, but it would seem the overhead costs to put a gallon of gas in a car would be a lot more than those to put the equivalent amount of power into a battery.

That being said, I believe I know very few people willing or even able to shell out 40k for a Chevy volt, even if it ran on pixie dust and lollipops. If it came with a Mr. Fusion... maybe.


RE: Stupid Detroit.
By Spuke on 8/4/2009 6:42:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But I made the mistake of taking Lutz at his word that this wouldn't sell for more than $25k. OK, honestly I thought this would push $30k, but then that $7500 tax credit would help even things out.
Are you really serious? With ALL of the Volt articles that DT has posted in the last two months alone, is this REALLY the first time you've heard of the Volt's price? I mean people have mentioned the Volt's price in articles unrelated to the Volt or even hybrids. I'm totally baffled that you could not know this already.


Too expensive
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/3/2009 3:39:55 PM , Rating: 5
While I absolutely love the idea that the Volt can travel 40 miles on its battery alone, it still doesn't make much sense to me from a financial standpoint.

Toyota will have a new $21,000 entry-level spec Prius in September. We all already know that the Prius gets 50 MPG. At half the price of the Volt, I just don't see many people flocking to the Volt.




RE: Too expensive
By ebakke on 8/3/2009 5:38:40 PM , Rating: 2
And so again, Toyota will wipe its proverbial ass with GM.


RE: Too expensive
By 67STANG on 8/3/2009 7:17:43 PM , Rating: 1
And lets not forget, a Toyota's body panels don't fall off after 50 miles-- which is another plus.


RE: Too expensive
By rudolphna on 8/3/2009 7:48:05 PM , Rating: 1
Your an idiot. GM doesn't make THAT bad of cars anymore. I don't know if anyone remembers the original honda's and toyotas that were assembled in japan, but they were absolute pieces of crap. Nobody really makes a "bad" car anymore.


RE: Too expensive
By ebakke on 8/4/2009 12:57:10 AM , Rating: 2
I'd have to agree with that. For the most part (every manufacturer has a model here or there) all of the auto makers produce high quality, reliable vehicles. Long ago GM replaced its bad vehicles with bad business decisions. :-/


RE: Too expensive
By Spuke on 8/4/2009 6:45:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And so again, Toyota will wipe its proverbial ass with GM.
I didn't know that Toyota was making a serial hybrid nor did I know that serial hybrid was cheaper than GM's. Care to post a link to Toyota's new baby?


RE: Too expensive
By Keeir on 8/3/2009 5:56:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
While I absolutely love the idea that the Volt can travel 40 miles on its battery alone, it still doesn't make much sense to me from a financial standpoint.

Toyota will have a new $21,000 entry-level spec Prius in September. We all already know that the Prius gets 50 MPG. At half the price of the Volt, I just don't see many people flocking to the Volt.


I agree. But I think its very important to remember that 21,000 entry spec'ed Prius will likely be sans alot of stuff that "$43,000" transaction Lutz Volt will have.

A few things that Prius won't be able to add. Such as ~8 second 0-60 times, driving 100% without gas, etc.

In the long run, costs for the Volt shouldn't be much more than 500-1000 extra a year in comparison to similar Prius (provided people get the 7,500 tax credit). Thats a premium I see being acceptable to large numbers of people. However, those same people are probably more likely to go Leaf + Used ICE.


RE: Too expensive
By V3ctorPT on 8/4/2009 3:27:19 AM , Rating: 2
Here in Portugal, Nissan is going to sell an electric car for 18.000€ with taxes included (after a discount of 7K from the Government), how do you get the Volt for 40K? Is it only because of the looks of the car?


RE: Too expensive
By Spuke on 8/4/2009 6:51:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
how do you get the Volt for 40K?
You throw in a serial hybrid powertrain, some higher end options, and make it seat 4-5 people comfortably. In other words, the Volt is not a Honda Fit.


