backtop


Print 61 comment(s) - last by The Raven.. on Jan 10 at 11:21 AM

GM is looking to pull in all 8,000 Volts off the road as well as the 4,400 for sale

General Motors (GM) is launching a customer service campaign, which is similar to a recall, on 8,000 Chevrolet Volts running on U.S. roads in an effort to address possible battery fire issues.

In May 2011, Chevrolet's plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (EV), the Volt, caught fire three weeks after a side-impact crash test conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The Volt was parked in a NHTSA testing facility in Wisconsin. The fire provoked an investigation into the safety of lithium batteries.

Later in November 2011, NHTSA conducted three more side-impact crash tests on three separate Volts. Two out of three ended up sparking or catching fire while the third remained normal.

GM took action right away, saying it will make any changes necessary to keep drivers safe. The automaker even offered loaner vehicles to Volt drivers that didn't feel safe in their vehicles, and said it'd buy Volts back from owners that requested to sell.

Now, GM is advising Volt owners to bring their EVs to the dealerships for a customer service campaign, which is like a recall but without the bad publicity attached. There are currently 8,000 Volts on U.S. roads and another 4,400 in showrooms for sale.



Dealers will address the battery issues by adding steel to the plate that protects the EV's T-shaped, 400-pound battery. This will prevent penetration into the battery in case of an auto accident, which will ultimately stop coolant from leaking. It will also evenly distribute the force of a crash.

NHTSA already tested Volts with the new added steel around the battery in December, and found that it was the right fix for the problem. However, it will continue to monitor the car for another week to make sure that it doesn't catch fire later on like the Volt back in May managed to do.

"The preliminary results of the crash test indicate the remedy proposed by General Motors today should address the issue," said NHTSA.

"We have tested the Volt's battery systems through [the equivalent of] 25 years of operation," said Mary Barra, GM's vice president for global product development. "We're taking these steps to provide peace of mind to our customers."

Sources: InsideBayArea, CNN



Comments     Threshold


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

Volt Outsells the Prius
By Jedi2155 on 1/6/2012 12:05:49 AM , Rating: 2
The Volt still outsold the Prius in its 1st year of availability.

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/01/05/chevrole...

Here you can also see the simple fix, which only requires 2-3 hours of labor (or less).

http://brightcove.vo.llnwd.net/pd19/media/10508880...




RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By phryguy on 1/6/2012 5:21:15 AM , Rating: 3
The ~5600 Priuses that were sold in 2000 only started being delivered to customers in mid-August 2000 so it wasn't even close to a full year.

And, as you can see by http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?... gas prices were only ~$1.50/gal less. In addition, the Volt has a $7500 Federal tax credit vs. the lame $2000 Federal tax deduction available on hybrids.


RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By The Raven on 1/6/2012 10:14:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the Volt has a $7500 Federal tax credit vs. the lame $2000 Federal tax deduction available on hybrids.
Funny, I thought they were both lame.


RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By V-Money on 1/6/2012 12:29:29 PM , Rating: 5
Tell me about it, I had to pay a $1300 gas guzzler tax for my car because apparently it was supposed to discourage me from buying it,funny, I always thought that was what the $80,000 price tag was for. But hey, its all good, Phryguy is so much better for wanting to drive a hybrid that a $2000 deduction isn't good enough for him, maybe the government can just double my taxes and pay for his whole car...end rant.


RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By Sahrin on 1/6/12, Rating: -1
RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By The Raven on 1/6/2012 2:56:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yes he is talking about having to pay more for using more fuel. So yes, he is already paying for any effects of the used fuel. The subsidized person essentially gets rewarded for burning the same amount of fuel. The point of the subsidy is that you would burn less of it.

But when it just makes it easier (cheaper) to drive everywhere? We do not know yet the behavioral effects of these more efficient cars. I constantly volunteer my Corolla as a passenger carrier because it gets good mileage. If it did not, I'm not sure what I would do but I wouldn't be as liberal with it, that is for sure. So in my case the effect of me having a Corolla equates to more miles driven.

The subsidies don't directly "reverse-tax" people who use a lot of fuel. If it was then he would get a subsidy on his 10 mpg truck that he drives 10 miles a day, while the guy who drives a 40 mpg car 80 miles a day would not.

