Chevy Volt To Resume Production One Week Early Following Record Sales

surewouldoutlaw writes "On the heels of the news that the Chevy Volt had a record month, selling 2,289 units in March, the Detroit-Hamtramck plant where the car is made will be resuming production of the car one week early, reducing a five-week shutdown to just four weeks, the United Auto Workers union said Tuesday. The shutdown had been put in place to re-align supply with demand. Volt workers have also begun to lash out at Republican presidential candidates' criticisms of the car: 'They're attacking our car to get at the President...But our car is going to change the way America does business. It's a breath of fresh air.'"

Comments

sure it is

[HBI]

I'm convinced a car that costs much more to own and operate than traditional vehicles is going to change the world. It's going to send GM back into bankruptcy. That will change the world for sure.

Re:sure it is

[tripleevenfall]

I am agape at people bragging that they only go to the gas station once a month or so.

Yeah, you buy less gas than me, but you paid nearly $50,000 for a glorified Cavalier.

Re:sure it is

[Anonymous Coward]

How does it cost more, other than the fact you get a charging station installed? This reminds me of all the naysaying about Priuses and how quickly their battery banks were supposed to fail. They are not failing.

The problem is that it isn't the Volt, it is that having an American car maker on the label makes it not good enough. Had the same car had a "H" logo on it, or perhaps a three pointed star, people would be buying this vehicle left and right. However because it is from a US automaker, it is perceived as crap.

Re:sure it is

[tripleevenfall]

It's not perceived as crap, it's perceived as a poor value because it takes longer than the life of a normal car to gain back the premium price you paid.

Gas mileage != economy. Total cost of ownership = economy.

Re:sure it is

[Captain Splendid]

it's perceived as a poor value because it takes longer than the life of a normal car to gain back the premium price you paid.

Well, as long as gas prices stay static during that same period...which I sure as shit wouldn't put any money on.

Re:sure it is

[rsclient]

MSRP: $31,645
Source: http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car/

Re:sure it is

[fwarren]

Exactly.

My sister called me a few weeks ago. She works 3 days a week as a nurse working 12 hour shifts at a facility about 60 miles from her house. She has a vehicle that gets about 20mpg and is in great shape. More than that, it is 100% paid for. She wanted to know my opinion on getting a new car.

So even if she had a car that was able to get 40mpg, her gas consumption would go from 9 gallons a week down to 4 gallons at best. 5 gallons at $5 a gallon is $25 a week or $100 a month. A new car payment would be better than $250 a month.

I told her as long as her current car was safe and dependable, don't go buy a new car to "save money".

Since electric cars are still more than $20,000 more than conventional vehicles, plus you are asking tax payers, many who make less money than you to subsidize an additional $10,000 or more of your auto purchase. that does not seem like much of a bargain to me. Batteries have to be replaced every 5 years. You are not really doing this to save money.

All of the extra nasty non-green things that goes into manufacturing your lightweight car, motors and batteries PLUS using electrical current generated by coal burning plants. All you have done is moved WHERE the environment is polluted at from your exhaust pipe, to someplace else. You are not really saving the environment either.

Re:sure it is

[Anonymous Coward]

That's after a "possible" $7500 tax credit. Actual MSRP is $39,145... and that's a starting price.

Re:sure it is

[geekoid]

It's a nice car. It's quite, rides smooth, and roomy. It appeals to me nerd as well. It's like driving the future.

Have you driven one? I'm guessing not since your price is about 20K over the price of the car.

Re:sure it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Its as simular to a cavalier as a corvette is. My friend bought one because its high tech, green, but also much better performance than a prius. Its basically a $10,000 preimuim over a prius. Its not bad if that's what you want. If what you want is a super cheap car that's gret on gas, it isn't for you. If you want a luxuy car that's green, this it's not for you.

Re:sure it is

[gstrickler]

"Price after tax savings. Net price shown includes the full $7,500 tax credit. $39,145 MSRP with federal tax savings from $0 up to $7,500."

Always read the fine print.

Re:sure it is

[Kahlandad]

Overpriced? Yeah, I'll agree that it is overpriced, but arbitrarily throwing out numbers that you pulled out of your ass sure doesn't help your credibility.

Re:sure it is

[supremebob]

The car really isn't all that "high tech" once you get past the electric drive train, though. Most of the features that it comes with can be had on a Chevy Cruze that costs roughly half the price if you leave out the tax rebates.

Re:sure it is

[Kagato]

In the end that was offset significantly by the retention of value. In particular the second gen model that ran from 2003-2009. Toyota being able to keep up with demand is a more recent phenomenon, as such the secondary market was very kind fo Prius owners in the 2000s. People who got the tax credit and got out about 3-4 year in did quite well.

Re:sure it is

[h4rr4r]

Why a payment? Buy the thing in cash. Cars are not so expensive a nurse should be getting a loan for them.

A coal plant is far cleaner than ICE cars, and far easier to change out one power plant than a million. More environmental damage is done building yet another SUV.

Also any new reasonable car can get 40mpg, lots of normal cheap ICE ones too.

Re:sure it is

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, several of these previous tax credit gimmicks (Cash for Clunkers, etc) have been imputed as income by the IRS. Baahahahahaah. "Savings" FAIL.

Re:sure it is

[mrchaotica]

It's quite what?

Re:sure it is

[tripleevenfall]

Include sales tax, and you'll need to have the charging station installed in your house if you don't want to have to wait 10 hours between charges. Most dealers were charging markup over and above MRSP for them as well. (though after much lower than anticipated sales, maybe that is no longer true.)

Re:sure it is

[Vrtigo1]

And don't forget the +$5000 "adjusted market value" fee. I just bought a Prius last weekend, and this is exactly what the dealer had on their window sticker. I didn't pay it, but only because they received a new car while I was on the lot, and I got to it before they had a chance to put their window sticker on it and I told them they had to sell it to me for what it said on the factory window sticker.

Re:sure it is

[Kagato]

It's based on the Opel Delta II platform. I personally think the Opel Ampera is a much nicer design. The volt is too conventional looking by todays standards. It's also far better equipped than the old Cavalier. The problem with the car is the interior was designed by GM. Lot's of features and buttons, but kind'a cheap feeling in my opinion. And I share that opinion on all GMs, from Chevy to Cadillac.

Re:sure it is

[jo_ham]

So sell her car that's "in great shape" and use the money to buy another one with better mileage (diesel if she can get it). Why get a car payment?

You can easily get a car in *great* condition (only a couple of years old) for very reasonable money here in the UK that will do 50-60mpg (40-50 US mpg) - we do have better and more mature diesels though. Still, I'd be surprised if she couldn't find a really good second hand car that she could buy outright that does better than 20 mpg.

Re:sure it is

[mrchaotica]

longer than the life of a normal car

The average age of a car in the US is now 10.8 years, which means that the life of a normal car is even longer than that.

Re:sure it is

[Gavagai80]

I only go to the gas station about once a month, with a cheap '98 car. It's called not driving much.

Re:sure it is

[gstrickler]

Even at $6/gal or $8/gal, how many miles do you have to drive to break even having spent $10k-$18K more than a Prius or Civic Hybrid, or similar gas vehicle? Don't forget to include the cost of the electricity for charging the vehicle. Let's assume $0.12/kWh and that the price of electricity magically remains constant for the entire time.

Re:sure it is

[Gavagai80]

If you're paying sticker price for a car, you're getting ripped off regardless.

Re:sure it is

[scot4875]

Include sales tax

Yes, because other vehicles are exempt from sales tax. /rolls eyes

--Jeremy

Re:sure it is

[Eponymous Hero]

i make more than the average nurse and i can't afford to pay $40k cash for a car. i'm saving my money for a house (a liiiiiiittle bit more important).

http://www1.salary.com/registered-nurse-Salary.html

Re:sure it is

[compro01]

20MPG? What does she drive? An F-150?

Re:sure it is

[operagost]

At 20 MPG, she is probably driving a full-size car. She would have to get either an uncomfortable econobox or an impractical small car like a Fiat or Smart to keep from having a car payment.

Re:sure it is

[walkerp1]

You know, several of these previous tax credit gimmicks (Cash for Clunkers, etc) have been imputed as income by the IRS. Baahahahahaah. "Savings" FAIL.

Heh, you use a portion of someone else's tax money to pay 10% or whatever your effective tax rate is on community money that disproportionately favors you. I'd call it a tax revenue fail, keep the savings, and (quite incidentally and accidentally) score some green points. EV TCO is already favorable compared to your average compact, and with gas going up and batteries coming down the spread is increasing.

Re:sure it is

[mhajicek]

Some dealers have even claimed the tax credit themselves, rather than letting the buyer do it.

Re:sure it is

[Ihmhi]

Exactly.

My sister called me a few weeks ago. She works 3 days a week as a nurse working 12 hour shifts at a facility about 60 miles from her house. She has a vehicle that gets about 20mpg and is in great shape. More than that, it is 100% paid for. She wanted to know my opinion on getting a new car.

So even if she had a car that was able to get 40mpg, her gas consumption would go from 9 gallons a week down to 4 gallons at best. 5 gallons at $5 a gallon is $25 a week or $100 a month. A new car payment would be better than $250 a month.

I told her as long as her current car was safe and dependable, don't go buy a new car to "save money".

Valid, if you're out to save money in the short term you're not going to do it. However, you neglect to factor in things like maintenance. Don't forget the fact that electric vehicles are typically lacking in things like air filters, oil filters, etc. Maintenance for the late EV-1 was "rotate the tires and top off the wiper fluid". How much would you save if you didn't have to do all of the maintenance related to combustion engines?

Since electric cars are still more than $20,000 more than conventional vehicles, plus you are asking tax payers, many who make less money than you to subsidize an additional $10,000 or more of your auto purchase. that does not seem like much of a bargain to me. Batteries have to be replaced every 5 years. You are not really doing this to save money.

Again, agreed. If you do not have a lot of money to throw around you're not going to save money.

All of the extra nasty non-green things that goes into manufacturing your lightweight car, motors and batteries PLUS using electrical current generated by coal burning plants. All you have done is moved WHERE the environment is polluted at from your exhaust pipe, to someplace else. You are not really saving the environment either.

Yes, that's true. You move the "where" of the pollution. But this is more important than you think.

Let's say a thousand vehicles emit the same amount of pollution as one coal-fired power plant. Which do you think is easier to install and maintain filters on? One coal power plant, or a thousand individual vehicles that may or may not be as well maintained as you'd like?

Even with the "environmental damage" that occurs from mining and the like, it's still all centralized in certain places. That makes containing and reducing that damage much, much easier.

Re:sure it is

[DCFusor]

Three are a number of vastly important features in this car you cannot get in a Cruze for any price. No turbo lag. Quiet. No gasoline consumption. I know, I own both. Oh, the Volt corners so much better it isn't funny. It's ridiculously more agile in traffic. Everything in a base volt is nicer than a maxed out Cruze, from leather quality through the phone and stereo.

Re:sure it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets say she buys a car in cash for $20,000 USD. Now lets compare that to the $5000 car. In five years the new car would be worth $13,000 maybe.. a loss of 7,000. The old car would be worth maybe $2,000 and would have spent 12*100*5 = $6000 more on gas.

Keepin old car..
$6000 more in gas + 3000 depreciation of car for not buying a new car
$9,000 over five years

Buying New car
7,000 loss of depreciation.

Obviously this is really just guestimation. I have no idea how much the cars would depreciate in value, or how what the repair and maitinence costs would be. Interest at 4% over 5 years would be about 2,000. So that's the effect of the loan...

Re:sure it is

[SpryGuy]

Look, first generations of new technology are never about "saving money". Do you really think people bought the first iPhone because they could "save money"? or the first laptops? Or the first computers?

The people willing to pay the premium for a promising technology are the ones that help create the market that allows the price to eventually come down. To belittle those that live on the cutting edge, that are "first adopters", is really short-sighted and frankly stupid. Without them, we'd never get affordable tech for the rest of us.

That said, your sister doesn't sound like a "first adopter" type person, nor does her situation sound like a good situation that can be helped by buying a first generation eletric car like the Volt.

But for people who want to support these emerging technologies, put their money where their mouth is about being greener and more efficient, then it's a decent, even smart, purchase.

(and for the record, the pollution created by a coal plant generating the energy required to charge an electric car is less than the pollution created by burning gas in a non-electric car. And batteries last longer than five years, and are getting better every year. And tax incentives for new technologies help them get off the ground, and are a smart investment for the future).

Re:sure it is

[Anonymous Coward]

so does that mean that if i buy a low end lexus or cadillac that i'm stupid because i could've had a car that carries just as many passengers and luggage, the same option packages, etc... for cheaper if i had bought a honda/toyota/etcc.... instead?

At some point you do have to draw the line where i want a nicer car and if people chose a volt instead of a lexus then more power to them.
Does anyone need to drive a nicer car? - No
Are they a little misguided because they think they're saving money? - Yes

If people have the money, can afford the monthly payment, then i don't see what the big deal about electric cars vs. normal cars. It's like saying you should drive a Toyota Corrola because you're just wasting your money if you buy a Cadillac CTS

Re:sure it is

[Anonymous Coward]

I dare say that your sister is well outside the norm with her 120 mile per day round-tripper, 3 days a week and as such the Volt might not be the car for her.

And that's ok. There is no single car that suits every person.

Take me, as an example. My daily commute is just under 15 miles 5 days a week. A Volt would cut my fuel consumption from 7.5 gallons per week to basically nil. The car itself is still a bit pricey for me to justify, so I haven't taken the plunge yet... but if they get down to the $20k range, I might just.

Also, you're math is off. Pretty sure you forgot to include her trip HOME as part of her commute. Assuming Chevy's numbers are accurate (35 battery miles and 37 mpg thereafter) she would actually save $198 per month.

If her facility has a charging station, allowing her to use the batteries on her way home, her savings would be $251.10 per month.

Numbers current car;
60 miles to work x 2 = 120 round trip per day
120 miles x 3 days a week = 360 miles a week
360 miles / 20 mpg = 18 gallons per week in her current car.
18 gallons x 4 weeks x 4.50 gas = $324 spent on gas with current car / month

Numbers random 40mpg car non-hybrid
360 miles per week / 40 mpg = 9 gallons
9 gallons x 4 weeks x 4.50 gas = 162 spent on gas with a random 40 mpg non-hybrid per month

Numbers volt
60 miles to work - 35 battery miles = 25 gassy miles
25 miles to work + 60 miles home = 85 gassy miles per day
85 x 3 days = 255 gassy miles per week
255 / 37 = 6.89 gallons per week used in Volt
7 gallons x 4 weeks x 4.50 gas = $126 spent on gas w/ volt

Numbers Volt + Charge at work
60 miles to work - 35 battery miles = 25 gassy miles
60 miles home - 35 battery miles = 25 gassy miles
50 gassy miles x 3 days = 150 gassy miles per week.
150 / 37 = 4.05 gallons per week
4.05 x 4 weeks x 4.50 gas = $72.9 on gas per month w/ volt charging at work

Assuming $5 gas only makes the savings more substantial.
$360 current car
$180 random 40 ($180 savings per month)
$140 Volt ($220 savings per month)
$81 Volt /w work charge ($279 savings per month)

Re:sure it is

[DCFusor]

Agreed. Now get out your crystal ball and tell me what gasoline is going to cost over the life of the Volt, or any other car. The compute the even higher initial cost of buying nearly 10k worth of solar to charge it free for the next 3 decades (how long I've been off the grid without any failures in the PV system). Then remember '73 and the time value of waiting in lines for gasoline. Then add in the maintenance costs for an IC engine and transmission that can't rev match before clutching, so it wears. Then compare the total initial cost to the cost of any other car that is as quiet, as fun to drive and as agile - all of those cost more than the Volt, and they only have the one drivetrain. Then lets talk peace of mind. You can run the battery down on the Volt, it'll just switch to gasoline. Then run it out of gas - and you've still got 5 miles to limp to a gas or charging station. If you're going to play TCO games, use real numbers, one of which (price of gas) you can't predict. Oops, total logic fail. How about being sure of transport almost no matter what happens for the rest of your life? As an older guy, this looks like a fantastic deal, which is why I went for it, and am completely happy with it and the new solar gear I bought to charge it for free going forward. I drive normally (or a little hotter than normal because it's fun in this car) and have used zero gasoline in 2012 doing it. I've paid a power company zero since 1980. This kind of thing is how the rich get richer. You might try that plan, it's worked out for me.

Re:sure it is

[SpryGuy]

To be fair, it took an unprecidented Fiscal Crisis and economic crash to get the price of gas that low again.

Re:sure it is

[sexconker]

If you're paying sticker price for a car, you're getting ripped off regardless.

It's like he didn't watch that episode of King of the Hill.

Re:sure it is

[Sir_Sri]

Ok, but they make 2300 of them in march. that puts them on track for what, 30-50k sales a year. That's not exactly a mass market vehicle, that's for the people who are the edge cases that will benefit from the particular usage scenario where it is advantageous. And it's for people who are relatively well off. It's not like you need a car with airbags on the sides as well as the front and passenger positions for example, the risk of being seriously injured from not having them is relatively rare, and they're fairly expensive. I bet in 10 years though every car with have them.

The Volt is a technology commercialization demonstrator, and it's out there to establish a brand presence and to find anything wrong with the design on a small market.

If (and it's a relatively big if) you're in that 80% of people who live within about 60km of your job, *and* you drive that every day, 5 days a week, say 250 days a year(2000hrs of work, 8 hours a day) works out to about 1500 dollars a year in gas ($1.30/litre as of yesterday, but that was for regular, the volt uses premium fuel). Where I am the volt, before tax credits is 43K which is, for sake of argument, about 25k more than a comparable 5 door hatback like the sonic (15-21K), but you'd get I think 8500 dollars back from the government (ontario), that might be old numbers though, hard to follow given that it's both budget time and tax season. So your price difference is somewhere in the 15-20k range. You're counting on the vehicle having otherwise identical maintenance costs for 10-15 years for it to be worthwhile. Move to europe though, and the average price of petrol is US 2.4 per litre more or less (1.58 EUR before 20 ish VAT http://www.energy.eu/), and you have a *much* different calculation, where in canada you're talking about 1500 dollars per year in gas prices, in europe it's more like 2700 dollars for the same driving distance. Suddenly a 15k price difference is only 5 years to pay itself off, which is pretty compelling.

So now you're gambling. Assuming you plan to keep the car for 5 years, and the maintenance is no more than a sonic (for sake of argument) and your price difference is down to 15K after a tax rebate. Well... what is the price you're going to pay for fuel over 5 years going to work out to? (And what will the resell value of the car be, if anything, after 5 years). If the price of oil drops, a lot, you've lost, and lost a few thousands of dollars. If, on the other hand, the price of oil, or generally the price of gas goes up then it may have worked out in your favour.

And again, it's a niche vehicle, some people buy boats, some people buy airplanes, some people are paying a premium on a car to be able to say 'it doesn't use gas' most of the time. It's also pretty clear from the numbers that while volt 1.0 may not be a great deal economically it's not all that far off. There's a premium because they are only making a small number of them, and there's a premium for being an early adopter in anything, but if they can consistently get the price down to say 30k or the price of oil goes up 30%, or a bit of both it starts looking like its' economical for everyone. It may also be economical much earlier in different vehicles where you could more easily handle a larger charge (think minivan or SUV format, where yes, you're less fuel efficient to begin with, but you could use up some of the space for more battery too), and once there is some reasonable expectation of a decent resale value, which I wouldn't count on for volt 1.0s. Not everyone buys the most economical vehicle either. If that were the case there would only be compacts on the road. And yet people still drive around in hummers. If the volt makes you feel good about not giving the oil companies as much money, but giving money to people who are trying to innovate our way out of this mess then it might be worth it.

Oh, and all of this depends heavily on usage scenarios. I would think an electric vehicle would have much better performance in stop and go tr

Re:sure it is

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, either your math sucks or your english sucks. If the facility is 60 miles away, it's a 120-mile round trip 3 times per week for a total of 360mi, using 18 gallons, not 9, at 20mpg. So now we're up to $200/month savings in gas, which is actually more than the monthly payment on a Ford Fiesta (176) and slightly less than a Ford Focus (212). Plus, you're not taking into account she could sell her old car. Now I understand I don't have all the information, but as the facts are stated, it's not the totally stupid choice you made it out to be.

The same arguments about electric cars you use were made about the Prius and Insight a decade ago. And now they are sold at reasonable levels without subsidies.

Right now, many motors and batteries have rare earth elements in them, but not all. Induction motors use no permanent magnets, and so have no rare earth concerns. The motors are just wound wire and silicon electronics. This is where Tesla is and where the entire industry is heading. New batteries that are being developed (and improvements to lithium ion batteries) are taking all of this into consideration and are making sure it will no be a major concern.

Finally, no one is increasing coal burning by buying an EV or plug-in hybrid. The coal plants we currently have are baseload power plants, running at (as close as possible to) 100% already, and our electricity generated from coal has not increased since 2003 despite large increases in total electricity consumpion. Plus, due to new EPA restirctions and the low price of natural gas, there won't even be new coal power plants in the US. Increased electricity needs are almost always met by increasing electricity generation from natural gas. And burning natural gas in an efficient combined cycle power plant is better for the environment than burning oil in your car. Not to mention, you could put solar on your roof if you live in the southwest or buy specifically renewable electricity if your utility offers it.

Re:sure it is

[tripleevenfall]

We're talking about the price of this car, not the price of other cars.

Here's an article where Edmunds said they paid $49,000 out-the-door for a Volt

http://www.insideline.com/chevrolet/volt/2011/long-term-test-2011-chevrolet-volt.html

They may have given away some leverage, but they clearly did not get the car for $30,000 as some have claimed.

Re:sure it is

[hawguy]

Why do people keep arguing "My commute is not well suited for an electric car, so electric cars are a waste of money".

Since your sister's round trip commute far exceeds the range of any current electric car (unless she has a charge station at work), she's better off with a hybrid, since even if she bought a Volt, it would be acting as a gas-electric hybrid for most of her commute.

The Prius is reported to get around 50mpg on the highway (consumer reports' milage in their highway test was 55mpg).

So, using 50mpg and assuming she only drives 60 miles each way to work 3 times each week, your sister's monthly gas bill at $5/gal would be:

      360 mi * (52 weeks/year) / (12 months/year) / (50 miles/gal) * (5 dollars/gallon) = $156

Versus 20mpg:

      360 mi * (52 weeks/year) / (12 months/year) / (50 miles/gal) * (5 dollars/gallon) = $390

Or a net savings of $234/month

You didn't mention what car she drives currently. If it's got a $10,000 trade-in value, and if she qualifies for 4% financing, her monthly payment on a $23,000 Prius (price ignores tax+title fees) would be around $238/month so the car would effectively be free after the fuel savings. If her current car is older and has only $5000 trade-in value, then her payment would be around $330 so she'd be paying $100/month after the fuel savings (which may still be a good deal to get a nice new car for only $100/month)

Re:sure it is

[Anonymous Coward]

My sister called me a few weeks ago. She works 3 days a week as a nurse working 12 hour shifts at a facility about 60 miles from her house. She has a vehicle that gets about 20mpg and is in great shape. More than that, it is 100% paid for. She wanted to know my opinion on getting a new car.

So even if she had a car that was able to get 40mpg, her gas consumption would go from 9 gallons a week down to 4 gallons at best. 5 gallons at $5 a gallon is $25 a week or $100 a month. A new car payment would be better than $250 a month.

Right. First, you're out by a factor of two.

3 days a week, 60 mile journey, multiplied by 2 for the return trip. 360 miles total. At 20mpg, that's 18 gallons a week, not 9.

So if the Volt saved her 10 gallons at week at $5 per gallon, that's $50 per week, or $200 per month.

Next, you assume that $5 per gallon is going to stay that way. That's a brave bet...

Finally, your new car payment starts at $250 per month. But your sister's current car is fully paid off. Does your $250 include the trade-in price?

Re:sure it is

[pnewhook]

Well, when obama took office gas was below $2 a gallon...and nobody ever said that would happen again only 12 months before that when it was over $3.

Well shit. Gas was $0.30 a gallon when Kennedy and Johnson were in office, then look what happened when the Republicans came to power.

Re:sure it is

[thrich81]

No experience with a Volt but I have a six year old Hybrid Toyota Highlander. No battery replacement indicated anytime soon. I would pay a premium for an electric or hybrid electric car just for the driving experience -- instant torque on demand, no engine noise at low speeds or stopped. It really feels old fashioned when I drive my non-hybrid car. You are right, you don't save money replacing a used car with a new one, but unless you want to drive a patched up junker you have to replace it sometime. By the way, the Highlander is a real hot rod and I've had a few 'Vettes and Camaros in my day. Did I say Instant Torque and a CVT transmission?

Re:sure it is

[Anonymous Coward]

F-150 owner here. 20MPG is about twice what your standard F-150 gets. My old beater barely manages 8. (I'm not proud about it, but it's paid off.)

2013 models might be close to 20MPG, but definitely not for city driving.

Re:sure it is

[ColdWetDog]

Why do you hate America?

Re:sure it is

[NIN1385]

Okay, that made me spit out my mouth full of water.

Re:sure it is

[hawguy]

Why does everyone feel the need to evaluate an eelctric car on price alone? People buy cars on more than price or everyone would be driving a Yugo - things like style, performance, image, and yes, even gas mileage all factor into it.

Here's what Edmunds said about the Volt:

http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/volt/2011/?sub=hatchback

Pros

Low monthly fuel cost in normal driving; useful 300-mile maximum range; appealing standard features; high-tech cabin.

Cons

Questionable value; small backseat for two people only; touchy brakes; no power front seats; home charger is a necessity.

And here's what they said about the $41,000 17/24mpg Lincoln MKS:

http://www.edmunds.com/lincoln/mks/2012/?sub=sedan

Pros

Spacious interior; plentiful standard features; good power and fuel economy from the turbocharged V6.

Lackluster base V6; strange combination of soggy handling and firm ride; mediocre interior materials; overpriced for what you get.

If someone is willing to spend $40K for a car and likes the added independence from the gas station the Volt provides, why is the Volt a worse purchase than say, a Lincoln?

My commute is too short to make any electric or hybrid car worthwhile (since I usually commute by bike), Instead of putting money into a car, I'll put it into a solar system for home, so when I do need to make a car purchase, I can power it myself. Should cost around $33K ($23K with tax incentives) to put up a system to provide 600KWh/month to power my home and car. (the Nissan Leaf gets around 3 miles/kwh so 150Kwh would power a 20 mile/day commute)

Re:sure it is

[cnaumann]

3 days a week at 60 miles from her house is 360 miles a week of driving just for work. That is 18 gallons of gas a week at 20 MPG. 18 gallons a week at $5 gallon = $80/week = $360/month just for work. And I would be that is not the only driving she is doing.

It may be well worth trading in her current car for a newer used car that gets much better gas mileage. Eventually, even well cared for used cars will require expensive repaires. Also factor in the time savings of stopping for gas less often.

A Volt would not be a good fit for her with the distances she drivesk, you really need to have a commute that is near the electric range fo the vehicle.

The Volt has an 8-year, 100,000 mile warrenty on the batteries. I personally know of several 10-year-old plus Priuses that are still working well on the original batteries. Stop spewing nonsense about the batteries needing to be replaced every 5 years.

Re:sure it is

[hairyfish]

plus you are asking tax payers, many who make less money than you to subsidize an additional $10,000 or more of your auto purchase. that does not seem like much of a bargain to me.

The trillion dollars we spent in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't seem like much of a bargain to me either. I know which one I'd prefer to my tax dollars being spent on..

Re:sure it is

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know he's Michael Moore?

Re:sure it is

[Anonymous Coward]

As I heard it: An electric car is the only vehicle where the source of the energy becomes greener over time.

What that means is improving standards for power plants and continuous addition of green sourced energy is making the energy put into electric cars more green. What other car, that is currently on the road in large numbers, does this?

Additionally, you could recycle those terribly sourced components when they wear down. It is part of the cycle (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle).

Re:sure it is

[szilagyi]

Don't get me wrong on this, because I think all the variety in the market is great, and I love having choices, and I was really looking forward to buying a Prius and doing fun stuff with it. (This was before Volt was available.) But:

I did recently buy a car, and did the math on a few, and gasoline prices have to go really high to break even. One issue, really a good thing, is that efficient gasoline cars are already past the TCO node where the cost of gasoline = cost of rest. They've started down the path of diminishing returns for fuel efficiency. That's one reason the cost premium of a hybrid or electric hurts so much.

In my case, Prius beats Matrix when gasoline averages something like $7/gal, over the life of the car. I didn't expect that to happen, so I picked Matrix.

You may be right, we may get to $7/gal, even beyond, but here's why I dodn't expect gasoline to get a whole lot more expensive than $5/gal (2009$):

There are a number of fuel technologies waiting in the wings when gasoline gets that expensive, which the oil companies will resurrect and improve. There are a lot of neat, new fuel technologies, but don't forget that there are also old standbys, industrially proven processes, for fuel synthesis from coal and natural gas. They've been more expensive than drilling, and they're capital-intensive, so oil companies aren't going to build plants on a whim, but they're not outrageously expensive.

That's in the medium term. In the short term, sure, oil is volatile, so there will be price spikes.

In the long term, I'm looking forward to all kinds of neat synthetic fuel technologies based on all kinds of energy sources. An estimate of $3/gal + CO2 capture for electrolytic synthetic fuel, while it may be optimistic, shows the scale of the possibilities for post-fossil liquid fuel. We don't really know how much industrial atmospheric CO2 capture will cost, yet, though.

Anyway, the point being, fuel may never get much more expensive, despite how things look. Hybrids and electrics have a bright future, but it lies along the path of overall cost reduction.

I fully expect my next car to be a turbine-electric, like the old Capstone demo. Microturbines and electric drivetrains will get cheaper. There's no fundamental reason I know why they can't be cheaper than piston cars; piston engines are just, for now, very well established, finely tuned, efficient technology.

Re:sure it is

[ubergamer1337]

"$10k-$18K more than a Prius or Civic Hybrid, or similar gas vehicle?"

Except that the difference isn't nearly that large. My brand-new hybrid (Honda CR-Z) was $19,300. An insight will run you 2k more, which makes it only 10k more expensive then a Nissan Versa Base, which doesn't have A/C, Power anything, ABS, etc. A more fair comparison is something like a Nissan Sentra, which similarly equipped is about $16,000, or only $5k different. Also, you don't plug in most hybrids, like the Prius and the Honda Civic Hybrid, so there's no cost for electricity.

But continue to pull numbers and facts out of thin air, while I save money in the long term with my Hybrid.

Re:sure it is

[CaptSlaq]

Ford has heard this gnashing of teeth that you are expressing: the new Fiesta is actually a pretty reasonable car to drive, not terribly expensive for what you get (it's small, but reports are it doesn't feel econo-box-y), and gets a rated 40mpg. I suspect that with a light foot it'd do pretty well. I'm still hoping that someone will get it through marketing's head that the diesel version of that car would sell over here, particularly as fuel prices rise. 60+ MPG from a car would be nice. I'd have to do the math on the premium on diesel vs gasoline tho.

Re:sure it is

[colinnwn]

And how much could that $15,000 have earned her in interest in 5 years if invested at moderate risk (i.e. not T-bills, but not growth stocks either)?

Not sure where you were going with the 4% over 5 years is $2,000, since she didn't take out a loan for either car. But if she took out a loan for the $20k car and not the $5k car, then in your example it about looks like the cars had about equal TCO (ignoring the difference between the $5000 cash for the old car and the down payment for the new car.

Re:sure it is

[Anonymous Coward]

A new design was needed to handle the large battery packs and it was also necessary to optimize the aerodynamics to maximize the energy efficiency of the car. Not everything has a simple solution.

Re:sure it is

[Brannoncyll]

To be fair, it took an unprecidented Fiscal Crisis and economic crash to get the price of gas that low again.

Not to mention two wars in the Middle-East.

Re:sure it is

[chill]

I have a 1999 Lincoln Towncar that gets 22 MPG average over a month of driving, mostly highway. So most likely it is something in that range.

I've been debating buying a new car to get better gas mileage, but when I factor in having to pay car payments, it is not a simple decision. The Lincoln was paid off years ago. And I have a 135 mile round-trip commute 4-days a week.

Re:sure it is

[jo_ham]

I drive a minivan that seats 5 adults comfortably plus luggage and it does 53 mpg (44 US mpg) with relative ease.

It does not mean she has to drive a Smart car or an econobox. She won't be driving a Navigator or a Land Cruiser or Explorer or anything, but it doesn't mean you have to "go tiny".

Re:sure it is

[Confusador]

However, you neglect to factor in things like maintenance. Don't forget the fact that electric vehicles are typically lacking in things like air filters, oil filters, etc. Maintenance for the late EV-1 was "rotate the tires and top off the wiper fluid". How much would you save if you didn't have to do all of the maintenance related to combustion engines?

That's a fair point, but since the general discussion here is about the Volt you do still have to account for maintenance of an ICE. Presumably it will require less maintenance than if it were the primary engine, but it's still there.

Re:sure it is

[Lashat]

No one is saving money by paying sticker $ for ANY car let alone a NEW car. I am about to buy a used Subaru to use as a commuter car. By the time I kill this one I will be ready for a used Volt. Only the Volt version that qualifies for the white California Clean Vehicles sticker. They are making too many car pool lanes around this state.

Re:sure it is

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why do people keep arguing 'My commute is not well suited for an electric car, so electric cars are a waste of money'."

That's not what he said. Why don't you save your pointless rant for someone who expresses that opinion?

Re:sure it is

[batkiwi]

Just because you have an example of someone who shouldn't buy this car doesn't mean that no one should, and that it's a bad idea to even try making and selling them. Everyone in the universe should not day 1 go out and buy a new technology car, and no one is saying they should.

This is the first generation of a true electric mode capable (out of the factory) pluggable consumer priced hybrid.

That means people with extra cash lying around and who have a short-ish commute buy them.

Next generation costs 5-10k less and lasts for 60 miles, and moves to a better generator engine.

Third generation comes down in price again and lasts for 100 miles with an even better generator based on some new energy reclaiming tech someone discovers.

In 10 years, when your sister's car finally dies and she MUST buy a new one, there will be a nice car under 20k with a 60-100 mile range. Gas will be $9 a gallon. She will get all the way to work on electric, and hopefully get a nice charging place that charges her $3 for the day to use. If not, she uses petrol on the way home for 1/2 the trip, still saving money overall.

Re:sure it is

[tftp]

Take me, as an example. My daily commute is just under 15 miles 5 days a week. A Volt would cut my fuel consumption from 7.5 gallons per week to basically nil. The car itself is still a bit pricey for me to justify, so I haven't taken the plunge yet... but if they get down to the $20k range, I might just.

If the gas is $5/gal. then you will be saving 7.5 * 5 = $37.5/week or $150/mo. Even not going into details of your car loan (if you need one,) your insurance alone will eat this money and ask for more. You can't insure a $40K new car for the same peanuts as a $10K used one. A loan will require you to have a very costly insurance.

But let's say that your insurance stays the same and you pay cash. The difference in cost between your current car ($10K as a guess, if you are lucky) to $33K (if you can get every discount and tax credit) will be $22K. To compensate for that you need to drive like you do for $22K/$150 = 146.6 months, or 12 years. This is longer than the warranty on the battery (10 years as I heard) and most likely the car will be dead by then for one reason or another. Since the cost of the battery comprises the majority of the car's price it does not make sense to repair - the car will be scrapped before you realize any savings.

But that's not all. You are investing $22K for 12 years. The car will give you negative return on that investment; however if you simply buy some safe, tax-free municipal bonds of a safe city then, with 3% rate, you can get $31K. This means that your actual LOSS on a Volt will be quite large.

An EV is a great idea; however with today's prices it simply does not make any sense, unless you are a rich "trust fund baby." A Volt is not a car for working people because it is a black hole for your money. You can buy it for pleasure, but that's the only reason to bother. Sales of Volt seem to confirm this reasoning - they are consistent with sales of expensive, luxury items into a very small market of top earners.

Re:sure it is

[rtb61]

Edmunds is a for profit rag, everything it produces must be viewed through that persepective. It is becoming apparent that Fox not-News attacked the Volt because of the significant Saudi ownership of Fox not-News (paid for with oil money), so nothing but greed driven propaganda.

The Saudi's fear the takeover of electric vehicles, increasing production with a reduced parts set and further battery development means electric vehicles will price undercut infernal combustion engines. Of course the money flow to whiny greedy Texans will also be cut off, so Texas will join the rest of the southern US states as basket cases in need of Federal charity.

When the majority of vehicles are electric and cities are smog free, people will have trouble believing they are the infernal combustion engine on the roads in metropolitan areas.

Re:sure it is

[gstrickler]

Math fail: $39,145 MSRP on the Volt - $19,300 for your CR-Z Hybrid = $ 19,855 difference.
$31,645 (after $7500 tax credit, assuming you qualify for the maximum) - $19,300 = $12,345 difference. Even if you manage to negotiate $2000 (and from what I hear, they're not negotiating much on them) off the Volt, it's still in the range of $10,000-$18,000 more than your CR-Z So, my numbers are correct, and the question still stands.

Re:sure it is

[tftp]

By the way, the Highlander is a real hot rod

Toyota.com has this to say:

Note: The Highlander Hybrid is not designed to be driven off-road.

Does it have low clearance, or what? Why would anyone want a 4WD like that? Plenty of rural roads (gravel if you are lucky) can be mistaken for off-road areas.

Re:sure it is

[BenJCarter]

Funny that HBI's post was modded down. Probably by one of those "tolerant" people. I guess when you've lost the debate, you have to resort to thuggish behavior.

Re:sure it is

[JMandingo]

Me too, I am telecommuting. I fill up my supercharged '98 cobra maybe once every six weeks. My office is on the second floor of my house above the garage with big windows on all four sides. I run the A/C only in the worst heat of the summer, and only on days where there is no breeze whatsoever. I have a fan on my desk hooked to a small solar panel in the window.

Re:sure it is

[hawguy]

"Why do people keep arguing 'My commute is not well suited for an electric car, so electric cars are a waste of money'."

That's not what he said. Why don't you save your pointless rant for someone who expresses that opinion?

If that's not what he said, then what did he mean by this:

Since electric cars are still more than $20,000 more than conventional vehicles, plus you are asking tax payers, many who make less money than you to subsidize an additional $10,000 or more of your auto purchase. that does not seem like much of a bargain to me. Batteries have to be replaced every 5 years. You are not really doing this to save money.

I thought he was using his sister's commute to show that electric cars are a waste of taxpayer money.

Re:sure it is

[compro01]

Sheesh. My mother's minivan (2002 Ford Windstar) gets 22MPG. My ancient 1993 Acclaim managed 24MPG, even with a slightly leaking head gasket.

Re:sure it is

[MightyYar]

EV TCO is already favorable compared to your average compact

That's true, but the Volt has the unfortunate position of having a couple extra thousand dollars worth of complexity added so that it can run on both gas or electricity.

The sad fact is that the only people who a volt makes sense for are the same people who could do alright with an electric conversion that might cost them $10,000 - and they could buy a $11,000 Versa to park in the driveway for those "long trips" that theoretically kill the electric car . Then they could take $15000 and bury it in the backyard and still have money leftover vs. buying a Volt.

I'm intrigued by cars like the all-electric Leaf - but until battery prices come down (or until they offer a lower-range version) they are wayyyyy overpriced. My wife only needs to go 15 miles per day total. She currently drives a Camry. She puts less than 5000 miles on the car each year. With low mileage like that, it would take forever to pay for the Volt/Prius difference - but a safe electric car with maybe 40 miles of range would be ideal if they could price it close to other (gasoline) cars in it's class. Hauling around hundreds of miles worth of battery for her 6-mile commute is silly.

Re:sure it is

[waddleman]

Serious question. What minivan are you driving? I'm going to be in the market soon.

Re:sure it is

[Anonymous Coward]

I just bought a volt 2 weeks ago for almost $4,000 less than the factory sticker price.

Re:sure it is

[BasilBrush]

I'm convinced a car that costs much more to own and operate than traditional vehicles is going to change the world.

Cars cost more than horses. Cars replaced horses.

Re:sure it is

[Luckyo]

Opel Ampera sells very well in the EU. It's just the US sales that are lagging, probably due to much cheaper gasoline prices.

Re:sure it is

[BasilBrush]

Batteries have to be replaced every 5 years.

I haven't checked your other claims, but this is blatantly not true. The Chevy Volt battery is designed for 10 years, and under warranty for 8 years.

The oldest Prius's are now 15 years old and mostly haven't had their batteries exchanged.

Re:sure it is

[toddestan]

Oh course, that only matters if she doesn't need a car after 5 years so that she can sell them off. Otherwise, she's still got $13k stuck in a car that she can't sell (without buying another car). Also, you need to add in the cost of gas for the new car.

Re:sure it is

[bsa3]

That would most likely be a diesel. If you're in the US, our government's protectionism is at work again, keeping vehicles you want to buy out of the market.

Re:sure it is

[toddestan]

However because it is from a US automaker, it is perceived as crap.

Well, it's not like GM is known for their high quality vehicles to start with.

Re:sure it is

[loshwomp]

I told her as long as her current car was safe and dependable, don't go buy a new car to "save money".

Probably sound advice in most cases, but your analysis is assuming a trade-in value of $0.

Batteries have to be replaced every 5 years.

Buy whatever you want, but please stop spewing bullshit. Battery replacement is so infrequent (even in mild hybrids that have been around more than a decade) that there isn't even enough data to calculate a meaningful MTBF. Either you're trolling with the 5-year battery replacement line, or you've fallen for a troll.

I am *personally* driving a pure electric with a battery nearing its sixth birthday, and it is still almost as good as new.

All of the extra nasty non-green things that goes into manufacturing your lightweight car, motors and batteries

Such as? Go on, we're waiting.

PLUS using electrical current generated by coal burning plants

Still a win on emissions (except maybe for CO2) even if your claim were true. It's not really true, because less than half of the energy mix is coal, and, more to the point, practically zero is from oil.

Re:sure it is

[Teancum]

(and for the record, the pollution created by a coal plant generating the energy required to charge an electric car is less than the pollution created by burning gas in a non-electric car. And batteries last longer than five years, and are getting better every year. And tax incentives for new technologies help them get off the ground, and are a smart investment for the future).

Another point in favor of those who want to mention the "pollution" issues with gasoline vs. electric vehicles is that in the production of gasoline, almost as much energy is consumed to produce a gallon of gasoline as is made available from the refined gasoline itself. In the past, such energy was consumed from raw petroleum or by-products (like tars and heavy organic molecules also found in crude oil), but many of the current refineries simply use electricity to run their boilers and equipment as such energy sources are ideal for fixed physical facilities like a petroleum refinery. The refineries can usually find more profitable uses for those other organic molecules or even find "cracking" catalysts to break that down into Octane and other more valuable substances. Electricity at industrial rates usually is quite cheap from most power utilities too.

In other words, even if you are burning gasoline, a coal-powered electricity generating facility has likely been used to produce the energy you are using in your automobile anyway. Trying to compare the efficiency of using that electricity to make gasoline or charge up a battery can be very tricky, and I'm not entirely sure direct "apples to apples" comparisons can be applied even though it is tried. Most current "efficiency" measurements usually ignore completely this use of fossil fuels in terms of how it impacts pollution and energy efficiency calculations.

Re:sure it is

[Anonymous Coward]

You have failed at basic math. She works 60 miles away 3 days a week. That's 120 times 3, or 360 miles per week. At 20 mph you get 18 gallons. That's a savings of 200 a month. Call it 2k a year. A 2002 civic ex 2dr will pay for itself in 2 years, and she could keep her old car. But then you wouldn't be able to be a smug a hole on the internet.

Re:sure it is

[Formalin]

Neat... Nurses in my province start at around that wage, and make more like 80k after some years.

They also get double pay on overtime, etc, so senior nurses can pull some decent coin...

This gives me second thoughts about engineering... :-(

Re:sure it is

[Formalin]

The diesel market in the US is pretty limited, unfortunately.

Re:sure it is

[Ihmhi]

Yes, but if it serves as a backup and you never use it, the maintenance will be drastically reduced nevertheless.

Remember, changing oil is rated by miles. The less miles you put on the engine, the less oil you change. It's much the same for many other ICE parts.

Re:sure it is

[Anonymous Coward]

When will you people get it thru your head that presidents have NO CONTROL over gas prices.

Re:sure it is

[DigiShaman]

Meh, depends really. Depends on the make/model, how new it is, and at what time of the year including demand and/or a waiting list. Worst case scenario happened with the Honda Odyssey (a popular minivan) in that many paid over MSRP in a bidding war.

Anyways, I'm with you. Paying MSRP is like adding insult to injury. Buying a new car is not a fun experience despite what the commercials illustrate. I really loathed the whole process. Once you settle on a price with your sales rep, then you're off to the next gantlet, the finance department. Those guys are really tricky. One guy looked and acted like Weyoun from ST-DS9. They try and bowl you over with numbers, warranty, and all sorts of shit. One guy was shoving paper so fast across the desk in a hurry that I actually told him to slow the fuck down and review each line item and how they add up. In the end though, if they don't get you one way, they'll make up for the loss in another. It's too bad Saturn folded. Their cars were so so in quality, but the buying process was fairly up front and honest.

Check out Truecar.com. I've actually made printouts and presented them to my Toyota sales rep. I must have saved at least a few hundred buck all said and done.

Re:sure it is

[ppanon]

Maybe the batteries aren't rated for the serious continuous shaking you would get in regular off-road driving.

Re:sure it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Your math seems to be a bit off, as it appears you're only considering the mileage one way. Since she presumably has to drive back home, her mileage per day is 120, not 60, so 360 miles per week. At 20 MPG, that's 18 gallons a week.

Now, lets take the new Prius c - 50 MPG combined rating and ~$19k. She'd use 7.2 gallons per week instead - 10.8 gallons less, which is $54/week at $5/gallon gas. She'd end up saving about $200/month in gas. To finance a $19k car with TTL and 0 down will be about $400 per month for 60 months. If she can get $10k trade in value on her current car, that'd cut the payment down to ~$200 and she'd basically end up breaking even - up until she pays off the car and that extra $200/month in fuel savings goes to her savings instead.

Re:sure it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Compare Germany. 1.7 EUR/litres, still no electrical cars sold. That IS $8/gal.

Re:sure it is

[Mr. Underbridge]

Well, as long as gas prices stay static during that same period...which I sure as shit wouldn't put any money on.

Of course, to be fair, I don't know that I'd bank on rock-solid electricity prices, either. Ten years ago, during California's rolling blackouts, selling an electric car might have been a difficult proposition. Even now, there are areas of the country where the electricity price is more volatile than gasoline prices, in general.

Of course, I suppose one would have the option (with the Volt) of simply not plugging it in and running off the gasoline engine, but that's a lot of added cost to get a 37mpg (gasoline) car.

In general though, I am glad to see people buying the Volt again, as the fears surrounding it seem to be a "fear the new thing" phenonemon. After all, if you really want to get scared about cars, remember that the average vehicle is sitting on 10-20 gallons of extremely flammable hydrocarbons.

Re:sure it is

[hairyfeet]

Not to mention the average buyer of a Volt has a yearly income of $171,000 which is pretty damned far from average and certainly isn't gonna "change America" anymore than the Tesla did.

For all those that think electric is the future, are you willing to pay say...60% taxes? because that is what you'll have to do so that the government can basically afford to give electric cars to the working poor. in my area the average car driven by the working poor is a mid 90s, some even older. you can offer tax breaks all you want, they won't bite because they simply can't afford the payments, not to mention replacing those batteries for $17k+ in less than 5 years because they can't afford a climate controlled garage to put them in.

Pretty much every "solution" short of fossil fuels has been a total failure, the costs are too high or the solution simply doesn't exist. i LMAO every time Al Gore talks about how we should all "just use public transport" when he knows damn ed good and well most of the south where he is from doesn't HAVE public transport and it would cost billions to build and run which the states don't have.

Sadly the Volt is a perfect example of what happens when the government gets involved, a vehicle that is too expensive for the vast majority even after being subsidized up the ass. every time the government gets involved its worse, just look at the SUV which was created by CAFE killing the station wagons which sucked a hell of a lot less gas than an Explorer.

If the government wanted to get involved what we need is something like that tanto or whatever that Indian car is called, small, cheap, and good on gas. offer something like that for say $5K and then offer a cash for clunkers style deal and you'd be amazed how much our gas usage goes down as all the poor folks trade in their old hogs for something cheap and easy. but that wouldn't be "green" enough i suppose.

Re:sure it is

[tyrione]

I am agape at people bragging that they only go to the gas station once a month or so.

Yeah, you buy less gas than me, but you paid nearly $50,000 for a glorified Cavalier.

I'm agast at the ignorance and pessimism as if the year is 1905 and all we need are horses. Grow the hell up. In a world where people routinely lay down $50k+ for a car or worse, lease a car at $1000+ per month you're bitching and down playing the viability of the Volt? BMW, Mercedes, and many other luxury brands are releasing their Hybrids in 2012 and early 2013. Hell, BMW is building out their Carbon Fiber autos in Moses Lake, WA.

This is just the beginning.

http://www.bmwblog.com/2011/09/01/bmw-group-sgl-group-joint-venture-opens-the-new-moses-lake-plant/

Re:sure it is

[N Monkey]

I'm convinced a car that costs much more to own and operate than traditional vehicles is going to change the world.

Cars cost more than horses. Cars replaced horses.

You are seeing the world through the proverbial rose tinted glasses and are not accounting for the cost of the infrastructure needed to support horses, i.e. thousands of shovels to clean up their exhaust.

In 1894, the Times of London estimated
that by 1950 every street in the city would be buried nine feet deep in
horse manure. One New York prognosticator of the 1890s concluded
that by 1930 the horse droppings would rise to Manhattan’s third-story
windows.

:-(

Re:sure it is

[jo_ham]

Citroen Xsara Picasso, 2.0 litre HDi from 2003. Looks like this: http://www.carzoneoflouth.co.uk/used-car-photos/louth-used-CITROEN-Xsara-Picasso-1.jpg

They don't make it any more, but do have a number of vehicles both slightly bigger and slightly smaller that fill the niche (C3 and C4 Picassos). You won't find one in the US, but if you are looking for efficiency, VW is your go-to right now for diesel in the USA. I was looking to move to the US on a permanent basis in 2008 and my research was suggesting VW was the only large scale manufacturer there going for diesel as an economy option rather than just something to put in big pickup trucks. The market may be much better now - especially since the diesels currently on sale in the EU (and for a number of years) have met the more punitive US regulations that prevented the early high efficiency turbo diesels that we had here in the early 2000's from being sold there. There are no barriers any more, except cultural ones that cars "must have big engines".

In a combined cycle I get 47 mpg, if I am doing longer distance driving (more than just driving in town) I get 55 mpg. My father used to drive a VW Touran that got even better figures that that (in a 5 year younger car) that also had 150 bhp. (For US mpg figures divide by 1.2).

Re:sure it is

[jo_ham]

I remember well - I lived there for a little while and was going to relocate permanently. VW are about the furthest on, but the current crop of diesels being sold in the EU does meet the stricter particulate/emission regulations of the US, so hopefully things will start to change if they haven't already.

In the Ford makes some of the best (and class leading!) diesel vehicles that are genuinely high quality cars that are attractive to own, much to the surprise of people in the US. I think it's purely a function of cost that explains their absence in the US - I think what they sell in the US is built down to a price that they simply can't match with their EU offerings, which have higher build quality and better spec. EU Ford has at least two top-selling-in-class cars in the UK (and a few other very strong cars) and is making hay while the sun shines. US Ford is trying to avoid circling the drain after betting on the wrong horse. It's a shame, but hopefully all is not lost.

Re:sure it is

[BasilBrush]

That was very interesting, thanks. Pollution is of course also a reason to switch from ICE cars to EVs.

Re:sure it is

[Maury Markowitz]

> and they could buy a $11,000 Versa to park in the driveway for those "long trips" that theoretically kill the electric car

Or even better?

free/subsidized rental cars of a similar model with zero paperwork.

IE, Toyota signs a deal with Budget to stock a number of (what is the Leaf, the Matrix?) cars as normal rental models. If a Leaf owner comes in, they simply hand in their keys and take a set for the rental model.

Yes? Would this do it?

Re:sure it is

[Admiral_Grinder]

Almost. It is still recommended that you change the oil every 6 months. I don't do that myself, but you have to run the ICE every so often to keep it from drying out and seizing up. Most engines have to run to pump oil through them or all the oil finds its way into the pan. You also have to think about the gas too, it does have a shelf life.

Re:sure it is

[Crosshair84]

Spot on.

Trying to go non-fossil fuels at this point is like trying to built a 747 in the year 1906. It will fail for the simple reason that the technology base does not exist to support such an endeavor. Throwing more and more money at the project will not change that fact and will do nothing but waste resources that are better spent elsewhere in our society.

The transition will occur when the market says it should and not a moment before. We transitioned from whale oil, to kerosene, to electricity for illumination seamlessly with no government intervention. When the technology became cost effective people started using it.

Re:sure it is

[mlosh]

"Sadly the Volt is a perfect example of what happens when the government gets involved..." No, the Volt was in design and development WAY before the Bush-era bailout, before the Obama-era bailout and expedited bankruptcy. Sorry, can't lay any perceived shortcomings of it on the government's feet. Well, any more than any car that must meet emissions, crashworthiness, etc, etc.

It _is_ very expensive for a compact car, which is why the average buyer high-income. GM says they are working on a less-expensive version. The CEO challenged the engineers to take something like $10K out of the cost. That would get it down near regular car prices.

Prius battery packs don't typically need replacement at 5 years, do they? I know their battery chem is different, but the Volt already has a lot of battery management built in, both thermal and electrical, so the vast majority of the Volts will go far longer than 5 years with their original pack. YMMV.

Hairyfeet, you are thinking of the Tata Nano. Very lightweight, made with inexpensive components. If you saw it in person, I'm not sure you or many other Americans would trust that it would be safe on our roadways. Although I agree that there is room in the market for a far less expensive vehicle than what the traditional automakers are now selling.

Re:sure it is

[Sez Zero]

Edmunds has a nice calculator for comparing what you'd save on gas vs. the cost of a newer car: http://www.edmunds.com/calculators/gas-guzzler.html

Makes it easy to see that, in most cases, it doesn't really make sense.

Re:sure it is

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're buying a new car your getting ripped off.

Re:sure it is

[thrich81]

One practical reason from personal experience -- the traction control (which can't be turned off) is tuned such that if you get stuck in a place where the front wheels spin, the traction control will shut down power to the rears. So you can't use the rears to push you out of loose sand or snow if the fronts don't have traction. So no off road capability at all. I suppose the only reason it has AWD is to push through loose snow (but don't stop or get stuck) and of course, marketing. Most of them are 2 wheel drive models though so there is no implied off road capability with them. 90% of AWD SUVs have never been off road, anyway.

Re:sure it is

[Thelasko]

Look, first generations of new technology are never about "saving money". Do you really think people bought the first iPhone because they could "save money"?

People buy the latest iGadget because they believe in the company as well as the technology. The technology of the Volt may be fine, but I think GM still has a stigma of being bad at product development.

A wise engineer once told me, "one blunder in the car industry takes decades of perfect execution to recover." The Volt may be a perfect car, but few will buy it based on GM's past mistakes.

Re:sure it is

[Anonymous Coward]

20MPG? What does she drive? An F-150?

I want to see an F-150 actually get 20mpg. THAT would be amazing!

Re:sure it is

[CompMD]

If she wants a new car with better economy, she should look at Volkswagen TDIs. I own a Sportwagen TDI, and in the city I get 42mpg, on the highway 48mpg. My lifetime average is 41.4mpg in that car, which includes the break-in period where it gets less economy. Incidentally, this is what the EPA uses for their mpg ratings. The best I've ever gotten out of it is 56.2mpg over a 12 mile stretch of highway from my office to my friend's house.

You can get a new one for $22k, nicely equipped.

When looking at economy cars, the VW is safer, better handling, more powerful (so it doesn't feel like an econobox), built with better quality materials, and mechanically and electrically simpler. I can't believe the slashdot crowd completely ignores these vehicles.

Re:sure it is

[compro01]

My dad's old F-350 (1995) managed 16 unloaded on the highway. Granted, it had that massive 7 litre diesel, but it's still a damn sight bigger vehicle.

Re:sure it is

[digitalsolo]

There really is an "art" to buying cars. I generally decide how much money I am going to put down, my monthly payment goal, and then pick out a car that is about 6-8% higher than I can "afford" by my numbers. I tell them I want this car, I'll do these terms and they can choose to meet those or not. It worked for my previous 3 car purchases (though, in fairness 2 of those were 2 year old models, one was brand new).

It does generally require an appreciable time commitment, as you have to sit there while they go to "the manager" and BS for 10 minutes to make you think they're really reviewing the numbers and going to bat for you.

Re:sure it is

[digitalsolo]

My 2007 Infiniti G35 gets about 21 mpg (US) combined. It's not a huge car by any means, though it does have a fairly high output engine.

On the other end of the spectrum, my Subaru gets around 30 mpg combined and 35-37 mpg highway.

Re:sure it is

[Anonymous Coward]

do your homework, most cars that are older than 3 years hover around 20 mpg

Re:sure it is

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

I bet they would really like to get rid of that part, but right now they feel it's required. If it was my only car, I'd like it to have that gas generator since filling up with electricity isn't very easy when you're 50 miles from home. Someday that will change. But you're mostly right, I'd go for the cheaper fuel efficient car right now since I doubt I'd ever make up the difference in gas vs electricity savings.

Re:sure it is

[blueg3]

Hardly. The inflation-adjusted gasoline prices are highly volatile. Just in the past 15 years there's been more than a factor of 2 variation in gas prices.

Re:sure it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Any car with a big engine... my '98 Acura CL 3.2 gets about 20 mpg local... my 2011 Infiniti M37 with 335HP gets 19. A BMW 7 series gets 14mpg, a 400hp Camaro maybe 16mpg. There comes a point in car pricing where gas cost isn't really what you are worrying about.

I find the argument that a Volt is "too expensive to be worthwhile" at $40-45k to be fairly amusing, given that there is a market for the BMW 760IL (nicely equipped for $160,000). Apparently 2,289 people agreed last month.

Re:sure it is

[hairyfeet]

Why are you trying to make this into a left VS right issue? I said the GOVERNMENT, not any party, and all the tax breaks and other initiatives for "green tech" were there under Bush as well, they weren't pushed as hard is all.

And the problem with the batteries is EVERY study I've seen on them involves them being kept in a climate controlled garage when not in use. tell me do YOU have a climate controlled garage? i bet you don't, hell I don't know a single person that actually does. Have you ever stuck a LiOn battery in a hot car? notice how the battery wasn't worth shit afterwards? its not rocket science, LiOn batteries don't respond well to extremes in heat and cold, which is why we use lead Acid batteries to start cars. Now figure in several hundreds pounds of liOn being out in 114F summer heat or 8 degree F winters, how long do YOU think they will last?

And thanks, i knew it was tata or tanto or something, but the rest of the point is spot on. if you want to lower the gas usage for America you HAVE to give the working poor a vehicle that is dependable, cheap, and cheap on gas. Not a single one of their "green" vehicles currently comes close and without the government propping them up they won't either, simply because the battery tech wasn't there. As another poster put it we are trying to build a 747 in 1908 and we simply don't have the technology. A MUCH better use of our resources would be 45MPG+ 4 cyl cars that cost less than $10K, and then give a "cash for clunkers' kinda deal to get those that can't afford even $10K out of all those old Fords and Chevys. This is something we could build NOW without any major breakthroughs in tech, and not only could we build it but it could truly become the "people's car" with whole industries springing up around to provide everything from customization to repair. better IMHO than wasting billions on an electric car that few will be able to afford and even fewer will be able to afford battery replacement.

I predict in less than 6 years the majority of these all electric cars will be in the dump because when people find out the true battery replacement costs and find that no car lot will give them shit for trade in if it needs new batteries they will just toss the things and move on. this isn't a right or left issue, this is the government trying to force the market to go in a direct where it isn't economically feasible to do so and will fail, just as every other attempt has. When the tech is there the market WILL move, but you can't force it when the tech just isn't ready.

Re:sure it is

[mattack2]

How does it cost more to *operate* than traditional (i.e. gas powered) vehicles?

Re:sure it is

[Dare nMc]

> in the production of gasoline, almost as much energy is consumed to produce a gallon of gasoline as is made available from the refined gasoline itself.

I highly doubt that, Refining+distribution of gas = 17% of the total cost From what I see Electric transmission distribution costs to a home is at least $.13 /kwhr (based on electric production cost of $.03 to $10, and avg home cost $.20+ local line cost $.03.) While Fuel distribution cost to a gas station is $.25 per gallon [ca.gov] (1 gallon = 33 kwhr.) so gasoline costs $.0075 /kwhr to distribute.
If used for charging a electric car vs hybrid, add in the weight savings of gasoline over electric (more tire wear, more road wear/maintenance), storage costs, charger costs. The reduced transportation cost of fuel could easily pay off, even if efficiency at the car is 35% (especially if it is cold out, and you have a need for some of that combustion waste heat for warmth.)

>electricity generating facility has likely been used to produce the energy you are using in your automobile anyway
And what about ignoring the amount of fossil fuels used in mining, refining materials for building and maintaining power lines, building plants, transporting coal, etc, etc. If we start using electric for our cars, the electric infrastructure will likely have to be doubled or tripled, putting a big hit on fossil fuel used to get to that point.

Re:sure it is

[mea_culpa]

...plus you are asking tax payers, many who make less money than you to subsidize an additional $10,000 or more of your auto purchase.

Lets not forget the $250,000 that tax payers have already paid in advance for each Volt produced thus far.

Re:sure it is

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're comparing the Volt to a cheap Civic or other economy car you're missing something. The Volt was not made to compete with the Prius or Honda on their level. It far surpasses those economy cars in value and quality, both ride and finish. How may other 39K cars do you see everyday on the road?

Re:sure it is

[MightyYar]

Yes? Would this do it?

It's a great idea, but I think it would fail at typical vacation times when everyone wants a car at the same time. Talk to any ZipCar member from Manhattan about this. All winter, you could get a ZIpCar for the weekend no problem unless it was a holiday weekend. And in the summer... just forget about it.

Re:sure it is

[hairyfeet]

Thanks, i'll have to remember that "building a 747 in 1906" bit as that is just about the perfect description I've seen of the whole electric car mess. And how quickly everyone forgets this is our SECOND go round, they tried to push the same thing in the 90s and it failed then too. instead i get modded down for pointing out what should be common sense, that you can't force a tech that isn't ready, and sadly some even saw it as a "Bush VS Obama" debate as the poster below you which of course had nothing to do with anything, as its more about the government trying to force change that just isn't ready. We saw what happened with CAFE, the government tried to force small cars when they were boxy POSes and instead everyone bought SUVs which were bigger hogs than the stationwagons we had previously.

I saw a consumer advocate on "money matters" arguing with congress about this and was amazed at how much they didn't understand even the most basic tenants of the free market. he said "I pointed to study after study that showed the average consumer does NOT want a teeny tiny electric 2 seater, that they at least want something big enough they don't feel cramped and have the ability to haul their friends and family in, so what were their questions? "How can we make them take the two seater" well you can't, you are just throwing money away because people won't buy what doesn't work for them" and that was it in a nutshell, a bunch of bureaucratic clueless sitting in a committee deciding that this "green thing" makes for a good soundbite so they blow piles of money on something that nobody wants.

Re:sure it is

[Crosshair84]

Thanks, it is a very good example. I struggled for a long time to come up with a soundbite-ish way to sum up the problem and finally settled on that because it is something that everyone can relate to.

For those who don't get the example. Even if you gave an engineer in 1906 the plans for a 747 and even showed him video of it working they couldn't produce it, not because they are stupid, but because so many of the technologies necessary to build it simply do not exist and many of those technologies are interdependent. They couldn't produce the aluminum alloys used in the airframe, they couldn't produce the high temp alloys used in the engines, they couldn't produce the transistors for the avionics, they couldn't produce the tires for it, they couldn't produce the hydraulics that move the control surfaces, they couldn't even produce the rivets used to hold the airplane together.

No amount of central planning and money throwing would be able to overcome that because the central planners have no way of knowing the correct path to take and, as in the Soviet Union, frequently took the wrong path. The only way it could work is the way it did, Market actors pursuing their own interests, finding what worked and what didn't and others building atop the efforts of those before them.

Re:sure it is

[hairyfeet]

I'm just sorry I can't find that Money matters video as his shock and disgust over dealing with congress really nailed it. i believe he was working with Kelly or one of the other car testing and rating agencies. he was like "I just couldn't believe it. i had charts, studies, tons of data, all showing EXACTLY what i had said, that the average American wasn't gonna take a teeny tiny two seater because its too cramped so they are uncomfortable, they can't carry their groceries or family in it and most people aren't gonna buy TWO new vehicles just so they can be green during the commute during the week. Did this change their stance? nope all they kept asking me was how they could somehow magically get people to buy something which didn't work for them. finally i just told them you can't do it, they thanked me and that was that".

And that was it in a nutshell, some committee had a bunch of congress critters that decided that cars they wouldn't personally drive or own was "good enough for the peasants' because it gave them a good soundbite about being green so it didn't matter how much it failed, they would just keep throwing money at it.

The sad part is I do believe there is a way to SIGNIFICANTLY lower the gas usage in America, but that would mean abandoning this whole electric car nonsense and building instead a "people's car" which would be a 4 door and 2 door 4 cyl that got 40MPG and cost less than 10k. Then you could offer a cash for clunkers that would allow even the very poor to buy this new car. The average age of a car on the road is now 11 years simply because people can't afford no $40K+ new car in a dead economy with families to feed, even i am driving a 99 Ranger because my 2 boys matter to me more than replacing a running truck that is a gas hog.

But if they sold what i just described as well as say gave me $3k trade in for my ranger? i'd give up my 14MPG truck for the 40MPG people's car tomorrow. but instead they will push toys for rich folks to feel good about themselves, only there isn't enough people making over 100K a year that actually give a shit about being green for those to ever even break even. its a dead end, just like in the 90s, and we all know it. the only question is how much of OUR money will be pissed away on this before the government gets a clue and pulls the plug.

Re:sure it is

[ProfessorPillage]

If you compare a 50mpg HEV with a 4mi/kWh BEV, you save about $0.13/mile using the BEV with $8/gal gas and $0.12/kWh electricity. This works out to about 75,000 miles to break even on a $10K price difference. But the Volt's a bigger car than those hybrids you listed, so it's not really a fair comparison.

Re:sure it is

[ProfessorPillage]

My sister called me a few weeks ago. She works 3 days a week as a nurse working 12 hour shifts at a facility about 60 miles from her house. She has a vehicle that gets about 20mpg and is in great shape. More than that, it is 100% paid for. She wanted to know my opinion on getting a new car.

So even if she had a car that was able to get 40mpg, her gas consumption would go from 9 gallons a week down to 4 gallons at best. 5 gallons at $5 a gallon is $25 a week or $100 a month. A new car payment would be better than $250 a month.

That's off by a factor of two, assuming she also drives home from work. She probably drives other places too.

All of the extra nasty non-green things that goes into manufacturing your lightweight car, motors and batteries PLUS using electrical current generated by coal burning plants. All you have done is moved WHERE the environment is polluted at from your exhaust pipe, to someplace else. You are not really saving the environment either.

Actually, even including battery, etc, and manufacturing, and assuming all electricity come from coal, electric cars still cause less total pollution than conventional ones burning gasoline (though this depends on how you assign relative values to different types of pollution). The difference becomes much more significant when lots of the electricity comes from sources other than coal (in the US, 60% comes from non-coal sources). Of course the only way to "save" the environment using transportation choices is not to drive, and to remove the perceived need for others to do so as well.

Re:sure it is

[gstrickler]

Hold on a minute, you're not done yet. You didn't count charging losses or taxes on the electricity yet. And the Volt gets about 3.4mi/KWh, so your figures for the Volt costs start off 15% low. Consumer Reports calculates the Volt costs $0.038/mi @ $0.11/KWh, 12/11th of that is $0.0415, so let's use $0.04/mi for simplicity. Ok, savings is now $0.12/mi, so were now at 83k mi for BE on $10k difference, 150k mi on $18k difference. That's counting exclusively electric miles on the Volt, gasoline powered miles don't count, because they cost about the same as the other vehicles.

What if we reduce the gasoline cost to $6? That's $0.12/mi - $0.04/mi = $0.08/mi difference. Now, we're at 125k mi for $10k, and $ 225k mi for $18k.

But wait, the Volt battery pack wears out. It's guaranteed for 8yrs or 100k mi, but after that, you're looking at replacement when you get near breakeven, even with $8/gal gas, and you're not likely to make it to break even with $6/gal gas.

If gasoline remains below ~ $7/gal, or electricity increases, well, you'll never hit breakeven. Edmunds, Consumer Reports, and others have analyzed it extensively, see the first link above for more details.

Re:sure it is

[ProfessorPillage]

The link you listed mostly compares electric and other hybrids to conventional vehicles, not so much to each other. And they do this at current gas prices, and up to $5/gal. I think the $19K CR-Z HEV you're comparing it to is not comparable to the Volt - it's smaller, and also gets under 40mpg (the Insight is also smaller and also gets in the low 40s). A Prius costs more like $25K (advertised as ~50mpg, probably less in independent testing like the one you're using for the Volt), and a Focus is like $28K (~40mpg advertised). So it you really want to get picky on details, the gas price to break even vs. the Focus in 100,000 electric miles is $0.08/gas-mile or $3.20/gal, and vs. the Prius it's $0.11/gas-mile or $5.50. That is assuming all-electric miles, but presumably the battery will last longer than the warranty period, and the advertised mpg for the HEVs are probably high. Also, a battery replacement 8 years from now should be cheaper than the purchase price premium.

Re:sure it is

[gstrickler]

A Prius is $22k. The also compare it to the all electric Leaf, and the all gas Chevy Cruze.

The battery probably will last longer than the warranty period, but did you read where Chevy estimates that it's capacity will be reduced 10%-30% in those 100k miles? Oh, BTW, that's 100k vehicle miles, not 100k electric miles. By the time you hit 100k-150k electric miles, the battery is expected to need replacement, if for no other reason than significant loss of capacity.

Re:sure it is

[ProfessorPillage]

A Prius is $22k.

According to the Toyota site a Prius is $24,000-$29,805 base MSRP, depending on which version you get. I don't know which one is most comparable to the features on the Volt, but it's probably not the cheapest one.

They also compare it to the all electric Leaf, and the all gas Chevy Cruze.

They list the per-mile costs of those, but they don't do a direct comparison on the time to break even on the difference in price between a HEV and BEV. I don't see an analysis of whether a (mostly) BEV is worth the extra cost over a HEV on the wikipedia page nor the pages it links to.

The battery probably will last longer than the warranty period, but did you read where Chevy estimates that it's capacity will be reduced 10%-30% in those 100k miles? Oh, BTW, that's 100k vehicle miles, not 100k electric miles. By the time you hit 100k-150k electric miles, the battery is expected to need replacement, if for no other reason than significant loss of capacity.

That's not a thorough analysis of the mean lifetime a buyer can expect for a battery given any replacements they might get during the warranty period. It only makes sense to buy a Volt if the vast majority of the miles will be electric, so it makes sense to assume most of the miles will be on electric. If you frequently need a longer range, you are probably better off with a car that has a longer range at high efficiency.

The Edmunds analysis you cited says that the payback period is 135K miles at $5/gal which is within the expected lifetime of most cars, and it seems to be around 90-100K miles for the more common HEVs (the full-electric leaf is at the low end of the range). But number of years to break even on a price premium is not the same thing as total cost of ownership- what you really want is the total discounted purchase, fuel and maintenance costs over a given number of years/miles, minus the residual value at the end of that period. And yes, you might have to replace the battery (or maybe it'll get replaced under warranty). You also might have to replace parts on other cars.

So if you only care about total cost to yourself (it's beyond me why anyone thinks buying a car is a good way to save money), and you will generally drive within the electric range, and you expect gas prices to rise significantly relative to electricity prices, then your total cost of ownership will almost certainly be lower with a Volt than with a regular gas car, some HEVs would probably "save" you more, and a full-electric (if the range works for you) is probably the best deal. If gas prices stay the same, you'll probably have similar total cost of ownership either way. Not owning a car at all will save you more.

These arguments that electric vs gasoline cars are a bad investment remind me of the exact same argument a few years ago about how hybrids, and now people like you are insisting on comparing electric cars to hybrids to decide if they're "worth it." Lots of people buy SUVs. How long do those take to recover their price premium?

Re:sure it is

[gstrickler]

The argument exists solely because the proponents of these vehicles talk about how cheap they are to drive. It's a lie. If they would stop lying about it, then companies like CR & Edmunds would do their analysis, and 95% of the population would ignore those and simply buy what they want.

The problem with the Volt is that it's priced about $10k too high. The only reason anyone will ever get near breakeven is because of the tax credit. Take away that $7500 (which expires in the quarter that they sell the 60,000'th vehicle, and is lower the next quarter), eventually dropping to zero. The problem is that the tax credit isn't "free", it's taking money from every taxpayer, including the person buying the car. 60k cars & $7500 = $450M, plus more for the decreasing credits. It's bad energy policy, and bad tax policy.

Re:sure it is

[ProfessorPillage]

They absolutely are cheaper to drive: the incremental cost per mile driven will be lower on just about any electric car than the equivalent hybrid, and lower on a hybrid than an equivalent conventional car. They just aren't necessarily cheaper in total cost of ownership (this depends on a lot of circumstances), where the difference in sticker price is plainly obvious. They are no more dishonest than advocates for anything else.

The subsidies for the consumption of oil aren't free either (including providing security for supply lines, making pollution and consumption of resources essentially free, tax credits for oil companies, and direct subsidies), so it is not obvious that subsidizing the adoption of technologies likely to reduce oil consumption is bad energy policy or bad tax policy. The stated purpose of tax credits is to encourage taxpayers to take actions that are in the public interest but are not economical in the market (of course there's often brib^H^H^H^H lobbying involved too). So you can equally argue that any policy is bad policy. Get the gov't to stop subsidizing fossil fuels (including the lack of a value placed on leaving the resource in the ground), then we can talk about removing subsidies for technologies that reduce this consumption.

TTAC disagrees

[Narmi]

This story contradicts the story posted over at TTAC where they claim the shutdown has been extended from two weeks to three weeks.

Re:TTAC disagrees

[XxtraLarGe]

This story contradicts the story posted over at TTAC where they claim the shutdown has been extended from two weeks to three weeks.

Or maybe they were going to shut down for three weeks, then decided to only shut down for two, so they could claim they were resuming "early".

Re:TTAC disagrees

[Anonymous Coward]

This is like our government decreasing the rate of increases by 5%, instead of making authentic cuts.

This year, I plan on losing 20lbs. I will do that by gaining only 50lbs, and not 70lbs.

Re:TTAC disagrees

[CaptainLugnuts]

The scheduled summer shutdown that has been extended from two weeks to three weeks. The current five week shutdown was not originally scheduled and was shortened by one week to four weeks. So the Volt production will have been shutdown for five weeks 'extra' by the end of the summer.

Re:TTAC disagrees

[DCFusor]

Then ttac has it wrong. Gm says otherwise, and there's a whole slashdot like foruim that tracks these kind of things at: http://gm-volt.com/forum/index.php You have to know that not all journalism is deserving of the name. In this case, they couldn't even read a press release right?

Electric Cars are a bad idea

[nickberry]

It's a breath of fresh air, until all the electric plants burning coal have to ramp up production of electricity to meet the demand of all these tailpipe diversion cars.

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea

[fiannaFailMan]

It's a breath of fresh air, until all the electric plants burning coal have to ramp up production of electricity to meet the demand of all these tailpipe diversion cars.

One big smokestack is easier to regulate (and replace with something cleaner eventually) than a million tailpipes.

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea

[jo_ham]

Still much more efficient than all of those cars burning gasoline. The central plant is more efficient, and has the benefit of being able to transition away to alternative generation means (nuclear/wind/tidal/solar/solar thermal/....(gap).... fusion) as they become more viable. This also cuts down on refuelling infrastructure - fewer gasoline tankers on the roads etc.

Baby steps, for a culture that is firmly entrenched in gasoline and other fossil fuels.

Alternatively, those Volts may be charged off the grid entirely (or with minimal grid load) - I have seen house installations where the car is charged up from solar PV installed on the house (running to battery banks to provide overnight charging capability).

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea

[fwarren]

Now that IS an inconvenient truth.

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea

[MimeticLie]

One big smokestack is easier to regulate (and replace with something cleaner eventually)

The process is already underway. Coal plant construction is ceasing in favor of cleaner natural gas for both economic and regulatory reasons.

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea

[Christian Smith]

It's a breath of fresh air, until all the electric plants burning coal have to ramp up production of electricity to meet the demand of all these tailpipe diversion cars.

Unless it's charged at night when there is a surplus of generation capacity.

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

???

Are you including the ~25% of electricity lost in transmission from central plant?
What about the industrial costs of the batteries, and the fact that they lose range/ need to be replaced after a few years?

Oh and dont forget, the ELECTRICAL infrastructure in most of the country is in poor shape, if we were to get a large surge in people recharging vehicles
would have brown/blackouts and have to invest in upgrading there (probably a number of additional power plants as well)

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea

[Balial]

You don't even need to replace it. It's already vastly more efficient.

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea

[jo_ham]

???

Are you including the ~25% of electricity lost in transmission from central plant?
What about the industrial costs of the batteries, and the fact that they lose range/ need to be replaced after a few years?

Oh and dont forget, the ELECTRICAL infrastructure in most of the country is in poor shape, if we were to get a large surge in people recharging vehicles
would have brown/blackouts and have to invest in upgrading there (probably a number of additional power plants as well)

Yes, I am including that. I should have specified.

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

It also means that we have another avenue of innovation. A new problem to solve and we love to do that don't we? :)

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess, recharged from a panel made by Solyndra et al.?

Yet another nonviable ultra expensive "solution".

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea

[gtbritishskull]

Most of the charging would be done at home. Which means before 8am and after 6pm. The peak hours for electricity consumption are in the middle of the day (when the sun is shining and factories are running). Also, not sure where you get your 25% transmission loss number. Wikipedia had it at ~6.5%. You are just trying to spread FUD.

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea

[operagost]

If the current administration doesn't sign another illegal executive order, this time banning fracking.

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, in some parts of the country (CA) we get our (extra) power from natural gas, which burns FAR cleaner than gasoline. How dirty an electric car is depends heavily -- a said before -- on the source of marginal electricity.

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

True fact: executive orders are only "illegal" when a black democrat is president.

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea

[DCFusor]

I guess you have to post AC if you're astroturfing and making up numbers out of your ass, eh?

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another nonsensical, ignorant slam at Obama and green energy from an idiot conservative. What a surprise.

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea

[CubicleZombie]

It's a breath of fresh air, until all the electric plants burning coal have to ramp up production of electricity to meet the demand of all these tailpipe diversion cars.

Not a problem. Power plants are located away from cities, where people are considered less important.

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea

[blindseer]

That would be great if the federal government would actually let us build more wind, solar, nuclear, and geothermal power plants.

A company wanted to build a solar power plant in the desert but was stopped by the EPA because of concerns over the migration of the turtles out there. A company wanted to build a windmill farm out in the middle of nowhere but the military stopped them because it would interfere with the radar. Someone might use the windmills as cover for an air assault to deny us the purity of our essence or something.

Power lines to wind and solar farms can't be run because it might destroy the view on some national park, disturb some rare butterfly, or some other nonsense. We can't drill holes into a geothermally active area because someone will inevitably claim it will cause earthquakes, prevent earthworm migration, pollute the water table, or whatever.

Nuclear power? Do I even need to say anything?

Sure, I'd love to be able to burn less fossil fuels but the government needs to give us an option besides freezing to death. I'll change my tune, and get rid of my dinosaur powered truck and furnace, when the government gets a clue. Until the government allows someone to build a new nuclear power plant, one that does not just replace one built in the 1960s, we will continue to burn coal and do so at an increasing rate.

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

The first guy that plugs in his car and blows the transformer on my block is gonna have a nice shiny new volt crammed in his ass.

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea

[sqrt(2)]

I'd rather not have poisoned groundwater, thank you.

I'm convinced by the evidence I've seen that we could satisfy our power needs with wind, solar, and nuclear. Yes, I'm an environmentalist who supports nuclear power. It's the greenest energy source we have currently available.

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea

[jo_ham]

No, why?

Oh right, you want to take a cheap shot at Obama! Ok, go for it. Let me know when we can get back to adult discussion.

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

One big smokestack is easier to regulate (and replace with something cleaner eventually) than a million tailpipes.

A big, high-temperature, well-insulated steam turbine in a power plant is also a lot more efficient than the internal combustion engine in a car, which has to be designed for lightness, responsiveness, etc. Taking the lazy option and quoting wikipedia (though these articles seem well-referenced), an internal combustion engine gets 18-20% efficiency converting chemical energy in the fuel to mechanical power, and a thermal power plant (e.g. coal, oil etc) gets 33-48%, depending on how recent the design is, for converting chemical energy in the fuel to electrical power.

There are a few things I've left out in this calculation. For electric cars, you need to include the inefficiency of electricity transmission from the power station, of storing in and recovering from a battery, and of an electric motor. For gasoline cars, you need to include the energy required to break crude oil down to gasoline (whereas power stations can pretty much burn crude oil directly), as well as the transmission (as electric cars are usually gearless). But I'd expect these all to be 10% effects, so they don't change the main conclusion: gasoline cars produce about twice as much CO2 as the power station that supplies an equal number of electric cars.

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Right now, the overnight charging (or at your workplace) is not a problem for the very few electric vehicles that are out there. Once enough of these are out there, the underlying problem with our nation's electrical grid will be brought to light. Especially in California, Texas and New York. I live in Texas and we are running about 90% capacity at all times. Extreme weather (hot or cold), causes rolling blackouts as there is not enough electricity even though we are purchasing extra juice from neighboring states. Just not enough capacity. The electrical grid infrastructure needs an overhaul to support all those electric vehicles.

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit! Transmission losses are less than 10% on a bad day.

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

You a funny man expecting adult conversation from an Anonymous Coward. Funny funny man.

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea

[jo_ham]

I know, but I was being massively over conservative with estimates since I knew I'd be attacked by AC trolls with an ingrained hate for electric cars.

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea

[Medievalist]

I'm convinced by the evidence I've seen that we could satisfy our power needs with wind, solar, and nuclear. Yes, I'm an environmentalist who supports nuclear power. It's the greenest energy source we have currently available.

You were doing great until the very last sentence.

Re:Electric Cars are a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Non-sense the Volt draws less current than you electric dryer, the grid hasn't melted down because everyone dried their cloths at the same time. Or did it?

Volt is a game changer.

[GT66]

If GM can get the price of these things down below $30K, they will put ALL gas models out to pasture. Imagine, you can do up to 40 miles of your short hop driving on all electric but still have the range of gasoline (unlike cars like the Nissan Leaf).

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[GT66]

I know bad form. Anyway, by "ALL gas" I meant "gas ONLY" models.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[DaFallus]

I'd love to have one of these things if it a) was a bit cheaper, and b) were available in a model that wasn't a hatchback. I don't really understand why pretty much all electric cars are hatchbacks. I hate them and I want a real trunk dammit!

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[cpu6502]

Too bad my electric is coal. According to greenercars.org a coal-powered EV is worse than my gasoline-powered Insight. (Or a diesel-powered Lupo 3L.) (Or a natural gas Civic.)

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[mark-t]

If it's effective range were roughly an order of magnitude more than it is, while the recharging times not being substantially altered, they probably *COULD* put all gas models out to pasture.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because hatchbacks are better?
Fold down the seats and you have tons of room. Trunks suck. Also aerodynamics.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[rsclient]

Good news, then -- the MSRP is $31,645
Source: http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car/

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[nomel]

...with the same gas mileage as my 20 year old toyota. :-\

http://gm-volt.com/2010/10/10/popular-mechanics-finds-chevrolet-volt-gets-32-mpg-city-and-36-mpg-highway-in-extended-range-mode/

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Yes, that is their goal. Unfortunatly, the batterys cost a ton. They can't sell them at voulme while taking a 10k hit on each one sold.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[geekoid]

Air flow. It's easier to shape the rear to get close to minimum drag with a hatch back.Thus better gas mileage.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[petman]

I wish Americans would stop using "gas" when they mean gasoline. Over here we have cars running on actual gas, as in, vapor hydrocarbon.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[scharkalvin]

The volt is NOT an electric car, it is a serial hybrid that can be plugged in to charge. But with a range of only 30 miles most people are going to power the thing with gasoline for most of their travel. If the volt could get something like 100 miles range and still have the gas engine for back up that would be different. Where I live most jobs would require an average of 20-40 mile commute ONE WAY. The Leaf could do this, but it would be too close for comfort unless I could sneak an extension cord our the window to the parking lot at work. A hybrid electric with a range on battery of at least 60 miles would be ideal. The volt is half way there.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[scharkalvin]

Er that's after the $7500 tax rebate, which the GOP will kill if schmucks elect them.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[GT66]

Baby steps. It goes as far as it goes on current battery tech. The foundation design is sound and like regular gas cars, each subsequent model should bring improvements to efficiency and range. In my town, forty miles would mean that I could drive to work and back and do all my running around to the shops and such places every day with miles to spare when I got home.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[MikeMo]

Except that statistics say that roughly 80% of Americans live within 16 miles of work http://askville.amazon.com/average-commuting-distance-americans/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=2554434. And the expected range is 40, not 30.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[operagost]

Why should middle class people pay for you to buy a Volt?

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[mrchaotica]

Hatchbacks don't always have better airflow. Consider the VW MK4 Golf, Jetta, and Beetle. All are basically the same car, except the Jetta is a sedan, the Golf is a square hatchback and the Beetle is a round hatchback. Which one has the lowest Cd and therefore the best fuel economy? The Jetta!

(The Beetle, counter-intuitively, has the worst aerodynamics because the air stays attached all the way down to the rear bumper and sucks the car backward.)

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[nickberry]

damn straight they'll kill it, kicking back money to GM is dumb, all tax incentives need to be shut down. If the market can't support it why should those of us who actually pay taxes pay for it.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

I hope a hybrid plugin car will be my next vehicle I buy. I'm low on fundages so I'm waiting a few generations for them to lower the price and get some of the engineering quirks hammered out. My dream is to have a plugin car with a home solar array, so I don't pay the power company for energy anymore, and I can take casual drives for free.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[gtbritishskull]

You keep your terroristmobiles. I prefer cars that run on electrons made in the good old USA.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[CaptainLugnuts]

It's not a serial hybrid exactly, either. At highway speeds the engine is directly connected to the driveline for increased efficiency. I can only imagine how bad the highway mileage would have been if there was the 'gasoline to motion to electricity to motion' in there too. Around town it's a serial hybrid.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[jrcamp]

I wish Americans would stop using "gas" when they mean gasoline. Over here we have cars running on actual gas, as in, vapor hydrocarbon.

I'm so sorry our language confuses you. Let me see if I can gather everybody up in the country and get them to change a fundamental word in their vocabulary just to make you happy.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Gavagai80]

The majority of people live in cities ("more than three-quarters of the U.S. population shares just about three percent of the U.S. land area" according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States ). Where in a city is the average job going to be 30 miles away?

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[gtbritishskull]

Ok. A you said yourself that most people average a 20-40 mile commute. That is pretty common. I personally have a 25 mile commute. If I had a volt, I would get the building where I work to run a power cord out to my car. Maybe even pay them for the privilege. 8 hours later, when I get off work, it would be charged up and ready for my trip home. Sounds very workable to me.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[DCFusor]

You can fix that - buy solar panels, or do the deal with the power company to demand greener power - most offer it. I just did the panels and went totally off grid, with enough capacity to run my Volt. It's pretty cool skipping both the gas station and the power bill....money is just piling up that used to go to those before.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[cforciea]

I think your listed commute distance is atypical, but let's go with it anyway. If the Volt has a 30 mile range and you are driving 60 miles a day, you are halving your fuel consumption. If it averages around 30 mpg on gasoline, then even including recharge costs you're looking at the equivalent of something like 50-60 miles per gallon.

Put another way, the average driver drives 13-14k miles a year. Assuming that driving is fairly evenly distributed and Volt drivers charge nightly, you can drive about 11k miles a year on pure electric. It's a little worse than that because people take the occasional road trip and the like, but that still sounds like they hit a pretty good number to start out with.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[petman]

It's not just to make me happy. Gas has a specific meaning in English, which is one of the classical states of matter other than solid or liquid. Why do you call something 'gas' when it's obviously a liquid?

So what term do you use when a car actually runs on gas, as in, natural gas?

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[NatasRevol]

Shut up or I'll kick you in the boot.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[blindseer]

Yes, we can't have the GOP schmucks kill the tax rebate on "green" cars, can we? I mean the federal government has just loads of cash sitting in piles doing nothing. No, wait, the government doesn't have piles of cash sitting around. The federal government has a debt that is somewhere around the annual wealth production of the entire nation.

This tax rebate comes from somewhere. I'll give you a minute to figure out where.

...

That's right, it comes from taxes. The government is giving these people money that they already gave them in the first place. Not only that but they are giving money to people that can afford a new car but they are doing so by taking it from people that cannot.

All these tax rebates for "green" technologies is destroying the economy, bankrupting the federal government, and doing very little to actually improve the environment. We've seen all kinds of money pits and environmental disasters like "cash for clunkers", windmill subsidies, and corn ethanol requirements. Cash for clunkers scrapped fully functional vehicles meaning considerable wasted energy in producing replacement vehicles. Windmills produce unreliable power meaning that to keep the lights on the coal power plants will run idle when the wind blows. When coal plants "idle" they still burn fuel since they can't be turned on and off like a light bulb. This raises the price of electricity and does nothing to the "carbon footprint" that is ultimately produced.

With corn ethanol... WE ARE BURNING OUR FOOD!

I sure hope the GOP schmucks are voted into office this November. Without an oil pipeline, with a ban on new oil and gas drilling, continued subsidies into failed "green" businesses, and burning more of our food I suspect we will see some very cold and dark winters ahead.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then we say it runs on natural gas. And they say we Americans are the slow ones...sheesh. ;)

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you've never heard of a nickname eh? Interesting. GASoline. It's really not that hard to figure out why we call it gas.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[SpryGuy]

I'm really curious when the second generation Volt model will appear, and what improvements/refinements it will consist of.

I'm not yet in the market, but when I am, I will seriously consider a Volt. It'll feel good to buy American AND green.

Hopefully the very near future will show some new models with the same technology, widening the appeal of the car for everyone. And hopefully with improved battery technology as well.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[gothzilla]

You're missing a few things here.

First, it may have a 40 mile range but that's when it's constantly moving at one speed. When you're driving in a congested city with lots of stops and starts, your range will drop dramatically. There's also going to be plenty of time you sit not moving at all while running a heater or a/c, and then what if you need to run errands before or after work? That 40 mile range doesn't actually exist in real life driving situations and is why this car is near useless for most people.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[petman]

If gas = gasoline, the natural gas = natural gasoline.

Anyway, why do you shorten an 8-letter, 3-syllable word (gasoline) to 'gas' but would say/spell out in full a 10-letter, 4-syllable word?

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[AK Marc]

Why do you call something 'gas' when it's obviously a liquid?

Because "gas" is short for "gasoline". Something run on the state of matter gas is LPG, propane, or other such name to distinguish it. What do you do about the people who call LPG or liquid propane "gas" You aren't running the car on gas, you are running it on a liquid.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[AK Marc]

There is no function a trunk serves that's "better" than a hatch, other than some arguments about security, unrelated to the functionality. Hatchbacks are also more aerodynamic. So lets review:

More space, more economical (better aerodynamics), same cost. There is no functional argument for a trunk (other than security, which isn't a function), or "I don't like hatches."

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be daft.

Tax Breaks are one way to bootstrap new and promising technology... an invetment in the future. It will pay off with ultimately lower prices, more models, a greater market opportunity, over-all smaller energy demand and lower pollution (over the long run).

Your argument is exceedingly short-sighted, and in fact down-right stupid. Like most "conservative" arguments these days. I still can't get over how people can call themselves "conservative" when they have such utter contempt for the entire concept of "conservation", or long-term investments and stability and sustainability. Never mind "BUY AMERICAN"...

If Conservatives actually put logic and reason and reality over ideology and political gamesmanship, they'd be all over this... trumpeting it, not slamming it. But Republicans and Conservatives in this country left reason behind a long time ago, and seem to have collectively completely lost their shit when a black man was elected President (and have been slurring him and his legitimacy ever since... all baselessly).

I wish Republicans would stop putting party over country, ideology over reason, and start actually working for a better future for this country and Everyone in it it (not just the top 1%). It would sure be nice. But they seemed bound and determined to see this country and everything in it FAIL, just so they can try and pin it on Obama and blame him for everything. It's disgusting and repugnant to watch.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[AK Marc]

Square hatch backs are not the style discussed for electric cars. Insight and Prius hatches are, and they are all "round" but with separation so the air doesn't stay attached. No sedan can beat that (and it holds more stuff, no downsides, other than people with irrational dislikes of hatches).

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Anonymous Coward]

the air stays attached all the way down to the rear bumper and sucks the car backward.)

And it sure does suck.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[AK Marc]

Nah, you charge at home, drive to work, park anywhere and don't plug in. Then, with a 40 mile range, you start back and the gasoline engine kicks in to get those last 10 miles. You are a gasoline car for just over 10 miles of the 50 mile trip, and EV for the rest (probably about 1/4 gallon of fuel). Perhaps not ideal, but better than using a Chevy Suburban for the commute and using 4 gallons per day. We'll just round that to 1/20th the gasoline for the hybrid, and nothing special to do, other than plug it in once a day while you are sleeping.

But then the naysayers will complain that they don't want to have to plug it in ever, and that it isn't true electric 100% of the time, so you might as well buy 2 Chevy Suburbans, one to tow the other so that the one in back you ride in (the chauffeur is in front) doesn't use any gasoline.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[tftp]

It'll feel good

Yes, that's the only reason to buy Volt.

And hopefully with improved battery technology as well

Indeed; a cheaper and better EV will be accepted by a wider audience. I can't buy a Volt, for example, because it is simply not capable of climbing uphill to where I live (not in EV mode, at least - and I have no desire to splurge on premium gasoline for it.)

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gas is a natural shortening of gasoline. Natural gas is generally labelled CNG.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[CubicleZombie]

Rant: It burns my ass to see a Lexus hybrid with the "Clean Fuel" plates because

1. The driver weasled $7500 from tax payers for his luxury car.
2. It's clogging the commuter lane with ONE person in it, and it gets WORSE mileage than my regular car.

Remember a few years back when the weight of a Hummer accidentally qualified it as a farm implement? $9000 tax credit. There was an uproar over that one. But people seem to be okay with a $7500 subsidy for a Lexus LS500H* and a free pass in the carpool lane.

(* The same car that Toyota gave to Al Gore after delivering it by jet airplane.)

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[idontgno]

Really? Do you really work at a building where you'd be allowed to power your rechargable? Even if you have to pay for it, not all facilities have the wherewithal to provide power, or even the rent-collecting bureaucracy to charge for it.

Sure, I can postulate the spherical cow as well as the next nerd, but in reality, it's not there yet. Not universally, not in the majority of the cases, not even in a reasonable minority of the cases. Maybe in the near future, as new commercial real estate gets built, or older commercial real estate gets renovated, such that (for instance) paid-for parking garage stalls can include power outlets and the charge for power can be billed along with the stall rental. But with the squishy economy and current glut of commercial real estate, no one's gonna be building anything new for a while without some significant non-business driver (like a deliberate intent to create a "green building"). And then your employer would have to buy or rent space in this new building. And then you'd have to sign up to rent one of these "green e-car parking spots". AND THEN, you'd be able to "run a power cord out to my car", as you put it.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's some flaws in your argument.

First, you're upset over these rebates, but not the great bulk of tax expenditures? Why is that? Are you just silent on them because of ignorance, or is there some reason for you not mentioning it?

As for your claim about corn ethanol...do you actually believe there is a shortage of food? There isn't. Not in this country, especially not in the production of corns and other grains. They STILL pay farmers to underproduce, so the market stays stable instead of becoming a cutthroat race to the bottom. Which might seem good for a year, but then a year or so later, it stops being so fun once all the investment stops.

And no, that oil pipeline won't help, it'd just lead to more oil flowing out of North America, nor is there a ban on new oil or gas drilling (actual production is up).

But don't let reality get in your way. Believe what the GOP schmucks are lying to you about.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[petman]

LPG only stays at liquid form when it's inside the gas tank. Once it's released for burning as fuel, it becomes a gas, so using the term gas for LPG is correct, since the user only always sees it as a gas. So the car does run on gas, since the fuel that enters the combustion chamber is in gas form.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Anonymous Coward]

What about heating the interior? Theoretically, with the roof-to-floor, open area of the trunk included internally, there's more air to heat up, or cool down, on a cold or hot day. Personally, I just don't like the way hatchbacks look :-P but I can't knock anyone else who drives one.... Different strokes for different folks ya know!