RE: Too expensive
By Keeir on 8/4/2009 8:15:55 PM , Rating: 2
So its like 25,000 Euros or 36,000 USD.

And I am assuming this is similar to the Leaf. IE Electric Only?

I don't know. I would glady pay 4,000-5,000 USD (2800-3000 Euros) to know that for the life of the car, I can pull over a the thosands and thosands pre-existing gas stations and grab 200 + miles of range in less than 5 minutes.

How much per Month is the Project Better Place or Battery Swap Station services going to cost? Over 5-10 years is this less than the premium for the Volt? (Fast Charge is not a good option. 30 minutes to get ~80 miles of range is just not going to cut it in the US as an alternative to Gas. Maybe in Portugal?)


RE: Too expensive
By Keeir on 8/4/2009 8:19:06 PM , Rating: 2
I guess to clarify further, I am paying 42 dollars a month for the life of the Battery to know that I can refuel the car in very little time. 42 dollars a month... if it saves me 1 hour is worth it to me. IE, 2-3 times to the "fast" recharge center would be worse than pulling over to a gas station once a month for that emergency 100 miles drive.


RE: Too expensive
By Keeir on 8/4/2009 8:48:03 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and I forgot to ask about the Warranty on the Battery. Will it be 10 year/150,000 mile? Or 3 year/36,000 mile?

That makes a huge difference. That warranty is clearly worth another 4-5,000 USD.


Bob Lutz
By v3rt1g0 on 8/3/2009 3:35:19 PM , Rating: 2
"When I said I hope to sell it in the 20s, I just thought, well, if a conventional car of that size with a conventional four-cylinder engine, we can sell it for $15,000 or $16,000, then let's notionally add $8,000 for the battery and we're at $25,000," Lutz told AdAge.com. "That's the way my brain worked on that one."

Best laugh I've had all day. Thanks Bob.




RE: Bob Lutz
By MrPickins on 8/3/2009 3:59:23 PM , Rating: 5
It makes me wonder (again) why we continue to prop GM up when this is the type of idiot in charge over there...


RE: Bob Lutz
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/3/2009 4:02:31 PM , Rating: 2
This is always a favorite over at The Car Lounge:

http://i28.tinypic.com/es3ojr.jpg


RE: Bob Lutz
By ebakke on 8/3/2009 5:37:19 PM , Rating: 2
Seems quite obvious to me... We can't ever possibly risk the thought of dreaming about conceiving the remotest inclination of JOB LOSSES!!!! OH THE HUMANITY!!


$40,000?
By superflex on 8/3/2009 3:36:10 PM , Rating: 1
The only Chevy worth $40,000 is a Corvette.
This pussbag car isn't worth more than $25k.




RE: $40,000?
By Noya on 8/4/2009 12:50:40 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The only Chevy worth $40,000 is a Corvette.


Maybe a Z06...lightly used they're going for $45-50k.

The base has a steel frame, plastic body, interior from a $15k Cobalt and a relatively simple engine and transmission that is VERY cheap to produce (vs something like a Cayman S with PDK).


RE: $40,000?
By Masospaghetti on 8/4/2009 9:07:17 AM , Rating: 2
And yet, a base Corvette will wipe the floor with anything except a high-end exotic costing at least twice as much.

I think this is more a testament to GM's engineering than anything else. Even if we pretend that the LS3 and 6-speed tranny are "cheap", I would take a smooth, torque belching, fuel efficient, Porsche-eating, "simple" powertrain anyday of the week over a fancy multivalve import that is sucking my exhaust. Show me anywhere you can get a car with 16/26 mpg with 430hp/430ft-lbs.


RE: $40,000?
By metaltoiletry on 8/4/2009 9:24:36 AM , Rating: 2
I'm no car expert, but isn't the 2010 Nissan GT-R pretty close to a 2010 ZO6? I probably don't know wtf I'm talking about.


RE: $40,000?
By Spuke on 8/4/2009 7:11:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Show me anywhere you can get a car with 16/26 mpg with 430hp/430ft-lbs.
The vette is definitely impressive but I'd rather have the "slower" Porsche 911, or even better yet, a Cayman S. Now a used C6 vette with the LS3 would be extremely tempting but I'm a HUGE fan of turbo engines and would rather buy a used 135i and up the boost than buy any normally aspirated car.


Where is the extra electricity going to come from?
By EricR on 8/3/2009 7:49:31 PM , Rating: 2
Plug-in electric vehicles sound great. You pay a good chunk more $$$ for a car, but you help reduce dependence on foreign oil, cut carbon output, and eliminate polution too!

Taking California as an example. If enough existing vehicles were replaced with plug-in cars to make a noticable impact - say 10% (or 3.2 million in CA) - where would the electricity to charge them come from?

- No new Hydro power.
- No new nucular for what, 10 years (if lawsuits & regulations don't make it 20 or longer)
- Wind farms are a plus (but in no way a large dent)

Do we just end up burning more more fossel fuels (NG, oil & coal) to meet demand? Seems contrary to the whole point to me.

Also, from what I read, the majority of the nation's power grid operates at, or close to max capacity. Doesn't this make higher levels of regional power exchange impractical without *major* (hugely expensive) upgrades of the national grid?

As more & more summertime rolling black-outs spread across California and beyond. I forsee the latest & greatest excuse coming into play:

"Sorry Boss, can't come in today - I wasn't able to charge my car last night!"

- E




By Keeir on 8/3/2009 10:54:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Taking California as an example. If enough existing vehicles were replaced with plug-in cars to make a noticable impact - say 10% (or 3.2 million in CA) - where would the electricity to charge them come from?


Lets see. 3.2 million cars sucking down 8 kWh a night leads to 25.6 million kWh per day or 9113 million kWh per year. California currently consumes 316,000 million kWh per year. I would think the majority of this would occur during off-peak hour. I guess I just never see this calamity occuring from a 3-5% increase in total demand and like a 10% power increase during night. Night probably still significant less power demand than peak hours.


By Spuke on 8/4/2009 7:21:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I guess I just never see this calamity occuring from a 3-5% increase in total demand and like a 10% power increase during night.
Even though CA doesn't have enough capacity to run A/C during the day in the summer, I think if people kept their charging to off peak, then there shouldn't be a capacity issue. What I wonder is if CA utilities will raise off peak rates if 3.2 millions or more cars decide to plug in at night.


By Keeir on 8/4/2009 8:29:51 PM , Rating: 2
They might even lower it.. (hahah yeah right!)

As I understand it, its not smart to turn "off" Nuclear and Coal plants and storing energy using Hydro systems etc adds alot of expense/inefficiency. Its actually possible (though not likely) that overall system efficieny will be raised by cars plugging at night. GM I know was interesting in providing software on the car that would allow people to choose exactly when charging occured.


GM Re-Volting
By mars2k on 8/4/2009 11:45:09 AM , Rating: 2
Ok so GM dangles this Volt in front of us to help rationalize their bailout money. Money they supposedly need because the costs of worker benefits have driven them to the brink of bankruptcy. What a laugh.
What’s really happening here is another example of the problem with GM. They are too big to function. They can’t get anything out the door that doesn’t weigh twice as much and cost twice as much as it should. That is of course assuming that this car will actually offer any real utility when/if it hits the street.
Proof yet again of how brain dead these guys at GM really are.




RE: GM Re-Volting
By dfedders on 8/4/2009 3:00:10 PM , Rating: 2
This post is proof again of how brain dead Internet posters are.

GM introduced the Volt over 2 1/2 years ago, so they didn't just start dangling the Volt because of "bailout" money.

GM already went through bankruptcy and got rid of most of their dead weight.

Saying that their cars weigh twice as much and cost twice as much as the competition just shows how ignorant you are. They are competitive in price with comparitive models from Honda and Toyota. According to you, the Chevrolet Malibu must cost $40,000 because the Accord and Camry start at around $20,000, when in reality the Malibu starts at around $20,000 as well.

As for the price of the Volt - early adopters always pay a premium. Prices on the components will come down in a few years as technology improves, and sales volume improves. Features like automatic headlights, side airbags, OnStar, tire pressure monitoring, XM Radio, etc used to be costly addons to luxury vehicles, and how they come standard in cars costing under $20,000.


RE: GM Re-Volting
By mars2k on 8/4/2009 4:41:16 PM , Rating: 2
So...They have been dangling the Volt for 2 1/2 years as a PR stunt not an "introduction".
Meanwhile other manufacturers have run circles around GM. Hybrids from Ford, Toyoto, Honda are on the streets now. Nissan has brought a full on electric to market overseas. All of these are less exspensive.
Tesla has a roadster now that performs faster than a Porshe 911 and costs the same. Mercedes has purchased Tesla technology for their full electric sports car due to hit right about the time the Volt is suppose to become available if it ever does.
And yes they did dangle this technology in front of congress to make there case for for the bailout instead of bankruptcy. That was this year but when they did it they were still touting the original price estimates.

By the time the Volt hits the streets one could hardly justify the inflated price with the whole "early adoption" explanation. The early adoptors will be on the 3rd generation Prius by then.
GM is in the trouble its in today because the company is brain dead using that invective against me will not change that.


RE: GM Re-Volting
By dfedders on 8/4/2009 6:37:46 PM , Rating: 2
"And yes they did dangle this technology in front of congress to make there case for for the bailout instead of bankruptcy. That was this year but when they did it they were still touting the original price estimates."

No, they did not tout the $20,000 price estimate this year in front of the government. Its been known for a couple years now that it was going to be $40k+. There is no need to lie and make stuff up. There is plenty to complain about with the automakers without having to lie.

Who cares about a generation 3 prius anyway. The Volt isn't a hybrid. The gas engine in the Volt never drives the wheels, and if you drive less than 40 miles round trip, the gas engine will NEVER kick on, unlike the Prius.


TOO DAMNED EXPENSIVE!
By Lerianis on 8/3/2009 5:27:17 PM , Rating: 1
Until that 40K+ price comes down quite a bit, I know even some middle class and upper-middle class people who are going to take a pass on those things.

When you look at what is in the cars, there is really NO reason for them to be that expensive.




RE: TOO DAMNED EXPENSIVE!
By Keeir on 8/3/2009 6:01:41 PM , Rating: 2
Your absolutely right.

However, the state of California is requiring 10 year/150,000 mile battery warranties. Your essentially paying for your second battery pack right up front. In the Chevy Volt, this probably is adding a good 8,000-10,000 to the price of the car (Pack is worth ~12,000 to GM currently). If they could have a reasonable warranty 5/50,000, that might remove as much as 6,000-8,000 from the cost right there. I think this is counter productive for EV cars. I would rather pay 32,000 up front and take the risk.


RE: TOO DAMNED EXPENSIVE!
By dfedders on 8/4/2009 6:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
This car is not for the middle class. It will be a status symbol for the rich who want to be "green". They'll gladly pay the cost, and in time prices will come down as the price of the technology drops and as volume picks up with other models.

"When you look at what is in the cars, there is really NO reason for them to be that expensive."
I'm glad you know so much about automotive and electrical engineering! Maybe you should start your own company. You have no idea how much the parts cost, plus they need to recoup the millions they spent on R&D.


RE: TOO DAMNED EXPENSIVE!
By Spuke on 8/4/2009 7:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This car is not for the middle class. It will be a status symbol for the rich who want to be "green".
$40k is definitely not rich people only money. There are WAY more middle class people buying cars in that range than rich people. A typical rich persons sedan would be a Mercedes S class. Will there be some rich people that own a Volt? Most definitely, but they will not be the only one's. I am by no means rich but most certainly can afford a $40k car. But I don't buy cars new anyways. At least not anymore.


Everyone needs to chill out
By rudy on 8/3/2009 9:11:14 PM , Rating: 2
The volt is going to do just fine, the only real problem they may have is that not enough people understand how it works. They need to make a massive ad campaign before its release to fix this. The volt is unique it has major advantages and for that people will be willing to pay 40k just like they were willing to buy the prius when it was young. After this first run GM can work on bringing the price down and extending the technology to other cars.




RE: Everyone needs to chill out
By Masospaghetti on 8/4/2009 9:09:51 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, a lot of folks will pay the premium simply to drive a piece of cutting-edge technology - just like the first hybrids 10 years ago.

The Volt will probably never pay for itself in fuel savings, but even current hybrids can barely claim that.


RE: Everyone needs to chill out
By Keeir on 8/4/2009 8:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I agree, a lot of folks will pay the premium simply to drive a piece of cutting-edge technology - just like the first hybrids 10 years ago.


I know the purchase price is very high. But in the 10 year time frame, the vast majority of auto purchases will cost the buyer between 40,000-60,000. The Volt slots into this area quite nicely if used as intended. Its going to be the most expensive "normal" compact car. -But- its less expensive (over the long haul) than most midsized car (including the Camry, Camry Hybrid, Accord, Malibu, etc), all full sized car, all trucks, all CUVs, all SUVs. Yes, the utility is less, but people choose to spend Volt type money on thier transportation currently.


The Battery on the North Pole
By Zingam on 8/4/2009 1:52:55 AM , Rating: 2
How would such vehicle behave in cold condition (Winter)?
Cold weather reduces the batteries performance. What about these all electric vehicles or they are just for the summer and sunny states?




RE: The Battery on the North Pole
By mars2k on 8/4/2009 4:48:05 PM , Rating: 2
Warmer climate bring their own problems. Battery cooling is important also. The higher the temperature the shorter the battery life genrally speaking.


RE: The Battery on the North Pole
By Keeir on 8/4/2009 7:51:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Cold weather reduces the batteries performance.


GM is working to ensure that the actual battery is maintained within a wide band through using battery power. In cold weather, they are thinking about starting the ICE to heat the battery before use to preserve range and prevent damage. They tested a few prototypes in the snow last winter, and the release is meant to be 50 states.


Save your price complaints...
By zsdersw on 8/4/2009 9:41:11 AM , Rating: 2
... for those who are dumb, and will believe anything you tell them.

Was the first plasma or LCD TV priced out of the mass market? Definitely.

What part of the new-product market process do some of you not understand? Anything that is the first of its kind (specific and exact kind, in this case; a hybrid that uses the electric motor, solely, for propulsion) is going to not be priced for the mass market. This happens over time as economies of scale are introduced and production refined.




RE: Save your price complaints...
By mikefarinha on 8/4/2009 9:55:29 AM , Rating: 2
Depends on the product. The Toyota Prius was priced for the mass market when it was launched.


RE: Save your price complaints...
By zsdersw on 8/4/2009 11:12:34 AM , Rating: 2
It wasn't launched here in the US when it was first produced. What was the MSRP of the first Prius (1997)?


This is why GM should have failed.
By mikefarinha on 8/3/2009 4:59:26 PM , Rating: 2
Tell me again why we're funding this company with our taxes?




By Finnkc on 8/4/2009 10:28:02 AM , Rating: 2
because survival of the fittest / strongest has been replaced with a social bandage in which even the most idiotic and pathetic can still live the American dream at the cost of those whom uphold it.


E for effort
By owyheewine on 8/5/2009 9:55:09 AM , Rating: 2
Actually electric cars get a "D" for dumb.
40 grand for 40 miles; plug into household electricity with increasing electric prices and fierce opposition to every proposed power plant; $8000 worth of batteries that will have to be replaced. I don't see anything that makes any sense.




"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki