backtop


Print 138 comment(s) - last by lco45.. on Sep 17 at 11:51 PM


The Chevy Volt debuts next year at a price tag of $40,000+.

Audi of America President Johan de Nysschen recently called Chevy Volt buyers "idiots", then claimed to have forgotten what he said. Ironically, Audi is expected to unveil a new concept EV in just a couple of weeks.
Audi releases Facebook apology after controversial statements about Volt buyers

The 2011 Chevy Volt is arguably America's hottest upcoming electric vehicle.  This marquee billing makes it an attractive target for noisy executives in the industry looking to throw a bit of mud at their competitor. 

Traditionally, such controversial remarks have been made by the likes of Tesla Motors product architect Elon Musk, or GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz.  This time, though, it was Audi of America President Johan de Nysschen who went a bit too far in what he said. 

Mr. Nysschen was talking with veteran auto journalist Lawrence Ulrich about the future of fuel efficient vehicles.  As a strong believer in diesel, Mr. Nysschen is critical of electric vehicles.  He told Mr. Uhlrich that the Chevy Volt was "a car for idiots" and commented, "No one is going to pay a $15,000 premium for a car that competes with a (Toyota) Corolla. So there are not enough idiots who will buy it."

He went on to predict the car's commercial failure and subsequent government intervention to prevent another GM collapse.  He also expanded more about pure electric vehicles like the 2011 Nissan Leaf EV.  He complains, "[Pure EVs are] for the intellectual elite who want to show what enlightened souls they are."

He said that diesel was the smart way to go, though to address one driving problem -- that diesel fuel quality in the U.S. is much lower than that in Europe.

Unsurprisingly, Mr. Nysschen's remarks angered many and had an embarrassed Audi backpedaling.  Mr. Nysschen issued a half apology on Facebook claiming that he can't remember using those exact words, though he does agree with the sentiment.  While stopping short of his claim that Volt buyers are "idiots" he reiterates his stance that electric vehicles don't make sense from an economic standpoint and that the government is damaging the free market in subsidizing them.  He says that EVs may be viable in the long term, but that among other things, the current grid can't support them. 

Many have pointed out that his remarks are particularly ironic since Audi is debuting a new concept EV at the Frankfurt Auto Show in just a couple of weeks.

The Audi President is not alone in his attack of the Volt and EVs in general.  In July Toyota Motor Sales' national manager for the advanced technology group, Bill Reinert, said that EVs like the Chevy Volt were "not plausible" and too expensive. 



Comments     Threshold


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

Idiots
By TomZ on 9/4/2009 11:01:41 AM , Rating: 5
Never underestimate the number of idiots.




RE: Idiots
By SilthDraeth on 9/4/2009 11:29:55 AM , Rating: 5
I don't think calling anyone an idiot is going to far. And it definitely isn't when you are correct.


RE: Idiots
By invidious on 9/4/2009 5:20:53 PM , Rating: 4
Everyone knows that idiots don't like being reminded that they are idiots, and perhaps he is a bit of an idiot for not realizing he would get them confused and angry.

But that doesn't change the fact that his technical reasoning is correct. Current generaton EVs are not worth the price premium and their benifits for environment are unproven at best.

If you want to get a Tesla Roadster because you think it is cool that doesn't make you an idiot. But wanting to get a Volt because you think that you are saving the environment or that you are saving yourself money then you are most certainly an idiot.


RE: Idiots
By eddieroolz on 9/4/2009 7:16:28 PM , Rating: 2
Agree with you there, except for one point:

quote:
Current generaton EVs are not worth the price premium and their benifits for environment are unproven at best.


In my opinion what the makers are doing by manufacturing these money-losing EV's is hoping for an eventual price decline, much like what happens to new computer hardware. Once enough is made its price will begin to fall, and I can see the same applying to EV's as well.


RE: Idiots
By marvdmartian on 9/8/2009 9:14:49 AM , Rating: 2
At the same time, computer hardware sees an initial downturn in price for the first couple months, then (imho) more price drop due to the eventual fact that something newer/better comes out on the market, which commands the higher price (initially, again).

I can't see the price of EV's ever falling much, simply due to the number of units produced. We don't see it with any other vehicles. And the automotive manufacturers would rather rake in higher profit, than give a price break to the consumers. The only time we ever see any real savings on automobiles is during model year end clearance, with the occasional sale or rebate being offered, to help clear the lots.


RE: Idiots
By AEvangel on 9/9/2009 12:21:59 PM , Rating: 2
I would agree that he new generation of EV's are in no way better then the environment then current cars, since most people are not looking at the environmental impact of strip mining lithium in Bolivia.

quote:
Bolivia holds half the World's lithium reserves, but is reluctant to damage its untouched salt flats in order to exploit this potentially lucrative resource.
Almost all new electric car models appear to rely on Lithium for their batteries and one of Japan's leading battery makers is warning there could be a shortage of Lithium within just a few years. BBC NEWS | Business | Bolivia's lithium mining dilema (9 September 2009) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7607624.stm


RE: Idiots
By lco45 on 9/7/2009 2:21:20 AM , Rating: 3
I saw a Hyundai with a $50K sound system and a $30K body kit. Now that was an idiot.

Volt is pretty cool for $40K, at least the tech is interesting.

It will be popular with tech enthusiasts who are bored with the same old cars that come out year after year.

It is not all about value, too many bean counters commenting on dailytech lately.

Luke


RE: Idiots
By afkrotch on 9/9/2009 2:22:48 AM , Rating: 2
I can't even imagine a $30k body kit. Even if it was completely carbon fiber and painted. Unless it had like chameleon paint or something crazy like that with crushed diamond sprinkles.

I'm currently living in S.Korea and right now, there are some nice looking Hyundais. Would I buy one though? No.


RE: Idiots
By glitchc on 9/10/2009 10:43:55 PM , Rating: 2
Have you driven a Hyundai? It's an excellent ride for the price point, better than Toyota and Honda.


RE: Idiots
By lco45 on 9/17/2009 11:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
It had everything, carbon fiber, chameleon paint, custom fairings and spoilers, anti speed camera holograms, you name it. Purple.

Hyundai's are normally great value though. Friend of mine has a Santa Fe and it's a beautiful 4x4, just over half the price of equivalents from Toyota or Jeep.

Luke


RE: Idiots
By JonnyDough on 9/4/2009 7:38:53 PM , Rating: 5
The Volt is a great idea, it just costs too much. In time the price is expected to drop, it may eventually end up nearly on par with normal combustion cars. I wouldn't say GM is dumb for implementing it, but I think they should have joined forces with Ford or someone in some sort of cross-licensing tech exchange. They need economies of scale to lower costs.

With large scale implementation, the right battery tech, and economies of scale we may have done away with combustion engines as the primary power in modern vehicles. As it stands this is still a bit more like the Tesla, out of reach for many. We're getting there, but I fear it may be another twenty years before someone does it right.


RE: Idiots
By quiksilvr on 9/5/2009 12:43:23 PM , Rating: 2
IMO, I feel that these new clean diesel engines that VW and Audi are coming out with are going to be a hit once they come out here in the states (God PLEASE bring them HERE!). EVs are good, but I would rather get a full EV for 25,000 that gives me 100 mile range rather than one that just gives me 40 miles and then I'm back to petrol again.


RE: Idiots
By donjuancarlos on 9/4/2009 11:30:02 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah, but the number of idiots with $40000 burning a hole in their pocket is pretty small. I think the Audi guy is correct in his prediction of failure, but sometimes it's smarter to stay quiet, and let the fools do their thing and reap the chaff of their self-inflicted demise.


RE: Idiots
By kamel5547 on 9/4/2009 11:54:58 AM , Rating: 5
Historical evidence suggests otherwise. There are plenty of people who have 40k burning holes in their pockets, the only question is how they will waste it, not if.


RE: Idiots
By GaryJohnson on 9/4/2009 12:23:59 PM , Rating: 5
It's not 40k in their pocket, it's 40k in credit.


RE: Idiots
By headbox on 9/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: Idiots
By Oregonian2 on 9/4/2009 3:21:11 PM , Rating: 2
I suspect most all of the clunker owners actually owned their cars (and I'm sure they're not all sold in the program). My wife's 1994 Honda Accord (bought new) definitely is paid for (and has only about 80K miles on it). My car is way newer. 1996 T&C w/100K miles on it. Would be considered a clunker, but has the great attribute of being paid for. :-)

I still can't understand those who lease cars and think they're saving money (we've got a friend who does that).


RE: Idiots
By cruisin3style on 9/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: Idiots
By Tsuwamono on 9/6/2009 9:30:45 PM , Rating: 2
They aren't saving money long term but they are in the short term with month to month costs.

I do that right now since my car is a big part of my image in my business and in order to do my business you have to look like you already make a lot of money.

Sadly thats the nature of my business but when i get done with my lease, if i have the liquid cash ill just buy out the lease.

In the end i know it costs me more to lease but in the short term it allows me to drive a car that gives the image of money which as i said for me is required


RE: Idiots
By jkostans on 9/4/2009 8:15:35 PM , Rating: 3
Very true. I'm making payments on my car, but they are low enough to not be a burden on my finances. I could have gone with a $40,000 car, but 98% of my driving is to work and back so what's the point? I'd rather have the extra cash to put towards a house, travel, or something fun. I don't get the luxury car thing, unless you're on the road for most of the day or actually have the money to comfortably afford one. Only idiots struggle to make payments on things they own, which is most of America. Live within your means.


RE: Idiots
By Shadrack2 on 9/8/2009 8:12:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Only idiots struggle to make payments on things they own, which is most of America.


Wait a minute, that means the Volt is going to be a raving success!


RE: Idiots
By clovell on 9/4/2009 1:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
True, but then again - he's the president of Audi - I don't know about you guys, but all the Audi-Drivers I ever see on the road are D-bags.


RE: Idiots
By superflex on 9/4/2009 3:03:47 PM , Rating: 1
Jealousy is a bitch.


RE: Idiots
By NA1NSXR on 9/6/2009 5:48:55 AM , Rating: 2
Proof of the original comment.


RE: Idiots
By HotFoot on 9/7/2009 5:05:34 AM , Rating: 3
I don't have the same problem with BMW, Mercedes or Lexus drivers... for some reason, it seems to me that when I see someone being completely discourteous on the roads more often then not they're in an Audi. I know it's anecdotal, but there it is.


RE: Idiots
By clovell on 9/8/2009 10:13:21 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah - tell your mom I said hi.

Seriously though, folks in a BMW, Infiniti, Benz, or even a Lexus are generally more aware and more courteous.


RE: Idiots
By Callys on 9/4/2009 1:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
But apparently there were idiots who lined up to pay $100k for the Audi R8 when it came out, which was just a great deal considering it backed up its super car looks and handling with the quickness of a 15 year old c4 corvette


RE: Idiots
By jonup on 9/4/2009 3:52:36 PM , Rating: 3
Even though C4 Vettes are my favorite (style wise), you have to be a moron (idiot) that to believe that the C4 comes even close to R8. Audi is more comfortable, reliable, luxurious, usable... You weren't talking about C6, were you? I am confused a little bit 'cause you said handling and GM did not know what that was back then.
But you brought a good point. If you want a fast car you get a corvette for $50,000. If you want to get the Vette's performance with added luxury you have to pay a hefty premium. With the Volt you will pay the hefty premium but you will not get the luxury. In fact, it will be as crappy as all the cars in it size (Toyota Corolla). Any one that is used to spending $40K on a car will be used to $40K car luxury. She or he has to be an idiot to spend so much money for a Corolla. The Audi guy said it as it is. Why does he have to apologize because of people who prefer "politically correct" to the "truth"?


RE: Idiots
By Spuke on 9/4/2009 4:25:27 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
With the Volt you will pay the hefty premium but you will not get the luxury.
I didn't know that GM had released the final production specs on the Volt. Care to post some links to the standard equipment and options lists?


RE: Idiots
By Masospaghetti on 9/8/2009 11:56:04 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
fact, it will be as crappy as all the cars in it size (Toyota Corolla


Really? You've driven one? How did you get one so early???

While nobody knows exactly what content the production Volt will have, bet that the standard content is relatively high compared to other compact vehicles...mark my words. This is what automakers traditionally do to help absorb the increased cost of production (see GM's 2-mode trucks, for example)


RE: Idiots
By Pedrom666 on 9/4/2009 3:51:58 PM , Rating: 2
http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/A...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Corvette_C4

That's one hell of a C4 you are talking about! Half the horsepower and none of the styling. Take a look at these links before you talk about quickness.


RE: Idiots
By jonup on 9/4/2009 4:20:17 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I was not talking about quickness. Obviously, you are stuck in 1995 and I will not try to explain to you the concept of handling.
BTW, I hope you do not own a C4, because they are really beautiful to look at.


RE: Idiots
By Pedrom666 on 9/4/2009 4:34:42 PM , Rating: 2
My response was for Callys post about the R8 performance but it took a minute or two to post. I'll take an R8 or R10 any day of the week as I like AWD instead of just doing donuts. No offense is intended.


RE: Idiots
By Noya on 9/4/2009 4:05:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Audi R8 when it came out, which was just a great deal considering it backed up its super car looks and handling with the quickness of a 15 year old c4 corvette


Redneck alert, redneck alert!


RE: Idiots
By Machinegear on 9/4/2009 11:30:23 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
"No one is going to pay a $15,000 premium for a car that competes with a (Toyota) Corolla. So there are not enough idiots who will buy it."


This is America! We will meet your challege Audi man and prevail!!!


RE: Idiots
By Oregonian2 on 9/4/2009 3:23:57 PM , Rating: 1
Once upon a time I drove a Corolla for many years. 0~60 in about five minutes. Wonderful car. not.


RE: Idiots
By Oregonian2 on 9/5/2009 7:21:35 PM , Rating: 1
P.S. - That year I think the engine was rated something like 60-HP. And it had a 3-speed automatic transmission and air conditioning (it was my wife's before we were married, she drove my Honda Accord).


RE: Idiots
By Oregonian2 on 9/11/2009 3:44:53 PM , Rating: 2
I'm really curious why my giving (100% "facts") would get "dinged" a point.

P.S. - Okay, the HP rating really was fifty-something. I exaggerated, but worth a "ding"?


RE: Idiots
By wired00 on 9/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: Idiots
By Tsuwamono on 9/6/2009 9:36:22 PM , Rating: 5
poorly constructed? have you even looked at an F150 in the past 20 years?


RE: Idiots
By Masospaghetti on 9/8/2009 12:00:27 PM , Rating: 2
or maybe it was the best selling vehicle because it is a versatile, well built truck that caters to a wide variety of people and gets fuel economy similar to many smaller trucks.

Have you tried carrying lumber or engine blocks in your Prius? How about towing a boat?


RE: Idiots
By wired00 on 9/10/2009 12:36:13 AM , Rating: 2
hey but more to the point is how often do you use that utility/towing capacity etc? Maybe YOU specifically do but you can't tell me that all the people in the US making it the "best selling car" are using that 5.x litre+ engine, all its towing potential and the swimming pool sized utility space in the back on a daily basis?

I think 99% of those people are sitting in traffic everyday driving to work/shops and back ;)


RE: Idiots
By Spuke on 9/11/2009 12:33:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
hey but more to the point is how often do you use that utility/towing capacity etc?
The question goes both ways. How often do you use the two back seats of your sedan or your trunk? Just because your car may be smaller doesn't automatically make it more efficient or useful. Maybe you should consider buying a two seater with a small trunk and renting the sedan or hatchback when you need to carry groceries or people.


RE: Idiots
By walk2k on 9/4/2009 12:27:14 PM , Rating: 1
Idiots are probably GM's largest customer base anyway. How else did they manage to stay in business for the last 30 years? (Oops, 29)


RE: Idiots
By Nfarce on 9/4/2009 12:45:57 PM , Rating: 4
Idiots like me who bought their SUVs and trucks. But, idiots like me also bought their cars in the 80s and 90s, and then woke up and started buying foreign in the 00s. I refuse to buy another GM vehicle (or any other for that matter) so long as the current administration has them by the short hairs and turns controllership over to unions, effectively taking one big massive dump on the bond and stock holders.


RE: Idiots
By MadMan007 on 9/4/2009 1:47:11 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah they totally should have allowed the companies to go in to Chapter 11 outright, that would have been great for the bond and shareholders.


RE: Idiots
By TomZ on 9/4/2009 2:08:30 PM , Rating: 2
AFAIK, the bondholders had secured debt, which means that in the event of failure, the assets of the company would be sold to pay back the loan. And as we know, Obama and his socialist friends pretty much wiped out those loans, and not only that, but Obama also personally chastized the bondholders who were so bold as to demand what they were deserved!

The shareholders would have been wiped out in any case.


RE: Idiots
By walk2k on 9/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: Idiots
By TomZ on 9/4/2009 2:53:06 PM , Rating: 4
No, but they do seem to be forcing them to make "green" junk now that they control the purse strings.


RE: Idiots
By Oregonian2 on 9/4/2009 3:30:02 PM , Rating: 2
GM did go into Chapter 11 "outright".

There simply are aspects of Chapter 11 laws that were used that people didn't know about.

Although of doubtful usefulness, the GM that went into Chapter 11 still exists as far as I know ("old GM", not the "new GM" to whom assets were sold/transferred to under Chapter 11 rules). It still can theoretically be sued for recovery of monies. Even if it doesn't have any. :-)


RE: Idiots
By Ebbyman on 9/4/2009 4:07:16 PM , Rating: 4
I work in the field of debt restructuring. Basically there is Chapter 7 (Liquidation) and Chapter 11 (Protection from Creditors/Reorganization). Without going into details, in the end of the day, it is up to the judge to decide what is in the best interest for the stakeholders (different than shareholders, but could include them). In theory, the secured lenders will have a claim on the assets that were granted at the deal's inception. This is not always all the assets. However, some times even if assets are pledged, such as receivables, they don't necessarily go to the lenders. The judge may grant a claim for a junior creditor, such as a supplier to keep the company viable as suppliers may not supply anymore if they lose money.

Recovery is not always cash, but can be new debt (a discount from original debt), equity, proceeds from assets sale, etc and a combination of all the preceeding. Very complicated stuff.

Equity holders are usually wiped out. However, not in all cases, especially for smaller companies where management might get incentive stock to keep running the business and not to jump ship. Now someone will want to say "hey management f&*ked up the company, why do they get equity in the first place". Well that is complicated too. Sometimes existing management knows the business too well to have a whole new team come in and run things. Sometimes, in the case of media, the decline in industry fundamentals is unprecedented and completely out of historical ranges. So a company that acquired another with leverage at the peak, can be given some slack and it is still in the debt holders (new owners now) best interest to keep management in place.

The whole Obama deal was just an argument for what was the best structure as a whole for GM and the stakeholders, including the government support etc. As I mentioned earlier, it is really complicated and the press does not always capture everything that really goes on behind the scenes.


RE: Idiots
By 91TTZ on 9/5/2009 8:25:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah they totally should have allowed the companies to go in to Chapter 11 outright, that would have been great for the bond and shareholders.


Maybe I'm missing something in your post, but the shareholders were in fact screwed. A new company was formed and the old shares aren't related to the new company in any way.


RE: Idiots
By paperfist on 9/6/2009 1:48:23 AM , Rating: 4
What's wrong with a GM product? From the sounds of it other vehicle manufacturers make superior 'bullet proof' products for an incredibly low price...

Idiots are the ones who buy vehicles based on perception. The perception that since it's foreign it is superior in every way.


RE: Idiots
By ajoyner on 9/4/2009 5:07:01 PM , Rating: 2
The average cost of an Audi is in the $35k range. I can then draw the same conclusion about people who buy an Audi; they are idiots.


Volt is for Idiots
By Ristogod on 9/4/2009 11:38:16 AM , Rating: 4
I'd have more respect for him if he didn't back pedal. Because the Volt is for idiots. It's essentially a vehicle that the market isn't creating a demand for. The government is artificially creating and forcing the demand. Once again wrongly allocating resources into unproven and costly ideas and technologies. Just by the fact that it can't compete in price with similar type vehicles from it's competitors insures its fate in a free market. However, despite how poorly it will sell, the government will insure its success at the cost of the tax payer's wallet, furthering its efforts into driving this country into ruin.




RE: Volt is for Idiots
By TomZ on 9/4/2009 11:44:43 AM , Rating: 3
That's right...the taxpayer is going to subsidize $7500 of the cost IIRC.

The Volt is kind of cool from a technical perspective, but it looks like a failure from the business side.


RE: Volt is for Idiots
By Spuke on 9/4/2009 12:09:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The Volt is kind of cool from a technical perspective, but it looks like a failure from the business side.
If everyone's that signed up to buy one does so then it won't be a business failure. I do think it's premature but you could look at the Volt as GM's version of the Enzo. A niche, exotic vehicle meant to show technical and engineering prowess. Not necessarily a mass production car. Considering the potential production numbers, GM is definitely not going mass production.


RE: Volt is for Idiots
By TomZ on 9/4/2009 12:21:01 PM , Rating: 3
No, it's a business failure because they'll never get return on investment pumping out the Volt in small numbers. And also because it relies on tax incentives to make it more affordable for many customers.


RE: Volt is for Idiots
By Spuke on 9/4/2009 12:44:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, it's a business failure because they'll never get return on investment pumping out the Volt in small numbers.
Can you provide some figures on how much GM spent on development of the Volt? Also, do you know the profit margin on the Volt? Or maybe take a guess? Ferrari doesn't make much money on the Enzo (if at all) but it bolsters their image and brings in people to buy F430's. I don't see why that's not a problem with Ferrari but it's a big mistake with GM.


RE: Volt is for Idiots
By TomZ on 9/4/2009 12:59:48 PM , Rating: 3
It was in development for years, plus tooling up a new model, probably in the billions.

But the actual investment is irrelevant, since GM is expected to lose money on each Volt sold, even at the higher $40K selling price.

I would guess they never break-even, ever, on the Volt.

Sure, there's probably some marketing benefit, but does GM having the Volt make people want to buy their other models? I doubt it.


RE: Volt is for Idiots
By Spuke on 9/4/2009 1:39:55 PM , Rating: 2
Found an article that says it will be at least $750 million before all is said and done with most of the money going to battery research. It seems the reason for making this investment is to be ahead of the curve in EV development. They're really banking on EV's being the future.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/04/autos/bailout_hybr...


RE: Volt is for Idiots
By TomZ on 9/4/2009 1:41:38 PM , Rating: 2
Seems like a bad bet, if you ask me. More likely, hybrids are the future.


RE: Volt is for Idiots
By Spuke on 9/4/2009 1:57:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Seems like a bad bet, if you ask me. More likely, hybrids are the future.
The good thing is that GM can use the powertrain in other vehicles to recoup some costs. It won't be a total loss and may be successful in another car.


RE: Volt is for Idiots
By Oregonian2 on 9/4/2009 3:43:36 PM , Rating: 2
Well, if one doesn't plug-in the Volt, what one has is a (serial) hybrid. Just what you want.

The Volt, IMO, isn't so much a product per-se, and the expected volume is a sign of that. I think it's a development vehicle intended to experiment with the technology on a relatively large scale to learn what works and what doesn't on a scale small enough not to cost too much. Call it a public-beta sort of test, looking for feedback on that scale of user-count.

Long term "hybrids" aren't the answer -- they still are gasoline powered cars. Volt is one too, but it can more directly evolve into a longer term solution. And it's possible that "long term" could come sooner than one expects of things "go wrong" in the world.


RE: Volt is for Idiots
By paperfist on 9/6/2009 1:51:44 AM , Rating: 2
Why not, people buy Intel or AMD lines based on who has the current 'fastest' chip.

People will buy Asus boards in the line if 1 or 2 scored really high.


RE: Volt is for Idiots
By thurston on 9/5/2009 6:36:39 PM , Rating: 4
Here are quotes from 2 previous posts you made.

In the first quote you are talking about Obama and the reds forcing GM to build the Volt.

quote:
No, but they do seem to be forcing them to make "green" junk now that they control the purse strings.


In this second quote you state the Volt has been in development for years.

quote:
It was in development for years,


So which is it? Is Obama forcing GM to make the Volt or has it been in planning for years? You can't have it both ways.


RE: Volt is for Idiots
By Yawgm0th on 9/4/2009 2:12:04 PM , Rating: 4
I disagree.

The Volt has a clear market: Upper-middle class environmentalists. There are enough of them to make a profit until the technology is more reasonably priced.

Also, environmentalists with any sense of style. I wouldn't be caught dead owning a Prius. I don't care if I single-handedly raise the global temperature by 30%. It's such a tiny, ugly, snobby car. The Volt isn't so bad.

Finally, there is also the market for upper-middle class lazy people. Lazy is an exaggeration, but people who drive a lot also fill up a lot. It's a pain. I drive 300 miles just for my normal commute, and I have to go to remote sites all the time, so it averages to more like 500 miles/week I'd rather not have to fill up every 5 or 6 days -- especially in the dead of Minnesotan winter. Of course, I would never pay a $750/month car payment to avoid this, so I can pass on the Volt for now.

Plug-in hybrids have to start somewhere, and the Volt isn't that bad of a start, all things considered. It's an investment that could pay off in a few years. Imagine a $30,000 Volt with even better mileage and a better battery. That would be a successful car, and GM would make money. RoI on the Volt's R&D will be there; just give it five years.

The only people who are idiotic for buying it are the ones who somehow think they're saving money.


RE: Volt is for Idiots
By jonup on 9/4/2009 4:12:15 PM , Rating: 3
The Prius just like every purposely built Hybrid is as ugly as death; but it is not tiny. A friend of mine has one and it is more spacious than my station wagon.
I drive a lot just like you and I hate filling up. But I do not think the EV is right for Minnesotan winter. EVs might be OK for southern states but in the cold the battery will have a degraded performance. Just get a European diesel and start fueling once a week.


RE: Volt is for Idiots
By Yawgm0th on 9/4/2009 8:41:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Prius just like every purposely built Hybrid is as ugly as death
I don't think the Volt or the Ford Fusion are ugly as death -- certainly not as ugly as the Prius.

quote:
EVs might be OK for southern states but in the cold the battery will have a degraded performance.
Really? I wasn't under the impression that low temperatures hurt the performance of EVs.

quote:
Just get a European diesel and start fueling once a week.
That is what smart drivers here are doing. Diesel mileage is great, especially with all the highway driving.


RE: Volt is for Idiots
By jonup on 9/4/2009 10:03:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't think the Volt or the Ford Fusion are ugly as death -- certainly not as ugly as the Prius.

The Fusion is not a purposely build hybrid. It is just version of a gasoline model. I agree that the Volt looks better than the Prius but the rear half doesn’t feel right. It's got a "hybrid feel to it".
quote:
Really? I wasn't under the impression that low temperatures hurt the performance of EVs.

Here is where I am coming from. First, I have noticed that if you leave a battery out in the cold, the cold sucks out the living hell out of it. It can be explained by kinetic energy bs. Your car starts harder in the cold, if you leave you laptop overnight in the car in the winter the battery is dead. (I understand that if you warm it up the charge comes back).
Second, you know when it gets in the single digits; it takes a minute for the car to warm up. I have a 3.8L in my car and it takes like 5 minutes to get the heat to work. In the Volt, if the gas engine is not working you will need to get the energy from the batteries to heat up the passenger compartment. If it uses the conventional engine to heat up the car, the small engine does not generate as much heat as a big one. Therefore, it will take even longer than 5 min for the heat to come out. And you know how much you want that heat to come out right away.
I hope it makes sense. I suck in writting.


He is not totally wrong.
By Amiga500 on 9/4/2009 11:20:46 AM , Rating: 1
Diesel is the way to go.

Diesel-Electric is the hybrid way to go.

But he would be safer having a go at the people* offering consumers the bad choices, rather than the consumers from picking the best of a bad lot.

*Including his own people!




RE: He is not totally wrong.
By drmo on 9/4/2009 11:30:31 AM , Rating: 3
But couldn't GM just put a diesel engine (instead of gas) in the Volt. They already have talked about the design allowing them to replace the gas engine with a fuel cell.


RE: He is not totally wrong.
By GreenEnvt on 9/4/2009 11:38:17 AM , Rating: 4
Yep, the beauty of the system is it really doesn't matter what type of electrical source you have. It comes with a gas engine, but you could swap it out with a diesel, fuel cell, hydrogen ICE, solar panels, or even a mini nuclear reactor.
The car doesn't care what is generating the electricity, as long as it fits under the hood.


RE: He is not totally wrong.
By mars2k on 9/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: He is not totally wrong.
By OoklaTheMok on 9/4/2009 12:41:47 PM , Rating: 1
I frankly would like to see a small gas turbine engine used to generate the electricity within an EV. It is so much more efficient than a combustion engine for generating electricity. It's not new technology, so the investment cost would be minimized. And the makers could probably opt for a smaller battery pack and run the electric motor primarily off of the turbine produced electricity and use the battery pack in cases where it makes sense to shutdown the turbine for fuel consumption, such as sitting in traffic and short range low speed operation.


RE: He is not totally wrong.
By bildan on 9/4/2009 2:30:12 PM , Rating: 2
Small gas turbines are horribly inefficient using 3 to 6 times as many pounds of fuel per HP/Hr (Specific fuel consumption, SFC) as a diesel.

In the world of fossil fuel engines, diesels are by far the most efficient - small turbines are the least efficient.

Gas turbine efficiency increases with size. In the world of aircraft, it's only when thrust reaches 100,000 pounds that the turbine has the same SFC as a piston/propeller propulsion system. However, turbines can do things pistons can't and they're more reliable.


RE: He is not totally wrong.
By TSS on 9/5/2009 7:57:10 AM , Rating: 2
Heh...

Put a mini coal plant under the hood and then go brag that your getting cheap fuel and "saving the enviroment" :P


RE: He is not totally wrong.
By Amiga500 on 9/4/2009 12:07:43 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on whether they are smart enough to do it, as well as:

on whether the engine bay can handle the larger unit...

on whether the car can take the change in weight distribution...

etc etc.

More than a few things to consider when putting a different lump in the car. :-)


RE: He is not totally wrong.
By drmo on 9/4/2009 1:50:05 PM , Rating: 2
But I think it was designed with all of that in mind...


RE: He is not totally wrong.
By Spuke on 9/4/2009 1:58:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
More than a few things to consider when putting a different lump in the car. :-)
GM doesn't have to use this particular car to use different configurations of this powertrain.


RE: He is not totally wrong.
By jonup on 9/4/2009 4:31:27 PM , Rating: 2
Well over a year ago I met a guy who had patented a diesel-hybrid engine. Both motors were in one unit. We both live in Detroit area. Irronically, none of the big three were interested in his invention.


RE: He is not totally wrong.
By bildan on 9/4/2009 11:41:31 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think he's totally wrong either.

All the car guys are suffering high anxiety and fighting each other over partial solutions. No strategy has yet proven to be completely practical.

I want to see a Volt road test conducted after 100 miles of driving - I'm betting it's a pumpkin with a depleted battery.

The Volt would be more flexible and practical if the IC genset could be removed and re-installed by the owner. The genset would only be needed on longer trips. Without the weight of the IC/generator, the Volt would be a better urban electric - especially if the space could be used for extra batteries.

Somebody needs to be working on an ultra light, ultra small diesel generator set that can be added to any electric car.


RE: He is not totally wrong.
By JediJeb on 9/4/2009 1:58:32 PM , Rating: 2
Is anyone even experimenting with a Diesel Turbine engine? As mentioned above turbines are very efficient for making electricity, you don't even have to have an output shaft since the rotor can be made into the turbine and the stator can be the outter housing, thus the only friction loss is in the bearing surface for the inner rotor. You would probably have to start the engine on something more volatile, but once up to temp the diesel would give more energy per pound. You could also use lighter materials to make the engine since you would not need to allow for the high compression of a diesel piston engine.

Light, efficient, powerful, that's why they use turbines in helicopters instead of piston engines. Maintainence might be a problem but if you only have to disconnect a fuel line, power output cable and control wireing it should be easy to just swap them out if needed.


RE: He is not totally wrong.
By thurston on 9/5/2009 6:49:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I want to see a Volt road test conducted after 100 miles of driving - I'm betting it's a pumpkin with a depleted battery.


No shit, Sherlock.


By transamdude95 on 9/4/2009 11:55:47 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed with the first two statements. Diesel is certainly the way the US should be going (actually, we should be there already - flip the tax structures and incentives between diesel/gas!!!). A diesel/electric hybrid (with a system similar to the Volt) would be ideal, IMO. This would be a viable format well into the days when electric vehicles and power storage are much more advanced.


foot->mouth
By xprojected on 9/4/2009 11:29:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

He complains, "[Audis are] for the intellectual elite who want to show what enlightened souls they are."


Fixed that for you, Mr. Nysschen.




RE: foot->mouth
By Machinegear on 9/4/2009 11:41:56 AM , Rating: 2
Odd. I never thought of Audi's as having a 'smart' image. I have owned two of them and usually on-lookers don't know what the hell they are [Mid West]. Maybe my experience is unique. However all the folks I know view hybrids and electric vehicles with suspect; always wondering if the owner is one of 'those' stuck-up hippie know-it-alls. Usually, a quick look at the car's rear bumper for stickers can confirm one way or the other.


RE: foot->mouth
By transamdude95 on 9/4/2009 11:57:35 AM , Rating: 2
...or watch to see if they whiff their own gas!


RE: foot->mouth
By xprojected on 9/4/2009 11:57:53 AM , Rating: 2
Well, there's no bumper-sticker hybrid smugness with Audis, for sure, but Audi derisively calling another car for the "elite" is very much pot-calling-kettle-black. And since they're betting on diesel, they can take the chance of ragging on EV/hybrids in general (although there have been talks of an Audi Q7 Hybrid appearing in a year or two).


RE: foot->mouth
By xprojected on 9/4/2009 11:58:43 AM , Rating: 2
correction, Q5 not Q7.


RE: foot->mouth
By imoholo on 9/4/2009 12:04:44 PM , Rating: 2
My ordered audi A3 sportback 2.0 TDI is coming in next week.

I ordered it cause it does not only look good (subjective though) but has excellent qualitys.

Average diesel use: 5.1 l/100km (highway: 4.3)
0-100 km: 9.6 sec
Torque (Nm/omw./min.) 320 / 1750-2500
Lots of interior space.
No alien like interior like most new cars, just german practical decency.
Check up every 30.000 km.

One can argue that everyone has different needs in a car, but after lots of research this audi was better on most domains then his close rivals, and the price was almost the same. Cheaper then BMW and about 800 euro more expensive then VW, renault, honda and other brands. (Belgium, i do not know the usa situation).

I can't see any connection between intellectual - elite - enlighted about audi, other then that it could be a logical choice for many people.

The slighty more expensive image here is mostly due to advertizing and people with a lack of negotiating skills at the buy itself.


RE: foot->mouth
By Nfarce on 9/4/2009 12:40:10 PM , Rating: 2
Good for you. Everyone I know who has owned an Audi recently has gotten rid of it due to theirs spending at least as much time in the dealer garages as in their own garages (A4s and A6s). Most went BMW or Mercedes and wished they had all along.


RE: foot->mouth
By exanimas on 9/4/2009 2:19:54 PM , Rating: 2
It's all subjective my friend. I had a Mercedes and got rid of it within a year because of the amount of repairs it needed. I've had my Audi for over a year (it's a 2005) and the car has been fantastic. Never needed a major repair of any type. Most of my friends who have newer Audis haven't had any problems with them either, but the older ones do seem to be plagued by electrical issues.


RE: foot->mouth
By exanimas on 9/8/2009 5:55:47 PM , Rating: 2
Haha, I should be putting my foot in my mouth right now. I just had to drop my car off at the dealership to get both my driver's side and passenger side window regulators replaced. Would have probably cost me about $600 total if I didn't have a warranty. I knew I should've knocked on wood after that post. :*-(


RE: foot->mouth
By superflex on 9/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: foot->mouth
By Andrwken on 9/5/2009 5:46:49 PM , Rating: 3
Funny, if I had that many parts replaced in my GM vehicle at 60000 I would have traded it in. Good thing I didn't have that many mechanical defects yet at 120,000.

Rock solid would not be 3 major components of the motor at 60000 that would have left your ass on the side of the road.


RE: foot->mouth
By paperfist on 9/6/2009 9:43:28 AM , Rating: 1
Geez you spent 2x more on your '04 vehicle then I did on my GM truck, you can't haul anything, and I've never had to bring my into the shop with 92k on it. Sure you can kick my ass 0-60 though :P

Sorry you wasted all your money ;)


RE: foot->mouth
By wired00 on 9/6/2009 9:13:21 PM , Rating: 3
so how much petrol does your truck use?


RE: foot->mouth
By Spuke on 9/4/2009 12:39:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The slighty more expensive image here is mostly due to advertizing and people with a lack of negotiating skills at the buy itself.
The expensive image of Audi is because the cars are expensive. The cheapest Audi in the US is the A3 and starts at $27k. And since no one buys base cars in the US (nor will you find a base car on a dealer lot), you can figure at least $30k for a decently equipped model.

That said, the average price of a new car in the US is $28k so the A3 is affordable for most buyers. But most US consumers would not buy the "cheapest" model of a luxury brand hence the reason why Audi sells 8 times more A4's than A3's. And why BMW sells 10 times more 3ers than 1ers. And Porsche sells twice as many 911's than Boxster/Cayman's.


By aguilpa1 on 9/4/2009 12:23:59 PM , Rating: 1
It is so easy to call people stupid or idiots when they build something that competes with your product but you do not have an affordable alternative to prove your point. Build a sub 15,000 vehicle that is a diesel power hybrid and prove your point. That goes for all motor companies that plan to release hybrids and can do nothing but bad mouth each other. I don't care whose car it is. Just make it efficient, low energy cost and affordable.