The sure way to decrease emissions while steering clear of gas taxes that hurt the poor, is to actually discourage burning of fuel (petrol or coal). How do we do that? How about we don't subsidize suburban housing and reform zoning laws so people could more easily live close to their offices, etc. More freedom would help us out here. But unfortunately the two-party system in the US just wants to buy votes.


RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By The Raven on 1/6/2012 2:57:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The point of the subsidy is that you would burn less of it.
Sorry I meant The HOPE of the subsidy is that you would burn less of it.


RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By Jedi2155 on 1/8/2012 1:13:11 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Yes he is talking about having to pay more for using more fuel. So yes, he is already paying for any effects of the used fuel. The subsidized person essentially gets rewarded for burning the same amount of fuel. The point of the subsidy is that you would burn less of it.


While this makes sense if the true cost of fuel is the amount we pay at the pump, it does not take into account the cost of subsidizing policy decisions made to secure foreign oil maintaining the natural environment.


RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By The Raven on 1/9/2012 10:57:59 AM , Rating: 2
I'm having trouble following you here. Regardless of other cost to use oil, it is included if you drive a Hummer or a Prius.

And if you are talking about the Volt specifically know that it is largely powered by another fossil fuel...coal. So instead of "No Blood for Oil" protestors would chant "No Blood for Coal" if everyone drove a Volt. Reason being that there is not enough coal in the US to power all of our vehicles. So where is the difference there?

How exactly do we subsidize policy decisions? You mean with our two-party votes? Yeah I guess you would have a point there. Those are subsudizing our crappy FP. Vote Libertarian/Ron Paul or any other small gov't 3rd party if you want to change that.

We don't need taxes and subsidies that might sway a few hundred people. We need a more free market that would naturally increase/decrease the cost of fuel (i.e. regulate fuel prices) and sway millions not to burn as much of it.


RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By Mint on 1/9/2012 11:51:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Reason being that there is not enough coal in the US to power all of our vehicles
Where did you get that from?

140B gallons of gasoline per year would need maybe 1.5TWh of electricity to replace, and that would be 20+ years from now (we can't replace 200 million cars instantly). We'd probably only wind up replacing the imported part of it (roughly half). And who said we have to use coal? Why not nuclear? Even CCGT is almost as cheap as coal nowadays.

Adding 20% to electricity generation in 20 years is a piece of cake for the US. EVs will probably wind up bringing average electricity cost down, because they charge primarily at night, when we have surplus capacity anyway. We'd only need a few percent higher capacity, and existing plants would increase their capacity factor.


RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By The Raven on 1/10/2012 11:21:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where did you get that from?
To be honest it is just a guess based on the fact that gasoline has a higher energy content.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_content_of_bio...
It is roughly 50% more powerful.

On the other hand I would like to know where you got your numbers (not that I necessarily doubt them).
quote:
And who said we have to use coal? Why not nuclear? Even CCGT is almost as cheap as coal nowadays.

I didn't say that we had to use coal, but the fact remains that coal is the majority (link below) here in the US and I just read somewhere that in China (as an important global example) it is 80% of their power source.
http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=...

And yes, I am all for nuclear power proliferation and especially research. Unfortunately it is more difficult to convince a Harvard educated man that nuclear is a great option than it is to convince Joe Sixpack to use a CFL.

But having said that, ideally I think that we should reduce our consumption of power regardless of the source. If we were beholden to the real price we would think twice before leaving our PCs on all day. And the real price doesn't include subsidies like this (and of course others like housing credits, etc.).

But to get back to my response to you, I fail to see what you think the power grid will be powered by in the future. You see nuclear as the majority source of power? Renewables only account for ~10% of generation now. What do you think it will rise to? Nat Gas will be gone by 2070 from what I have read, so that is what we would be looking at, something like 80% nuclear and 20% renewable.

Having said all of this, I am not against electric cars and may want to buy one myself one day, my point is that they should not be subsidized. Neither 'coal' nor 'oil' powered cars should be subsidized.

Anyway maybe I am wrong and we could use some subsidies. Subsidizing bikes would be a much better idea. Reduce carbon emissions, commute costs and solve the obesity epidemic in one fell swoop.


RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By V-Money on 1/8/2012 3:49:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...you are using more fuel to cover the same distance which means you are emitting more pollutants in the atmosphere than the average car would. The government is asking you to 'true up' for that.


That's the problem with assumptions. What you don't know about me is that my main vehicle is a small sport bike that averages 60MPG (my numbers are 59.6), and I never drive my Caddy around town so I average 17MPG (as logged by onstar). I drive my motorcycle 5x as much as my car (distance-wise)so my average MPG is ~52.5MPG, what does your Prius get. With that knowledge now, where is my rebate or tax incentive.


RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By Skywalker123 on 1/7/2012 6:04:21 PM , Rating: 2
No,the $80,000 price tag is an idiot tax for paying that much for a car. Hey, its all good though, you're so much better than everyone who pays $30,000 for a car.


RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By V-Money on 1/8/2012 3:43:31 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, you are completely right, wanting something nice must make me an idiot, wanting to have the latest in technology (V-series coupe, a lot of the tech is already trickling down the line) and helping pay for that technology to trickle down to those aforementioned 30k cars makes me a complete ass who is better than everyone else. Get over yourself man, it turns out I like having a nice car, I use 2 ply toilet paper, I spring the extra quarter for albacore tuna, and last time I checked I can spend my money how I want cause I went out and earned it, what are you a communist. I grew up in extreme poverty, I didn't much like it so I went out and changed my life and got everything I wanted, thats the American dream, quit trying to f*** it up.


RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By Skywalker123 on 1/8/2012 10:07:40 PM , Rating: 2
Glad you agree you are an idiot, you CAN spend your money anyway you want, but it still makes you an idiot for spending 80g for a car.


RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By V-Money on 1/8/2012 10:45:47 PM , Rating: 2
If you want to use that logic, my previous car was a 2007 Scion TC which cost me 17K, and I loved that car, so all of you must be idiots for spending 30k on a car. It sounds more like you're just a jealous douchebag who can't even imagine spending 80k on a car, but its okay, I realize I'm better than you and I respect your asinine opinion. By the way, you're welcome for helping the economy you cheap bastard :-)


RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By petelobl on 1/7/12, Rating: 0
RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By The Raven on 1/10/2012 10:19:03 AM , Rating: 2
OK let's do it your way. Tell me what one is the worst and I will focus only on that one.


RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By EasyC on 1/6/12, Rating: -1
RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By Breathless on 1/6/12, Rating: 0
RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By rrburton on 1/6/2012 12:15:12 PM , Rating: 1
Seriously? Glass houses and not throwing stones comes to mind here.


RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By Breathless on 1/6/2012 2:32:15 PM , Rating: 5
People badmouth Fox news as if CNN, MSNBC etc are more reliable and less biased news networks. That is known as idiocy.


RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By Reclaimer77 on 1/6/2012 9:47:52 AM , Rating: 2
This is really ironic. If someone linked a Fox article being negative about the Volt, it would be rated down and people would start up the "FAUX" wagon.


RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By nolisi on 1/6/2012 11:50:30 AM , Rating: 1
Fox starts up that particular wagon every time they report the news.


RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By ClownPuncher on 1/6/2012 1:26:49 PM , Rating: 2
Shush up and go download the Mao Headroom picture I made you.


RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By Reclaimer77 on 1/6/2012 1:31:13 PM , Rating: 1
HAHAHA dude I didn't see you post that, sorry.

I literally just spewed my tea on my keyboard when I clicked on that pic lmao. Oh god it's so funny!! It's awesome man, you did a great job.


RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By The Raven on 1/6/2012 3:21:26 PM , Rating: 2
I had to stalk through his archives for that...
+6 LMAO!

For everyone else who doesn't want to be accused of stalking...
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=23660...


RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By ClownPuncher on 1/6/2012 6:22:07 PM , Rating: 2
Stalking is just another word for "free publicity".


RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By kattanna on 1/6/2012 10:01:05 AM , Rating: 3
and your linked article even lists reasons why they are not valid comparisons

what i wonder is how much weight those added steel plates bring?


RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By Jedi2155 on 1/6/2012 12:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
That question has to been asked numerous times, and the answer is only 2-3 lbs.

http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?10924-Volt...


RE: Volt Outsells the Prius
By Dr of crap on 1/6/2012 10:33:07 AM , Rating: 2
AND YOUR POINT!


By usbseawolf2000 on 1/6/2012 10:49:12 AM , Rating: 1
This is the 2nd year of sales for the Volt. It sold 352 in December of 2010.


All that fraud and not enough engineering
By pcfxer on 1/6/12, Rating: 0
RE: All that fraud and not enough engineering
By GotThumbs on 1/6/2012 11:14:16 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps your not a very smart Engineer....

Here's a simple explaination...

Because the floor mat issue with Toyota was CAUSING accidents.

The issue with the Volt is only for cars involved in collisions....and the only examples caught fire 3 WEEKS AFTER the collision.

Think! McFly.....Think!


By Reclaimer77 on 1/6/2012 11:26:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because the floor mat issue with Toyota was CAUSING accidents.


Allegedly.


RE: All that fraud and not enough engineering
By Keeir on 1/6/2012 12:13:44 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously not involved with safety.

No product is 100% safe. A recall occurs only if there is a demonstrated (through observation of engineering analysis) occurrence rate higher than some baseline threshold.

This particular Volt issue has yet to occur in the real world. This means that the original engineering analysis that predicted a lower rate than baseline threshold still holds. Therefore no mandated recall.

Toyota's issue on the other hand was repeated higher than expected cases of unintentional acceleration. 6 times between 2003-2008, Toyota was investigated to determine if there was a correctable fault. Whatever the cause (floor mats, electronics, etc), Toyota was experiencing a relatively high rate of real-world occurrence of a potential safety issue. They really should have been required to do something before the whole floor mat issue.


RE: All that fraud and not enough engineering
By Reclaimer77 on 1/6/2012 1:14:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This particular Volt issue has yet to occur in the real world.


That's because there's barely any on the road! Do we even have statistics on Volt's being involved in serious side-impact collisions in the "real world"? Have there been ANY?

That's why we crash test things. I guess if you were in charge we wouldn't safety test cars and only react when something terrible happen in the "real world". Nice logic there.

quote:
Toyota's issue on the other hand was repeated higher than expected cases of unintentional acceleration.


That NOBODY, not even the NHSI, could duplicate through repeated testing in a variety of controlled experiments. Two people claiming to have been in a "runaway" Toyota have a history of filing fraudulent lawsuits to get rich quick.

Curious that you place more faith in happenstance, speculation, and hearsay than actual testing and verification.


RE: All that fraud and not enough engineering
By Keeir on 1/6/2012 2:17:02 PM , Rating: 3
Hmmmm...

I think your purposely being dense due to your dislike of Obama-->GM-->Volt.

What we know about the Volt.

If a Volt is fully charged and in a side impact crash with a much stiffer object and is then placed in a storage facility and ignored for weeks counter to the manufacturers user guide and recommendations there is a chance that it will catch fire. Of course, this is not really a reasonable test for the real world post the actual impact.

Now for the Toyota products, over 2000 reports were made between 2000-2008 over unintended acceleration for these cars. Toyota had one of the highest rates in the automobile world. Whether or not a controlled test demonstrated the situation, this large volume of reports can not be entirely in error. (Studies suggest the actual incident rate could be as much as 10 times higher than the reported rate for any given self-reported issue with automobiles)

Stuff happens in the real-world all the time that did not show up on repeated testing! I've seen this many times. System failures that absolutely should never occur, even if the system is wired differently by hand... yet some schmo somehow makes it happen. (My personal favorite was a guy caught on video using a wrench to manually advance a computer controlled actuator which had actual signage on the twist point "Only for Emergency Maintenance. Do not use during normal operation. Perform XXXXX procedure post Manual Usage." He of course didn't follow the procedure.)

Unless Toyota can pin the issue directly on a customer action that is clearly unreasonable, then Toyota needs to find a solution to the real-world problem. It doesn't matter how many tests Toyota/anyone does that show something "isn't a problem".


RE: All that fraud and not enough engineering
By Reclaimer77 on 1/6/2012 3:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If a Volt is fully charged and in a side impact crash with a much stiffer object and is then placed in a storage facility and ignored for weeks counter to the manufacturers user guide and recommendations there is a chance that it will catch fire. Of course, this is not really a reasonable test for the real world post the actual impact.


In the "real world" cars don't sit in storage for weeks after an accident. Even if they did, does that mean it's okay if a Volt catches fire and burns the storage facility down? What if it's sitting in a repair bay at the shop and it burns down because the Volt caught on fire in the middle of the night? Any number of things could happen. People don't always do the "recommended" thing with their vehicles, that doesn't mean the vehicle should be inherently faulty. If there was no issue here, why the recall at all?


RE: All that fraud and not enough engineering
By Keeir on 1/6/2012 4:47:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If there was no issue here, why the recall at all?


There is no recall yet. There is a publicity move by a company worried about over-reaction.

If I damaged the fuel system in my car, and parked it someplace sitting full of fuel, then no one would question I was in the wrong if the car/building caught on fire. In fact, I am almost positive that most manufacturers recommend not even using emergency lights or flares if you suspect your car is leaking fuel.

The NHTSA did a bone head move. They did not follow the proper procedures post-crash. This is a bone head move regardless of the automobile.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/6/2012 6:21:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If I damaged the fuel system in my car, and parked it someplace sitting full of fuel, then no one would question I was in the wrong if the car/building caught on fire. In fact, I am almost positive that most manufacturers recommend not even using emergency lights or flares if you suspect your car is leaking fuel.


You make no sense. If the "fuel system" was damaged/leaking, it would be instantly apparent.

It is NOT obviously apparent, however, if a post-wreck Volt's batteries are compromised to the point of this fault which leads to a fire sometime later.


3 weeks AFTER collision......and left sitting.
By GotThumbs on 1/6/2012 11:09:34 AM , Rating: 3
Simple solutions.

1. Don't stay in the car for 3 weeks AFTER a collision.

2. Deliver wrecked Volts directly to nearest Dealer who will then Disconnect and Remove the battery for proper disposal AFTER a collision.

3. Understand the media LOVES to OVER DRAMATIZE for readers. example: (Whooo Scary scenario IF you stay in your wreaked Volt for 3 weeks after the collision, it WILL catch on fire and you WILL die....Scary...be afraid.)

4. Even a standard car battery should be disconnected and removed from a wrecked car. They too can start fires.

The fact that a volt COULD catch fire AFTER a collision if the battery is left in the car, IS important to know, but drivers should NOT be scared to drive the car. Hey, standard cars have fuel tanks that could catch fire at the crash site....that IS a real cause for concern as well.




By GotThumbs on 1/6/2012 11:20:08 AM , Rating: 2
One last option is to develop a 'Quick disconnect/fuse' feature similar to air bags being deployed in a collision. The 'Quick Disconnect' would disconnect the battery at the moment a collision takes place.


By EddyKilowatt on 1/6/2012 2:02:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

One last option is to develop a 'Quick disconnect/fuse' feature

That's already there, well maybe not the airbag-trigger part, but there's a master disconnect, and emergency responders know to use it.

The problem is that a disconnected battery is still like a tank of gasoline: stored energy with the potential to cause trouble. The battery needs to be run down flat to be totally safe, which means drawing kilowatts of power from it for awhile, which is obviously not something you want happening automatically right after you've been T-boned by an SUV.

The now-infamous Volt Fire was actually in the battery, not in something connected to it. What's needed is a protocol that says that any battery in an accident above some threshold (probably more severe than airbag-triggering) needs to be discharged under controlled conditions, and then evaluated for hidden damage. Admittedly kind of a hassle, but also something that only a few percent of vehicles will experience in their lifetime.


By mmatis on 1/6/2012 5:19:25 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe they could just use the battery to defibrilate the driver of the Volt, thereby discharging its energy? Put one cable on each ear, yell "Clear!", then throw the switch.
Just a thought...


Beta
By CityZen on 1/6/12, Rating: 0
yikes...
By Samus on 1/6/12, Rating: -1
RE: yikes...
By Aloonatic on 1/6/2012 8:07:50 AM , Rating: 2
Recalls seem to be an increasingly common occurrence. Most cars probably get recalled at least once, especially early on in their lives so I would wager that manufacturers price it in to cover themselves.


RE: yikes...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/6/12, Rating: -1
RE: yikes...
By Aloonatic on 1/6/2012 11:34:34 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe things are different in the US, but over here in the UK it's not all that uncommon for every car from a certain year or production run to be recalled and have (sometimes major) work carried out on them.

We're not talking about ever GM car ever made here, just one model that hasn't been in production for long.

My point about them factoring in this kind of work still stands too (assuming that they have an ounce of sense, so granted I am going out on a limb here :o) ) as it's pretty obvious that any car using new technology like this would stand an greater chance of having to be recalled too, compared to a "normal" car that is in its infancy.

Of course, they may have been dumb and not realised any of this, who knows.

From a PR point, most people will forget (as you seem to have done with all the other recalls that have happened over the years), and owners will be probably be pleased that they are having the situation dealt with in a timely manner.

I'm not saying that it's great and that GM would have wanted this to happen, but it seems that people are once more guilty of waning the worst to happen to a company that they don't like for whatever reason and prophesying a company's doom just because they want it to happen rather than thinking it through.


RE: yikes...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/6/2012 12:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
From a PR point, most people will forget (as you seem to have done with all the other recalls that have happened over the years)


You mean other cars that DIDN'T have massive taxpayer subsidies we had to pay for? Well yeah...


RE: yikes...
By NellyFromMA on 1/6/2012 12:12:57 PM , Rating: 2
It's not a flop any more than the prius was when it first came out. In fact, this has somewhat more potential than Toyta's platform did and look how successful the Prius was after a decade or so.

Why do people RUSH to judgement. This is basically a flaw in a system that hasn't really been done before. I can safely say no one here does their job with 0% error. So, please, stop nay saying.... it's dumb.


RE: yikes...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/6/2012 12:28:47 PM , Rating: 1
The Volt exists because the Obama administration bailed GM out, owns 24% of the company (something that should NEVER happen here), and basically said that GM would make the Volt in exchange for the bailout.

Comparing this to the Prius is absurd. You wonder why GM and Volt is being harshly judged? It's pretty obvious. Do you realize the total cost of the Volt to the U.S taxpayer is $250,000, in terms of gov debt.

If the Prius tanked, okay well that would have been unfortunate. But it wouldn't have cost the U.S taxpayer or dragged a company into yet another eventual bailout. It's a totally different situation now.

quote:
This is basically a flaw in a system that hasn't really been done before.


Batteries are batteries. There's nothing unique to the Volt system in regards to how it responds to being wrecked compared to a Prius. Was there a Prius recall because they burst into flames after an accident? No, there wasn't.


RE: yikes...
By Jedi2155 on 1/6/2012 12:48:43 PM , Rating: 3
I can't believe you would use that $250,000 figure for the Volt considering how bad the math is on that number.

http://www.green.autoblog.com/2011/12/26/bad-math-...

That figure was reached by assuming 100% of all government subsidies was utilized, despite some of them being business loan's spread out over 20 years, which means that business has to fail immediately right now in order for that figure to be accurate.

That's not to mention its based on 6142 volts sold instead of the 7500 or so that was sold in 2011 (8000 if you count the vehicles sold in 2010)

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/10/the-ev-ma...

The Volt is not a high seller but 7500 cars in its 1st year is not yet flop *for a new technology* vehicle. If sales don't hit 20k at least in 2012, then I would call it a flop.


RE: yikes...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/6/2012 1:07:10 PM , Rating: 1
I'm not going to get drawn into a numbers game with you. That's a deflection. Would a debt of "only" $100,000 be some kind of awesome thing instead? I think you're missing the point.

Is the massive subsidy for these things bad math too?

quote:
That's not to mention its based on 6142 volts sold instead of the 7500 or so that was sold in 2011 (8000 if you count the vehicles sold in 2010)


Yes and look how many of those "sales" were Government fleet purchases! Hello McFly!? The true sales numbers of actual consumer purchases are abysmal!

quote:
The Volt is not a high seller but 7500 cars in its 1st year is not yet flop *for a new technology* vehicle.


The biggest buyer of Volt's just so happens to be the same organization with a 24% controlling interest in GM. The Federal Government! Hello?? How is this not crony capitalism and a flop?


RE: yikes...
By Black1969ta on 1/7/2012 2:24:46 AM , Rating: 3
Considering the Volt was well on its way to production when the Government bailed out Detroit, and that was before Obama took office!

For GM to bail on the plans to produce the "Volt", would cost the company more in lost R&D than the slow start that they face. In spite of the bailout debate the decision to proceed with the release of the Volt was a sound one.

the Government decision to subsidize all the hybrids is another matter altogether.


RE: yikes...
By Mint on 1/9/2012 12:14:22 PM , Rating: 1
What makes you think $100,000 is accurate?

The $250k number is pure bullshit. They assume loans being given out over many years (which would only be given out if certain production goals were met) were all taken out yesterday, spent, and will never be repaid. Then, they assume that no more Volts will ever be produced.

Divide the total subsidies by an estimated 60 million cars in the next 25+ years that are going to use this technology and its derivatives, and it becomes $25/car.

Just think about how ridiculous your assertion would be in the corporate world. How on earth do you get anything useful at all by divide all upfront costs for a factory by it's first year production?


RE: yikes...
By Alexvrb on 1/7/2012 6:10:30 PM , Rating: 3
Batteries are NOT batteries. Not even close. It's all about chemistry. The Volts are among the first to use more powerful Lithium ion batteries - specifically, Lithium manganese spinel oxide. They're the current best (overall) batteries for this kind of application, but they have some issues.

I believe 2011 and earlier Prius models used NiMH. Only the newest Prius plug-in uses a Li-ion battery pack, and it's much smaller and easier to protect than the pack in Volt and a few others. It may also be a slightly different chemistry. Tesla and Fisker also issued a recall over issues with their large Li-ion packs.

However Nissan has an air-cooled pack, not sure about longevity or exact chemistry, but they seem to have it bundled up and well protected. It still has the same underlying issues, but they've mitigated them well enough so far. Can't say how it will fare in very hot or very cold weather, but at least it seems to survive impacts well enough.

Regardless, various Lithium metal (such as iron or manganese) phosphate batteries can be dangerous in certain circumstances. But energy density is so much greater, they'll probably keep using it in flagship vehicles even if they have to reinforce the surrounding area more heavily in the future.

Oh, for hybrids/electrics that aren't as demanding, like the little Spark EV, they're using a different safer lithium phosphate chemistry. Doesn't have quite as good of an energy density, but I guess it meets their targets and is safer for such a small EV.


RE: yikes...
By EddyKilowatt on 1/6/2012 12:22:25 PM , Rating: 2
Only a "massive blow" to folks like you who are eagerly celebrating every little problem that EVs have.

Everyone with some common sense -- something Americans are still pretty good at -- pretty much expects that a brand-new car full of brand-new technology is going to need some minor tweaks.

We're talking about a couple of hours at the dealer to install a couple of battery box parts, NOT about "pulling them off the road" for days or weeks for major architectural changes. I will wager that 100% of the people who bought them in 2011 expected stuff like this to happen. And that 90% of regular folk will understand it as well, and not blow it out of proportion.


RE: yikes...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/6/2012 12:35:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Everyone with some common sense -- something Americans are still pretty good at --


HAHAHAHAAH!!! OH man, that's a good one. Thanks. What Americans are YOU looking at?

quote:
pretty much expects that a brand-new car full of brand-new technology is going to need some minor tweaks.


Again you miss the point! I don't care if some company develops a product and it has issues. That doesn't impact me at all. You're missing the context here...

The Volt DOES impact Americans. Directly, measurably, and most certainly negatively.


RE: yikes...
By EddyKilowatt on 1/6/2012 1:33:39 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
HAHAHAHAAH!!! OH man, that's a good one. Thanks. What Americans are YOU looking at?


This is what freepers actually think. Why do freepers hate America?


"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki