Slashdot Mirror
Chevrolet Volt In a Gasoline-Only Scenario
s122604 sends in a performance review of the Chevy Volt, paying particular attention to what happens after the initial plug-in capacity has been depleted. This reader adds, "The review indicates that the performance is adequate, and perhaps better than anticipated. If the Volt can deliver technically, especially with the possibility that it could retail for less than expected (WSJ subscription may be required), does GM have a potential hit on its hands?" "How well will General Motors' Chevrolet Volt drive once it gets past its 40 mile all-electric driving range and starts to rely on power generated by its gasoline engine? That's been a question for both critics and fans of the Volt, and with just 11 months to go before this car hits the market, I got the answer."
...that's still too expensive for Joe Shiftworker. Doesn't it just give you a warm fuzzy to see people driving past you in cars that you can't afford to buy because the Government gouged you so hard in order to give your tax money to the people who can afford to buy them?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Of course the driving performance is the exact same. There is only one driving engine, the electric one, and creating power-enough for it is not hard. Now the real question is: What is its fuel-performance when batteries are depleted?
The gasoline engine is pretty small, smaller than needed to fully power the electric engine. You can read in the article that under acceleration it will also use some of the reserve battery power, which it will then recharge when not accelerating. Fuel-performance is a good question: with a pretty small engine it should be pretty efficient but since it is using the battery to improve driving performance it is likely to be driven more aggressively than a normal car with such an engine.
How come all hybrid vehicles comes in the form of Gasoline / Battery ?
How come there is no hybrid vehicle that is in the form of Diesel / Battery ?
Do you know that diesel engines is much more efficient than that of the gasoline engine ?
And if we are really into the "Green" thing, why must we stuck with the gasoline engine ?
Why can't we change to Diesel / Battery instead, for hybrids ?
Can someone who knows much more about this give some comments, please?
Thank you !
... and with just 11 months to go before this car hits the market, I got the answer.
Since when is 11 months a short time until the release of a product? It shouldn't even be being discussed this far out. If it was maybe a month or two until the release, some anticipatory articles would be fine. But this just smells of more bullshit hype or "viral marketing" for the Volt, which has already had previous premature media campaigns.
If you're going to release a product, just release it! Don't crap on about what you plan to release one day.
... and then they built the supercollider.
The classic problem with selling new cars is that the people who can afford to buy them don't care about efficiency. They want a car that will dust whoever's next to them when they take off from a stoplight, and looks/drives sporty and/or like a Cadillac.
Car reporters take this a step farther and don't even care how much the car costs to buy or operate, just how it feels to be behind the wheel. So in the end, cheap cars never get positive press, and efficient cars only get it if they play to the luxury-class tastes of Car and Driver.
(It's never too late to join the Renaissance)
The virtually inevitable future of ground transportation isn't petroleum, since we will indeed eventually run out. However the obstacles are too many for a pure EV to be used as anything but a commuter car. (Namely, EV's are entirely useless for long-haul driving, with the even the longest range vehicles only providing less than 1/4 of that needed for a long haul trip. And no, you can't quick charge without MAJOR upgrades to the infrastructure.)
Doing the lion's share of your driving on batt., charging slowly at home, and still having the gas capacity for a long-range trip is a good compromise, and one that I think will carry us through the next couple of decades of auto development.
SirWired
P.S. I'm surprised at the number of articles that are so impressed that the engine isn't connected to the drive wheels. This is how locomotives have worked for decades, albeit for different reasons.
It'll be interesting to see if this compromise pays off for Chevy. I'm betting that the Leaf will end up being more successful.
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
What is still not clear to me is what is cheaper : "filling" your battery through the gasoline engine or plugging to an electricity socket ? GM doesn't provide clear information about this. Of course it depends on oil and electricity prices, but does anybody have a rough idea ?
If it is cheaper to refill the battery with the gasoline engine, then I suspect that only hard core environmentalists will plug their Volt every night. But if the gasoline engine is more expensive, the Volt could become a hit for all those who normally drive less than 40 miles a day (and who would occasionally use the gasoline engine).
Usually on /. it helps to be able to read articles in order to add some useful commentary. One of the two articles is barely anything more than an advertisement for the Wall Street Journal, embedded into a slashdot story. With all the focus here on things like open-source, accessibility, and a general love-in for ad-Block, I don't understand why we're being spammed with links to pay money and subscribe to an online newspaper.
Suffice it to say, my interest in the actual story has waned since it doesn't seem to be aimed at non-WSJ subscribers like myself.
What we want to know is, what is the mileage when operating on the range extender?
So if you hop in your Volt and head to Grandma's house a few states over, what is the mileage per gallon?
While I like the concept of the Volt, paying $40k for a vehicle the size of a Cobalt/Focus doesn't appeal to me unless its off the grid mileage is better than average as well. I do not want a car just for commuting.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
because the Government gouged you so hard
The problem is, because of currency manipulations, that foreign governments are essentially subsidizing their car companies so that they can export to the USA. Guys in Japan are living literally in shoebox sized cubbyholes with -nothing-, so they can send us made in Japan stuff. Guys in China and South Korea have missed the whole Ford experiment and benefit of unionization, and will never be to afford what they make, and meanwhile, sitting in the banks of China, Japan, and South Korea is hoards of US dollars, accumulated as fast as we can print them, that literally does everyone about as much good as tons of gold sitting in British banks did before Adam Smith said "hey,mercantilism is really stupid."
So basically, the only thing that we can do, because Asia can't let go of its mercantilism, is to cut them off, and force them to create a legitimate economy.
This is my sig.
Maybe I'm just an obnoxious Prius driver, but when the article promised a review of the performance of the Volt in gas-only mode, I was expecting to hear what the equivalent mileage is. As another poster responded, "duh" about the electric motor performance being identical. I'd rather hear about the overall system efficiency in gas mode.
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
Too true -- like the Clash for Clunkers program, this is a redistribution of wealth,
You can't argue the government has no right to redistribute wealth, when, by virtue of grants of monopoly versus patents, copyrights, and the creation of armed forces to protect the property of the wealthy, that they are actually getting the right to redistribute and retain wealth themselves.
This is my sig.
Make the batteries bigger and you still have to have the gas engine for when you visit your cousin 300 miles away.
It's not for longer trips that pure EV's get killed. It's the every Saturday when you have to run to the grocery store, bank, stop by your mother in laws, pick up some stuff at Best Buy, and you drive 150 miles running errands use case. Our leaders never mention this case though, because they actually don't drive for themselves.
This is my sig.
The battery should be cheaper, by far, because its a lot easier to dig coal out of the ground, have one big engine convert it to electricity and ship it over a wire, than it is to build container ships and oil drilling and refining apparatus send you energy that you can convert.
This is my sig.
Learn to speak english, dumbass!
You can read the full WSJ article without subscribing by using the "Email" link at the bottom of the preview. The link you'll get in your mailbox will lead to the full article (this works for all WSJ "subscriber only" articles.)
Its mechanically very simple and robust (which is why its used in railway and shipping applications) but its very inefficient compared to attaching the engine direct to the wheels. I wonder why GM have chosen to do it this way? Cost? To me it rather defeats some of the enviromental benefits of this vehicle as it will probablt use more fuel when in this mode than a normal car.
The problem is its price. Its more then the prius . Yes that will matter. Why get a volt when i can get a prius and an insight for the same price? BY when the volt comes out toyota might have the iq hybrid out also . The volts price will be the real problem. Also the fact that you wont break even when it comes to gas milage and money saving since the car is so expensive.
It was not immediately clear how GM reached the 230 mpg in city driving, but industry officials estimated the automaker's calculation took into consideration the Volt traveling 40 miles on the electric battery and then achieving about 50 mpg when the engine kicked in.
Use your head, can't you, use your head,
You're on earth, there's no cure for that - S. Beckett
With all the focus on electric, the fact that the Volt is also flex-fuel is often overlooked.
And then they turn around and buy US debt with those profits.
The interest of which you service through your income taxes. What happens to slaves when they don't pay their income taxes?
If it wasn't for China and Japan, the US would be bankrupt
How so. Where do dollars come from? What is money? Who defines what money is? It's ridiculous to think of a nation as bankrupt. Money is simply bits of paper representing a claim on real goods. A nation can define it's own currency representing all the wealth that the nation can produce. In America it happens to be defined (for some reason, and to the benefit of some) as debt. Without China and japan exporting to America, products would simply be produced locally instead.
I just posted about this 10 minutes ago:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1506464&cid=30735248
If the US dollar wasn't the reserve currency, China and Japan wouldn't be exporting to the USA. It's great for those on the upper end of the US economy, kind of shitty for those at the bottom.
Deleted
The CNN story is more like an ad than a fact-based article. A few more facts would be helpful - as presented the car is not that impressive.
In Finland, because of a high sales (luxury) tax on cars, cars cost twice as much as they do in the US. On the other hand, because of high income (envy, solidarity) taxes, short work weeks and ample vacation time, the typical middle-class net salaries are significantly lower than in the US.
Despite this, Finland is full of cars because cars are needed to get to places. That is possible because Finnish families live in two-bedroom apartments instead of five-bedroom McMansions.
I agree. Mileage is exactly what I thought the article was about when I read the title. Acceleration? I never thought for a SECOND that there was ANY question about that, as the gas engine is totally decoupled from the drivetrain. What an utterly worthless article.
The Volt is a heavy car for its size. This is good and bad. Good because it probably increases the survivability of the driver during a collision with another car (conservation of momentum, p=mv). Bad because it probably makes the car more difficult to drive in slippery conditions, especially while making turns. An electric car like this also begs the question, how much electrical energy is wasted to heat the interior of the car in the dead of winter while the gasoline engine is turned off? Also, until more of our electricity comes from greener energy sources (wind, nuclear, solar, etc) is this car really better for the environment? The good thing about this car is it means less money going to fund terrorists in foreign lands.
Wow. Only in America will we invest millions into the Engineering and Design of a new hybrid vehicle, which by it's existence alone, has but one primary goal; maximum gas mileage.
And then we go and add a "sport" button to it.
In the immortal words of Dr. Evil, "way to go, A-hole."
General Motors built a very efficient electric car called the EV-1 (approximately 120 miles / 200 kilometres per charge) some years ago but killed it off claiming lack of consumer demand, which in fact was a blatant lie, and destroyed all the vehicles. The entire fleet was lease-only meaning the lessees could not even buy-out the lease instead of returning the car. Talk about a real conspiracy among car manufacturers and oil companies. Most people only need a car for the daily commute to/from work and running errands so the EV-1 would have been perfect. Long-distance road trips could be handled by renting a gasoline-powered or diesel-powered car.
...The good thing about this car is it means less money going to fund terrorists in foreign lands.
I'm curious as to where you find your connections to me buying a "foreign" brand car made in a US plant by US workers has anything to do with funding terrorists?
Since we're on the topic of over-the-top accusations, how about we trace back where all that money REALLY came from to fund Government Motors? Or better yet, go ahead and tell me the OEM sources of the hybrid components in this "American" vehicle.
This is what ticks me off the most about the car. I don't care about the grandiose claims. What I do care is that GM through its connections in the US Government taking money out of my pocket so someone else can buy this car.
They are transferring the efforts of my labor, my training, and such, to someone else because of what? Really? Where in the hell is the justification for this?
Can't wait for someone to declare its a right or for the public good. Whats next? Condemning older cars as urban blight and forcing people to buy what they don't need or want?
Government isn't doing anything but taking from others by force of law and distributing to those who would not have the courage to do so in person. There is nothing about this transfer that benefits the public good, unless your a rich corporation or a public official.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
---
Electric Vehicles Feed @ Feed Distiller
The goal is to give a customer a holistic, 'everyday' experience to the extent possible in a sedan form factor. Sure, mileage/grid energy usage is the big distinguishing feature of this vehicle, but allowing a 'sport' mode that doesn't impact normal usage seems ok (it's not like it's lugging around an extra few, mostly unused cylinders to provide that boost or anything, it's just modifying the way some parameters work). A customer is free to ignore the button entirely. Also, a customer deciding they want to feel a *little* extra acceleration can do so without having to own an explicitly sportier car (though as the article points out, it won't exactly give sports car performance, but for some it may be enough and is presumably trivial to provide).
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
The large battery pack that is supposed to produce that range will weigh over a half ton. And 300 miles still isn't a full day of driving. On a car not shipping yet and with no firm production date. And that is the range fresh out of the factory; for the Roadster, the specs call for the range to drop by nearly a third after 50,000 miles of use.
Swapping batteries at gas stations? Without even hints of a standard for battery packs? Not a chance. Not for a very long time. And not without major upgrades to the electrical infrastructure. (The size of the feed for even a single busy "refueling" station would be mind-boggling.)
Again, the Volt is the car for today. The Tesla products, etc. are cars for 20 years down the road.
SirWired
Petroleum will eventually be depleted to the point where it is no longer an economically viable fuel for everyday transportation.
That better?
SirWired
This a truly revolutionary car in that it requires a subscription to the Wall Street Journal. If your subscription runs out, the car locks the steering wheel and you lose your market savvy.
--- What?
How do they plan to solve the stale gasoline issue when everyone uses 100% electric for months at a time? You know, gas does go bad after about 6 weeks.
What company makes gasoline "fixer"? Are they publicly traded?
Q: How many miles per gallon will the Chevy Volt get?
A: A bit of a trick question. For the first 40 miles it will get infinite mpg, because no gas will be burned. When the generator starts, the car will get an equivalent of up to 50 mpg thereafter. One can calculate the average mpg per for any length drive starting with a full battery: Total MPG = 50xM/(M-40).
If GM is right, then the gasoline-only energy efficiency is not bad at all.
If it's "very inefficient", then how do they get 50 MPG out of a 3500-lb car?
>They are transferring the efforts of my labor, my training, and such, to someone
>else because of what? Really? Where in the hell is the justification for this?
The justification is to foster a revolution in transportation technology, that may result in cleaner, oil-independent vehicles in the long run.
I'd say that was a pretty good justification.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
I'll be buying one. As soon as my local Chevrolet dealer has one on the lot and I can pick one up for around $30,000 or less (after any govt. incentives, obviously). True, I normally wouldn't pay more than $25 for any vehicle, but with the gas-savings it will make up the difference. And the volt beats the heck out of the Plug-in Prius that only goes around 12 miles on battery.
You gave a quote, but never attributed it to any source. I'm curious, where is that quote from? Sounds like something from an economics book of some sort?
They are called buses (PDF)
The General Motors EV1, in 1996-1999, had a range 1.5 to nearly 4 times higher than that.
Right now, even if gasoline-electric or all-electric cars were available, very few people in cities could charge them. Not everyone has a private driveway. I rely on street parking, and sometimes I must park a block away (farther in snowy weather). Even if I had a spot in front of my house, I can't run an electric cord across the sidewalk to my car.
The problem is that a Diesel engine is very heavy and expensive. Most hybrids are made for short trips so it would be a great waste of resources to carry around a heavy engine.
Hybrids are made for the same purposes as every other cars and are driven no differently. I don't know why you think a hybrid is somehow driven any different than a car with just an internal combustion engine. Diesels are fine for even typical commuting distances. It doesn't have to be a 1000 mile journey to get benefits from a diesel.
As for cost, that has FAR more to do with economies of scale than it does any additional material and engineering costs. In Europe the majority of vehicles are diesel and the manufacturers produce diesel engines that are economically competitive with gasoline engines. They are not competitive here in the US because for various reasons only a small percentage of cars use diesel so there are no economies of scale to take advantage of.
Hybrid gasoline engines have a somewhat different cycle (Atkinson cycle) than normal gasoline engines (traditional Otto cycle) and thus are more economical.
That depends on the specific hybrid. Some hybrids use Otto cycle engines because they are tuned more for power than just fuel economy. Not all hybrids are Toyota Prius's. It's an engineering choice. You can tune a hybrid for power or for fuel economy - and there are gains to be made even without maximizing either. There are plenty of potential applications where a diesel would be a better choice in a hybrid vehicle than an Atkinson cycle gas engine. Conversely, sometimes a gasoline engine is the right choice. It's not as simple as you are making it out to be.
where the Diesel engine is often only connected to the generator so it can be in its most efficient revolution speed the whole time and (because of the constant speed) have a very long life.
You do know that the Chevy Volt has the engine only connected to the generator right? Very similar to a locomotive or a ship. The engine only kicks on when the batteries are drained and then only to recharge the batteries. There is NO mechanical linkage between the gas engine and the electric motors that propel the Volt. There is no reason a diesel could not be used instead.
He did answer your question. He stated that, for the target market (Under 40 Mi drivers) that diesel causes loss of efficiency due to weight.
And that would be factually wrong or at least misleading. I've driven plenty of diesels and even for relatively short distances they still beat the fuel economy of most equivalently powered gasoline engines. True, short trips don't maximize the advantages of diesel but the advantages still exist.
FTFA:
The biggest difference between a gas-power versus an electric-power car is that there's no transmission. Electric motors don't need gears or gear shifts.
While the Volt may not have a transmission in the same sense that most gasoline vehicles do, it is not correct to say that "electric motors don't need gears or gear shifts." The author of the article seems to be confusing three terms: gear, gear shift, and transmission. They are 3 different things.
That's because they ARE noisy, smelly and polluting..
Go straight to your local VW or BMW dealer and ask to see their diesels. I have so I know you are quite wrong. Heck VW diesels keep winning the green vehicle awards over the hybrids.
Besides, diesel is more inconvenient as I'd have to hunt to find a station that dispenses it. Not all do and they would be mainly on the big truck transport routes.
Just over half of all filling stations in the US have diesel. It's not even remotely hard to find.
You can't really directly compare the EV1 and the Volt. After all, the EV1 was all-electric (The Wiki page does list a hybrid variant, but I don't think that ever got into production, did it?)
In any case, for an all-electric vehicle, you would *absolutely* need a higher range than for a hybrid design like this. The article that /. linked to in the root post indicates that 40 Miles was chosen as a tradeoff between having *enough* battery for most drivers, while keeping weight and cost down. Time will tell if 40 Miles is the right target, but it does seem reasonable with a car of this sort of design to not put in more battery than most people have a daily use for.
It might be nice, though, to have an 'option' at the time of purchasing the car, to get a larger battery which maybe takes the range up to 60 or 80 mi. If you happen to be someone who has a longer drive than 40 mi. each day, you might wish to get a slightly larger battery. Still, the argument can be made that, let's say you do have to drive 60 mi. every day - at least the first 40 of it will be on battery, so you've reduced your gasoline consumption down to just driving 20 miles on gas - and at approx. 50Mpg while running on gas, that means you're only using a gallon of gas every 2-3 days. Not too shabby.
Well if GM had not bought all the electric cars off of Opel and then destroyed them in the Nevada desert, i think we would have some nicer European electric models here already that could do better than this.
I think they probably got over that in high school.
Blar.
Actually, this sounds about right. After having recently moved from Toronto, I'd have to say that it does in fact take comparatively near forever to get anywhere and get anything done.
By car, it tended to take hours out of my weekend to do a few errands. Usually: go to the grocery store, grab a bite en-route, stop by the hardware store or whatever, and come home. Between the drive there, traffic, store-line-ups, complete shit customer service because they f**cked up your purchase, etc... it was hell.
And by transit... even worse. And just try to actually bring heavily laden bags of groceries or hardware on the subway or streetcar/bus.
If you need to do anything else (say, hit the book store or something speciality) then you're going to be out all day, and there's half your weekend gone. This is not - of course - to even consider the hours of time wasted in transit going to/from work in the average day.
Of course there are those who can afford the $800,000 for a 800sq-ft 2bdrm apartment downtown, in which case they may be close enough to some of the amenities to save time, or at least not have far to get to work. They look at people with an actual vehicle like they're baby-seal clubbers, nevermind how efficient it is, it's a terrible polluter, and as they sip their triple-mocha non-fat whip extra-special venti latte they'll never even consider that perhaps some people actually consider having children and need a bit more space than a downtown studio.
So yeah. People who drive cars are crazy, and people who drive cars and live outside of major metropoluses (metropoli?) are even crazier. Never mind that in a smaller city it too me under an hour to do all the things that in the "big city" it took me three or four, and a fraction of the gas etc. Being able to actually drive at a freeway speed of 110km/h, highways at 80km+/h, or through town at 50km/h on a weekend or when heading to work would be unheard of.
Apparently we're all nuts, but having lived in a few big cities (Toronto/Vancouver) I'd say that I'm happier that way. I may need my car to get around or during shopping/visiting trips to Vancouver, but I make much better use of it than I ever did in the "big city.
My pockets have been picked since I started working to fight useless wars and fund an enormous, expensive and increasingly ineffective military. Not to mention the soaring spending rates on police agencies from local to Federal which reduce my freedoms.
The money being spent on Volt subsidies is nothing compared to handouts to corn farmers. It's a pittance compared to money we just hand over to other nations.
Blar.
Just me, or is this not an obvious application for early BEVs?
150 miles per day. 30mpg, 5 gallons (22l). 1.13GBP per litre: 25GBP per day, 6,000 GBP per year. Add in a London congestion charge of 1,200 GBP per year, and a BEV might even pay for the difference in 2 years. Particularly when the ubiquitous Skoda Octavia minicab costs 15,000 GBP.
Then there's (far) lower maintenance because EVs are far simpler than internal combustion.
Deleted
The volt isn't the car for the times. Its a half ass electric and a half ass economy car.
How often do you do "long haul" trips? How many of those "long haul" trips are over 300 miles? I drive 600 miles to my parents house several times a year, and I could do that driving a Model S with a little planning. Leave in the afternoon, stop for the night or just dinner (fully charges in an hour) and then drive the rest of the way after a meal or after spending the night. You just need to plan your trip a little better.
I'm still waiting for my Model S, but in the mean time I'm driving a 2009 Corolla. The car cost ~$18,000 and gets 35 MPG, my shifting habits decrease that to 32MPG for me; still if cost is any part of the equation the Corolla or Civic are much better cars. Over the lifetime of the car they will cost the owner less than Volt. You can buy a lot of gas for $15,000; you can almost buy a second Corolla/Civic.
To answer your question about the "long haul" the solution is actually the hybrid garage. I'll have my Model S for my daily commute which is 98% of my driving, then for those long trips and vacations I have a Sequoia. If you don't have a second car you can always rent a car for long trips, but the majority of drivers use their car just to commute to work. All of those cars should be pure electric.
Anyway I'm a hybrid hater, if you want people to adopt the new technology how about making it better than what we have now. Either increase the performance of the car or decrease the cost. The new hybrid cars aren't cost efficient and have reduced performance compared to either a pure electric or a pure combustion engine. I can't think of a single reason to buy a hybrid over Corolla or Civic, a difference of 5-15 MPG with a cost difference of $10,000 doesn't add up to the amount of money you'll save in fuel over the life of the car. Especially if you don't pay cash and are paying interest on the car! It doesn't make financial sense. It doesn't make performance sense. The entire hybrid fad doesn't make sense.
When does the new technology part start?
Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three.
Seriously. OK, lets assume this car will cost ~$35k or so. Compared to a $16k Toyota Corolla you're spending about $19k more. That $19k will buy 4700 gallons of gas at $4/gal., multiply by the 30 MPG of the Corolla and you get 140k miles you could drive on the price difference (or more than 10 years of driving on average). This doesn't even include the gas you would need to put into the Volt or the fact that you could buy a perfectly fine 2-year-old Corolla for significantly less than $16k, or the fact that you could get a cheap car that gets significantly better than the Corolla's paltry 30 MPG, or that gas is will be a lot less than $4/gal at least for a while.
Believe it or not, an auto major does a fair amount of advance testing before shipping. The papers announced last week the Volt battery factory had begun production in Warren Michigan.
It's theoretically possible to synthesize gas and diesel. One way, of course, is to synthesize gasoline from coal. Not an ideal solution, but if it came to a crisis in the U.S., we have enough coal to produce a lot of synth gas. Some people are exploring more environmentally friendly ways of synthesizing gas. There is a company, Dotyenergy, that claims they can use captured CO2, Water, and electricity to generate gas. Currently, they plan to use Wind power to generate it, but I see no reason why solar, oceanic, or nuclear sourced electricity couldn't be used instead, if it made sense (just use whatever's cheapest/most abundant at the time).
So, my point is, that we don't necessarily need to move away from gasoline (not sure if they can also use this process to make diesel), quickly - as petroleum supplies decline, we could potentially ramp up synthetic fuels (if the technology proves to be efficient/cost competitive). There's also, potentially, bio-mass fuels (although, currently, that doesn't appear to be playing out very well, but who knows, advances could be made in that tech too).
I really don't understand the antipathy towards the Volt. Do people not understand how research and development works? GM has dumped hundreds of millions of dollars in research into this car, both directly and indirectly. How can anyone seriously expect this car to enter the market priced with low-cost economy cars? Even the Prius is priced the mid $20k and it's pretty cheap inside. The Insight is about $20k and it's even more compromised for the sake of keeping the price down. But somehow people see that the Volt is a hybrid and think it should cost what a Prius does without taking into account what's different about the technology.
The Japanese government has invested millions in their automakers to promote R&D. Why is it unreasonable that the US government does the same? I'd much rather my tax dollars go to things like this, which offers a real payoff as opposed to crap that only benefits to interest groups.
If GM does this right, the Volt could be a huge success for the company. Really, the most important thing is that the car delivers on what is being promised and is reasonably reliable. In the long term, if the car turns out to be a hit, GM had better be smart enough to capitalize on that success.
No. 2009 was the FIRST year a VW diesel won
Are you sure about that? Because I'm pretty sure you are wrong.
So there is ONE 2009 model out there with descent emissions.
If you bothered to actually look you'd find the diesels from Mercedes and BMW as well as Audi and VW all are quite clean these days. Seriously. Go look before you spout of unresearched nonsense.
What does that have to say about all the other soot and sulfur belching monstrosities?
Nothing whatsoever. There are lots of smog producing gasoline engines too. Has nothing to do with the ability to produce clean diesels. The technology exists and is in production.
How much electricity does it take to fully charge the batteries? Is your electricity cost going to offset the 6 or 7 dollars worth of gasoline you'll save going 40 miles?
You can go about 300 miles before you need to recharge battery or refill the tank. My Civic hybrid, when new, would go 600 miles on a tank while getting just under 50 (mostly highway) mpg . While I believe plug-in hybrids are the best way to go, I'd still like to see mpg figures for the Volt that don't include the 40 mile battery precharge. With a 300 mile range, either this thing has a tiny tank, or it's actual fuel economy sucks.
The Afghanistan and Iraq wars have amounted to 950 billion USD now.
On average, a cost of 3200 dollars per citizen. Impressive.
Translation: The Volt will really be out in 2011 and will sell for $39,999.98.
What a disappointment, I was looking forward to it coming out *this* year as in the next few months. Oh well, it would likely be out of my price range and I wouldn't be keen about GM using my money as a first adopter to work the bugs out of car running on new technology.
I got get a new car within the next few months. I guess I will hang onto that until the new technology cars are well supported and cheap.
I'd be more concerned about what happens when it passes it's 30,000 milage limit rather than when it passes it's 40 mi charge limit.
That is all.