By Spuke on 9/4/2009 12:54:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Just make it efficient, low energy cost and affordable.
There are already cars that meet that definition. You could get a low mileage (less than 30k), easy and cheap to maintain, used 2003-2005 Honda Civic for about $7k that gets a combined 30 to 34 mpg (depends on the model). You could probably save up that $7k and buy the car with cash (less debt).


By gstrickler on 9/4/2009 2:13:25 PM , Rating: 3
He didn't say $15,000 alternative, he said "$15,000 premium", Since the Volt is around $40k, that means a $25,000 car. Let's take a look, what hybrids are available for $25k? The Toyota Prius, the Honda Civic Hybrid, the Honda Insight, and Chevy Malibu Hybrid. If you extend it up to $30k, you can add another 10 models, and another 4 between $30k-$40k.

Compared to the Prius, the only advantage of the Volt is that the Volt is a plug-in hybrid. The Volt has about a 40mi range on battery only. The current cost per mile of electricity to charge and run the volt is about 60% of the gas cost per mile for the Prius or Volt, so it's not that much cheaper to run, even if you drive fewer than 40mi per day (battery only).

The Prius and Volt both have MPG advantages over the others, but not enough to make up for the difference in the purchase price premium for the Volt.

There are at least 14 hybrids that compete with the Volt that are at least $10k less expensive, go buy one. Many of those have proven reliability records also. The Volt is entering a crowded market at a higher price than it's competitors, in some cases, significantly higher. Tough road ahead for the Volt.


By Masospaghetti on 9/8/2009 12:12:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The current cost per mile of electricity to charge and run the volt is about 60% of the gas cost per mile for the Prius or Volt,


This is only true if 1) gas prices remain low (which is very unlikely given the current economic climate) and 2) you recharge the Volt during peak hours.

I don't know what off-peak rates are on average, but they are definitely significantly lower than the regular rates (which, in my area is $0.078 per KWH) - and the Volt takes approximately 20 KWH's to recharge, so figure $1.60 to recharge at peak rates. GM has quoted $0.87 to recharge during off-peak hours, which, for 40 miles, is pretty cheap.


By gstrickler on 9/9/2009 7:56:53 PM , Rating: 2
Most residential customers don't get off-peak rates yet because they don't have meters that can track it. However, that doesn't matter, see last paragraph.

Your comparison also assumes that electricity prices will increase more slowly than gasoline prices. That's not a valid assumption. 8-9 months ago, electricity prices here were 50% higher and gasoline prices were 35% lower than they are currently, making gasoline less expensive per mile than the electricity to recharge the Volt. They vary at different rates.

Regardless, the battery on the Volt is estimated to last 150,000 miles before you have to replace it. If gas were $5.00/gal ($0.10/mi on the Prius or the Volt after the 40mi battery range), you would spend $15,000 on gasoline for the Prius. Since the Prius is $18,000 less than the Volt, even if gasoline doubles in price and electricity were free and you never use gasoline in the Volt, the Volt still costs more than you could save in energy costs.


By invidious on 9/4/2009 5:36:27 PM , Rating: 2
You know what else is easy? Critizing people when you don't listen to what they say. He didn't call Chevy idiots, he called their customers idiots. None of your points apply.


I like the idea of EV .. kinda
By dblind1 on 9/4/2009 11:47:15 AM , Rating: 2
I like the idea of EVs. Torque is great from an electric motor (correctly sized). My only gripe is the lack of range as there is no chance in hell that Mississippi would get the infrastructure for quick charge stations. Keep the small engines attached for on the fly recharging. Also, you can help the grid problem by offering an optional solar recharging station for your house. Put that in your car loan and now you have a 'free commute' for those that live a short distance from work or who 'idle' a lot in traffic during the commute. That would make it a win/win and also make it a smart option!




RE: I like the idea of EV .. kinda
By Spuke on 9/4/2009 12:11:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Also, you can help the grid problem by offering an optional solar recharging station for your house.
Yes, lets add another $10k plus for a solar recharging station onto the already expensive $40k car loan.


RE: I like the idea of EV .. kinda
By drmo on 9/4/2009 4:54:59 PM , Rating: 2
With more taxpayer-funded, government rebates, it could be smarter for the individual, if it is house and grid connected. Not saying the government should do that. But in areas with high electricity cost and high insolation, with all of the rebates, you will be paying less money per month, because the loan will cost less than what you would normally pay in electricity.

http://www.heritagesolar.com/solarcalculator.htm


RE: I like the idea of EV .. kinda
By walk2k on 9/4/2009 7:36:18 PM , Rating: 2
I like EV, but not rechargeable batteries. Too heavy, range is too short, and take too long to recharge. Not to mention the environmental concerns with all the heavy metals used to make them.

Hydrogen fuel cell is where it's at. Longer range, refuel in 2 minutes, and the infastructure is basically already in place, just convert gas stations to hydrogen stations.


somewhat true
By evmdfan on 9/4/2009 12:10:52 PM , Rating: 2
Whether or not the idiot comment is unwarranted, it is true that the Volt and every other Electric Vehicle available, or soon to be available, is simply too expensive. The only affordable electric cars are home-built D.I.Y. cars, which is good, but for electric cars to really make positive affects on our economy, environment, and community, we need mass-produce readily available electric cars which are AFFORDABLE. To learn more about electric cars, their benefits, their history, how they compare to other modes of transportation, their problems, and how they could be implemented, I highly suggest the book "Two Cents Per Mile" by Nevres Cefo ( http://www.twocentspermile.com or to read excerpts and reviews check out http://bit.ly/2centspermile )




RE: somewhat true
By Spuke on 9/4/2009 12:14:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only affordable electric cars are home-built D.I.Y. cars
Aren't the decent range DIY kits over $10k?


RE: somewhat true
By fatedtodie on 9/4/2009 1:06:46 PM , Rating: 1
10k < 40K Just in case you missed that part.


RE: somewhat true
By Spuke on 9/4/2009 1:44:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
10k < 40K Just in case you missed that part.
$10k buys you an EV conversion kit. That $40k buys you an ENTIRE car that seats 4 or 5 plus luggage or groceries in air conditioned comfort and passes emissions and safety regs. Does the $10k kit do that?


RE: somewhat true
By JediJeb on 9/4/2009 2:15:08 PM , Rating: 2
About the only thing missing is the A/C if you use the kit to convert the vehicle. I have been looking into it for my old 88 Ranger that now has a dead engine. $10k or less for a professional kit or even less if I can source the parts myself. Since the Ranger has been paid for for 15 years now that is of no expense, and for something to make the 5 mile trip into town instead of warming up my F150( or actually taking a trip that will be over before it warms up) it would be great. It would be more of a hobby project for me but there are many making daily drivers this way.


If the power grid
By HostileEffect on 9/4/2009 11:32:26 AM , Rating: 5
If the power grid can't support the vehicles then there is a market for more power.




RE: If the power grid
By Oregonian2 on 9/4/2009 3:54:05 PM , Rating: 2
It's a GM stimulus bill!


JOURNALISM?
By JonnyDough on 9/4/2009 4:20:13 PM , Rating: 2
Mick, you do have a degree in journalism right? I mean if you're going to make claims that someone said something without proof/a source as though they are truth for a general audience then I really hope you do have one.




RE: JOURNALISM?
By wise2u on 9/4/2009 7:18:20 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe you should do the same and present your specific proof/sources backing up your allegation that Mick is publishing false information. Your post strikes me as very troll-like.

I've been reading Mick's stuff for quite a while and I don't dispute that he can be a little sloppy and given to sensationalism at times, but not significantly more so than any other new source.

Mick-bashing, much like idiot-bashing, should be done responsibly while mindful of the consequences.

I am more concerned about the previously posted argument that "the electical grid isn't ready for electric cars". I see this argument posted on a regular basis here.

I would argue that large portions of the US fleet are *not* going to suddenly be replaced by electric cars thereby causing your ice cream machine to run out of power. They will be a very gradual addition to the demands on the power grid allowing time for improvement, and may even be offset by the general introduction of energy efficient devices that are simultaneously being introduced.

Or am I just another troll-feeding idiot?


RE: JOURNALISM?
By RivuxGamma on 9/8/2009 9:11:22 PM , Rating: 2
You're only an idiot if you're getting a Volt, apparently.


Meet the new GM, same as the old GM
By mars2112 on 9/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: Meet the new GM, same as the old GM
By Spuke on 9/4/2009 1:50:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
During the "Cash for Clunkers" fiasco, GM sales decreased.
Actually, August was GM's highest sales all year and was up 30% from the month before (July). Still down 20% overall from last August (2008) though.


By Oregonian2 on 9/4/2009 3:57:00 PM , Rating: 2
Also, although sales would appear to be small due to the reported dropping of sales, the actual volume of sales for GM is pretty high, higher than most all other companies if not all others. Just not as much as they had a year earlier.


What you think and what you say
By Sulphademus on 9/4/2009 1:28:37 PM , Rating: 2
While he may be right that few will pay a $15000 premium for such a car the real issue making such statements when youre in a high ranking and visible position. Its alot like no too long ago when Obama said the CT cops acted stupidly in the incident with that Harvard prof.

Obama should have said "I have my reservations about this particular incident but we dont know everything yet and I will take action later if I see fit."
Nysschen should have said "I think it would be dumb to pay that much for a car with these capabilities and I doubt many people will."

The Pres might think that the cops were stupid, this Audi guy might think that anyone paying that much for a Volt is an idiot but people in these roles need to censor themselves and be very cautious in what they say.




By Oregonian2 on 9/4/2009 3:59:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think it would be dumb to pay that much for a car with these capabilities and I doubt many people will.


I recall GM's VOLT sales expectations are very modest, so GM agrees with at least the second half of that statement.


Bad businessman
By Griswold on 9/5/2009 3:38:48 AM , Rating: 2
This man certainly does not know alot about selling products. As we all know, there is an idiot born every minute. The correct answer would thus be: build more cars for idiots!

Looks like chevy is right on the money for the first time in decades!




RE: Bad businessman
By wired00 on 9/6/2009 9:16:44 PM , Rating: 2
haha


After the Chevy Volt
By CaptainIdiot on 9/8/2009 11:45:37 PM , Rating: 2
I'm waiting for them to release the Chevy Dolt........




RE: After the Chevy Volt
By Dorkyman on 9/9/2009 2:38:30 PM , Rating: 2
Or the new Chevy Colt. It has a harness built into the front bumper so you can use a horse to pull you after the battery is depleted.


insulting potential buyers
By MrUniq on 9/4/2009 11:09:01 AM , Rating: 2
It is possible that he stepped back because the same people who would consider a Volt purchase are some of Audi's own potential customers.




Totally impractical
By Beenthere on 9/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: Totally impractical
By thurston on 9/5/2009 7:04:03 PM , Rating: 2
Actually according to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_metropo...

quote:
As of July 2008, 83.6 % of the population of the United States lives in a Metropolitan area.[


Grid
By jatkinsaut on 9/4/2009 4:26:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He says that EVs may be viable in the long term, but that among other things, the current grid can't support them.


This is incorrect. Electric cars can charge at night, when the grid is not operating near full capacity. Time sensitive electric rates would insure that this solution is implemented.




Word
By FITCamaro on 9/5/2009 7:11:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
He complains, "[Pure EVs are] for the intellectual elite who want to show what enlightened souls they are."


Agree completely.




Dirtier Diesel?
By Starcub on 9/5/2009 9:11:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
He said that diesel was the smart way to go, though to address one driving problem -- that diesel fuel quality in the U.S. is much lower than that in Europe.

I thought the new US standards for low sulfur deisel made US deisel actually cleaner than what is used in Europe. In any case, it's not that much worse if it is, certainly much cleaner than before. Why would he think it's still a problem?

I think what he was doing was attempting to draw comparisons between lower end vehicles and the Volt in order to paint the Volt as competition for cars other than Audi's, which IMHO you have to be an idiot to pay the inflated prices for ;)




Idiot
By Uncle on 9/5/2009 12:10:12 PM , Rating: 2
My Sig.
Never argue with an Idiot, they will bring you down to their level , then beat you with experience.




Plug-In Prius PHEV
By encia on 9/6/2009 4:04:03 AM , Rating: 2
@Jason Mick

Plug-In Prius PHEV To Debut At Frankfurt Motor Show.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/Toyota-P...




US is backwards
By Dingmatt on 9/8/2009 4:29:03 AM , Rating: 2
Though the car was orignally developed in the US, the rest of the world now just views the US car market/designs as archaic and backwards.

In Europe I think 'BarnDoor Engineering' is the most commonly used phrase to describe an American made car, stupid engine sizes for no gain.




good one
By otispunkmeyer on 9/8/2009 5:08:19 PM , Rating: 2
on reporting half of what the man said. i believe he mentioned how EV's simply move the problem some place else as they get their electricity from the power gird... a power grid which is heavily dependant on coal.

he said they should fix that problem first before EV's begin to make good sense.

talking complete logical sense there.




"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner














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