My pockets have been picked since I started working to fight useless wars and fund an enormous, expensive and increasingly ineffective military. Not to mention the soaring spending rates on police agencies from local to Federal which reduce my freedoms. The money being spent on Volt subsidies is nothing compared to handouts to corn farmers. It's a pittance compared to money we just hand over to other nations.
Two wrongs don't make a right. On the other hand, without a military there is little to prevent the have-nots of this world from coming over with their nail-boards and extorting from you whatever they can. Do we spend too much on these things? Probably. Does that make the Chevy Volt subsidy any more noble or right than it otherwise would be? IMHO, no.
I ain't buyin' no welfare car.
It won't get me very far.
My taxes high, my paycheck low.
How can I afford it I don't know.
So I slap some paint on a POS.
Drive it till the Earf is a mess.
Get on the spaceship from out of here.
It's nice on Mars this time of year.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
Go ahead. Show me a single commercial SULEV diesel. Just one. I'm waiting.
Ignoring for the moment that only a tiny percentage of cars (hybrid or otherwise) on the road actually meet that standard as of the time I write this, what you are looking for IS coming. The technology has already been under development for years. Supposedly Nissan was to introduce a SULEV diesel version of their Maxima this year. (we'll see if they actually do) But there has been no point until very recently because it wasn't commercially viable.
SULEV is a US only standard and the US market historically has not bought passenger diesels in sufficient quantities to justify the investment. Diesels comprise a tiny percentage of US passenger car sales. What likely will change this is the new CAFE standards. Diesels will pretty much have to get more attention to meet the new fuel efficiency standards. If more diesels sell, the tailpipe emissions will inevitably get more attention too.
The fact is that current diesels are similarly clean compared with most gasoline powered vehicles currently on the road AND they generally get better fuel economy for similar horsepower. Furthermore there is no reason to believe they will not continue to improve.
Go ahead -- show me a single commercial diesel that has the interior space of a Prius and does 0-60 in no more than 10 seconds, but gets 89g/km CO2 NEDC and 60g/km on the 10-15. Or even close. Just one. I'm waiting.
Show me a Prius that matches the acceleration and emissions of the Tesla Roadster. Show me a Prius that can generate 400ft-lb of torque and tow a 7000lb trailer like a Dodge Ram Diesel pickup. Show me a Prius that gets the fuel economy of a Honda VTR1000F motorcycle (>100MPG). Show me a Prius that can haul a ton of freight 400 miles on a gallon of gas like a diesel locomotive. Are you done missing the point with stupid comparisons?
I'm arguing that diesels as they exist are comparably clean versus similarly powered gasoline engines. I'm also completely for the notion that even cleaner diesels should continue to be developed. The fact that commercial efforts have gone elsewhere prior to this point is 100% irrelevant.
The Prius, which blows away the Jetta TDI's CO2 and other emissions ratings while having more interior room, wasn't nominated.
Sounds great except the 2010 winner was the Audi A3 TDI and the Prius WAS in the competition as was the Honda Insight. That's two years running for diesels from Volkswagon.
A mass-market SULEV diesel is still a long way away.
By long way away you mean possibly 2010?
And to get there will almost certainly involve some PITA features, such as urea injection or regularly-replaced particulate filters.
Refilling the urea tank once every 10-15,000 miles is a pain? Umm... sure. Whatever.
By long way away you mean possibly 2010?
Tier 2 Bin 5 (the engine they're announcing for 2010) is *not* SULEV. You're misreading the article; they're talking about two different engines.
Refilling the urea tank once every 10-15,000 miles is a pain? Umm... sure. Whatever.
Talk to Consumer Reports.
Stop it, stop it, it's fine. I will *destroy* you.
Most of the people railing against 'government handouts' and 'socialism' WRT the gov't supporting the Volt wouldn't say a word against skyrocketing military spending for little effect.
Not saying you are one of those people, but it's hard to listen to such criticism from those who embrace the MIC.
Blar.
Anyone seeing these at this years Auto Show? Seems to be a no show so far.
Bart: I am through with working. Working is for chumps. Homer: Son, I'm proud of you! I was twice your age when I figure