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[boristdog]

Yes, because all oil & gas is consumed at low prices in the country where it is produced.

Look up the word "fungible", you may need it in future conversations.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Savage-Rabbit]

I sure hope the GOP schmucks are voted into office this November.

The GOP idea of good candidates includes Christianity's answer to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and and a living Ken doll who tells jokes about his father shutting down plants and laying off workers. Until their choice of candidates improves they don't stand a chance. Looking on the bright side, and assuming that Sarah Palin represented a low point, the GOP's judgement does seem to be very slowly improving.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[tftp]

Where in a city is the average job going to be 30 miles away?

Many people live in San Francisco but work in Silicon Valley. That'd be easy 40-50 miles one way.

Agricultural workers live in cities but work in fields all around the area, up to 50 miles one way.

Company reps live somewhere but service the entire large area, sometimes driving more than a hundred miles per day.

You also need to consider other power needs:

• At night you need headlights. They are 150W each, plus rear lights, and they are on regardless of whether you are moving or sitting in traffic.
• In rain you need windshield wipers. Their motor is not running on wishes.
• In winter you must have heating - at least for the windows to remain frost-free. Rear window defroster is a power-hungry beast.
• In summer you need either an internal A/C (consumes power) or a 4-windows-down A/C (consumes power.)
• There are plenty of hills in many locales. Climbing hills burns joules very quickly. Some roads require chains in winter time, or winter tires (that also lowers the efficiency.)
• Wind can help and it can hurt efficiency.
• You can't drive at the optimal speed all the time.

To summarize, an EV - a car that can't be fueled up at any corner station in minutes - has to have a considerably larger range. For me such an EV has to be able to drive for about 80 miles and then, at the end of the trip, climb 2,000 feet of elevation, without damaging the battery. Gas assist defeats the purpose - I already have a Prius which easily does all of the above. Volt doesn't buy me anything; I'd get one otherwise.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[AK Marc]

In that case, gasoline could be considered a gas, as ideally, it is an aerosol so fine that it is indistinguishable from gas by a regular observer. Whether this conversion happens as the liquid leaves the tank, or as it is sprayed through injectors is not functionally interesting to most people.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[DaHat]

money is just piling up that used to go to those before

Which... like the Volt ignores the very real and high cost of getting into such a thing.

You know if someone would give me a few million dollars I could just live off of the interest... shame I can't convince anyone to do so...

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Do you know how hard it is to transport a body in a hatchback? You've got to make sure it's covered with enough blankets to disguise the outline, or anyone can just peek in and see what's going on.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[DaHat]

Why should middle class people pay for you to send your kids to school?

Because society for the most part benefits from an educated population... though I would prefer vouchers... or even an abolishment of government run schools.

Why should middle class people pay to clear the roads of snow?

Because society for the most part benefits from clear roads which allow them to go to/from work and pay taxes and live their lives.

Why should middle class people pay for traffic lights?

Because society for the most part benefits from roads which allow them to go to/from work and pay said taxes and live their lives.

Seriously, get a more intelligent argument.

Says the man who comes off sounding like a moron.

You are calling out things which in general all benefit from (not unlike say the military, police or fire department)... and yet... I (like the parent) fail to see how most of society benefits from our tax dollars helping to buy you or anyone else a Volt. ... unless you want to play the 'broken window' theory of economics.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[MikeMo]

No, that is the well-vetted range in normal driving. You can find that data everywhere. Secondly, the Volt is all about what happens when you exceed the battery's range. That's why there's an on-board generator. Even if you only got 80% of your commute on all-electric it would rock.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Anonymous Coward]

So what term do you use when a car actually runs on gas, as in, natural gas?

I use "natural gas".
It works well.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[DCFusor]

You have to make the millions first, then you can give them to yourself and live off the interest (well, successful trading, the government has made interest illegal). That's exactly what I did - and since I spent some principal on the car and solar, yeah, I get less interest, and the money is still piling up.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[blindseer]

You are correct. I misspoke. I don't wish the GOP gets into power as much as the Democrats lose power. I despise the two party system that has developed in this federation since it inevitably leads to voting for the lesser evil. I don't like the GOP, i just like the Democrats even less.

I also agree that the GOP is improving. At the same time I see the Democrats getting worse. Recent events have lead me to believe that socialists have taken over the Democrat party. At the same time I've seen a shift toward smaller government and increased civil liberties from the GOP. Don't get me wrong, the GOP still has plenty of big government RINOs. Those RINOs are starting to die off, lose in primaries, "retire" (as in see the writing on the wall and quit while they are ahead), and usually get replaced by someone more sensible. We are still a long way from having a sensible majority in either party.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll stop saying 'gas' when everyone outside the U.S. stops saying 'maths'.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Anonymous Coward]

The beetle's shape was designed to air cool the rear engine and it has kept it's iconic shape through the ages. It had good aerodynamics for this purpose but now its just about the looks.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Normally all the power we get is either gas or coal but we can opt to buy 10%, 15%, etc of wind or solar power at our own cost. I would be surprised if you don't also have this option just talk to your power distributer.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Confusador]

How exactly is security "not a function"? The locks on my car seem to function just fine at preventing trivial access to the interior.

Not that trunks provide much in the way of security, every sedan I've had gave you access to the trunk from the passenger compartment.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure it isn't all the wars?

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[blindseer]

I am upset about the great bulk of tax expenditures. I just did not mention them since they are not the subject at hand. What is being discussed is the flawed energy policy, or the lack of an energy policy, from the federal government. I could write all kinds of stuff on the misguided expenditures coming from the federal government. I just felt that most of those tax expenditures were not nearly as relevant to the current topic as the subsidies for wind power and ethanol fuel. I could talk about the misguided drug laws and how much that is costing us in money and lives if you like.

I agree that there is not a shortage of food. What ethanol subsidies do is encourage the transfer of food from the market and turn it into a substandard fuel. This raises the prices of both food and fuel for no real economic or environmental benefit. Because of the numerous variables involved in computing the energy derived from corn ethanol, and the lack of an obvious benefit, no one can say for sure that we are getting more energy out of the ethanol than what we put in. We are certainly getting more energy out of oil than what we put in, it's just that some will argue over whether it's a 100x gain or a 10x gain.

And no, that oil pipeline won't help, it'd just lead to more oil flowing out of North America, nor is there a ban on new oil or gas drilling (actual production is up).

Could you define "help" for me? That oil will be sold. It will reach the market. It will get burned. What happens without the pipeline is that it will get sold to other nations. It will be transported by truck, rail, and ships, instead of the much cheaper pipeline. This means increased costs for everyone. It will NOT lead to a NET flow of oil outside of North America. Sure, more oil will leave but it will be replaced by oil from South America, Africa, or Asia.

Perhaps my claim on a ban on oil drilling was a bit of hyperbole. The federal government has not banned the drilling for oil on private lands. Whether production has gone up or not is not something I have verified for myself. I doubt anyone will dispute my claim that new drilling on public lands has essentially stopped. There may have been a few permits issued here and there but the rate of the issuance is not near what it used to be and likely does not make up for lost production on public land.

But don't let reality get in your way. Believe what the GOP schmucks are lying to you about.

So I should believe the lies the Democrats are telling me? They both lie. I don't like either party. It's just that as of today the GOP is the lesser evil. With so much misinformation coming from both major political parties, and a media empire willing to lie to sell more eyeballs (the Zimmerman-Martin recording from NBC being a recent example), it has become exceedingly difficult to find out what is reality any more.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Anonymous Coward]

This just might be the stupidest comment that has ever been posted anywhere on the internet.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Between a country and the planet... I would rather see a country fail. Not the planet.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Sardaukar86]

Dexter? Posting on Slashdot!?

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[shutdown -p now]

They'll stop saying "maths" when you'll start saying "Mathematic".

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[shutdown -p now]

I dunno, my hatchback has a thingy that folds out to cover what's inside from prying eyes.

Anyway, when transporting bodies in trunks, remember rule #1: do not speed!

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Falconhell]

Socialists, LMAO you dont have any socialists in the US just Right wing (D)and far right nutjob (R)

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Anonymous Coward]

How many miles will your 20 year old toyota go before requiring gas?

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[zippthorne]

My electricity is 60% natural gas and 20% nuclear.....

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[zippthorne]

Is that travel distance, or "as the crow flies"

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[AK Marc]

How exactly is security "not a function"?

Because, arguably, the security is the same. Some people will whine about stuff being visible, but every hatch I've ever seen included a cover. People will complain about just needing to break a single window to be in the "secure" hatch area, when most cars provide some manner to open the trunk from within the car, resulting in equal security. Thus, the security is not a function. It's a discussion point that's irrelevant to the utility, so I explicitly excluded it, anticipating complaint. Oh look, I was right.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in oz the volt will be rebadged as a holden and released later this year.
It is supposed to have a RRP of +$60k !!!!! with NO government tax subsidies
I'm keen on getting one but the price will be a shocker .....

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[BasilBrush]

Recent events have lead me to believe that socialists have taken over the Democrat party.

A statement that can only mean you don't know what socialism is.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[BasilBrush]

I can only imagine how bad the highway mileage would have been if there was the 'gasoline to motion to electricity to motion' in there too.

Not too bad at all. In that configuration the generator motor can run at it's most efficient RPM the whole time. And there's no inefficient gearbox needed anywhere.

It's exactly how a diesel-electric locomotive works. And they have a long history and are very common.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Which proves the above point... Going off the grid or saving oodles on buying energy from the gas or electric company requires a massive amount of money to be spent.... Something that most cannot do.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[DaleSwanson]

I wish Americans would stop using "gas" when they mean gasoline. Over here we have cars running on actual gas, as in, vapor hydrocarbon.

Gasoline vapors are burned in engines, so it is a gas.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your gas is also "coal". Most energy losses happen not in your car but before you fill up the tank.

Both gas and electric cars use a comparable amount of electricity to go the same distance. Gas cars also need some oil.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[RightSaidFred99]

Your postings have made me stupider. Thanks for that. Seriously, what the fuck are you all on about? Gas is...gas. Just because some asshole thinks his pet definitions are the correct ones doesn't mean the rest of us are going to start following his kooky advice.

Gas does have specific meanings in English, and very high among them is that gas is short for gasoline.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[RightSaidFred99]

Which anyone sane would kill. Seriously, $7500 rebates for rich people to buy toy cars? What the fuck?

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the supposed advantage of a Chevrolet Volt/Opel Ampera compared to the quite probably more reliable and already available Toyota Prius?

I think 'game changer' is rather an overstatement.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Anonymous Coward]

If electric cars are to replace gas, they need to come in a variety of shapes and sizes.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Sez Zero]

Why would I ever buy a Volt when, for the same price, I can get a VW Passat TDI (different version for us US folks) that gets comparable fuel economy and way more interior space?

(figured from Edmunds.com)
MSRP
Volt: $39,145
Passat TDI: $25,995

5 year average cost per mile
Volt: $0.54
Passat TDI: $0.55

True Cost To Own
Volt: $40,244
Passat TDI: $41,095

The Passat has 50% more trunk space, more per-passenger volume, seats 5 instead of 4 in the Volt, doesn't require a home charger, and (despite being a much larger car) is faster 0 to 60. There is almost no quantifiable metric that makes the Volt look like a good idea, and taken together (performance, price, utility) it just seems like only brain-dead folk would opt for the Volt.

Why do you think they shut down the Volt plant for a few weeks? VW is adding people at their Passat plant in Tennessee to boost production. You tell me which car makes more sense?

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Derrr, you say it runs on natural gas.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[swalve]

I hate them too, but sadly I think that ship has sailed. Even many of the cars that look like they have trunks are hatchback-like when you open it. I bought a Hyundai Accent last fall, and when comparing the utility of the hatchback versus the sedan, the hatchback won in every category. And it's like 6 inches shorter. You can practically chuck a washing machine back there. (Actually, I have, but it was one of those little Haier portable ones.)

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[swalve]

I love how everyone bitches about premium. It is 20 - 30 cents more a gallon. With gas prices where they are, that's barely noise. And with an engine designed to specifically run on premium, you almost get your money back via the increased efficiency.

And the Volt's electric motor supposedly produces 149hp and 273 ft-pounds of torque. That should be enough to get up any hill.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[swalve]

The nice thing about the hatch is that the rear "lip" is usually lower, so your cargo doesn't have to be lifted as high to get in. And easier to roll out when you need to unload of it. Even better, the larger hatch (as opposed to the trunk's decklid) has a little more leverage in case you have to snap a spine or something to get it to fold up.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[swalve]

Middle class people are the vast majority of taxpayers by population, but the rich pay the vast majority of dollars. So the rich are the ones subsidizing it to a far greater degree. Regardless, unlike things like welfare, the goal of the subsidy isn't to pay off the end user. The goal is to incentivize the purchase of the cars so that a market can develop for them more quickly than would normally happen. Which is a good thing, because as new technology gets adopted, the price tends to go down, which helps everyone.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[swalve]

OK, I'm with you. Kill the subsidies on the "green" stuff, as long as you kill the subsidies on farming and oil production. Let the market decide!

Also while we are at it, might as well kill the subsidy on your mortgage and children too.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[swalve]

You are right that the Prius and the Volt compare pretty well. They just do the hybrid thing a little differently. But I don't think the Volt is really looking to pull market share from Priuses, but from Tauruses and Camrys and Accords. The nice thing about the Volt is that it CAN be a plug-in EV, or it CAN be a regular hybrid. Even if the plug-in power only accounts for 25% of your daily usage, that's a 25% savings (minus the cost of electricity, which is supposedly $1.50 per charge. Compared to the 1-3 gallons of fuel it displaces, that's still at least $3 saved a day.)

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason that "Democrats" are getting "worse" is that they're moving to the RIGHT. Obama is the most conservative Democrat to hold office in our lifetimes. And most of the policies currently in operation are basically Republican ones from a few years ago. Of course, Republicans have lurched so far to the right, so fast, that they've fallen off the insane-batshit-crazy scale, leaving many politicians to vigorously oppose their own viewpoints from just a few years ago. It's sad and pathetic.

There has been no shift towards smaller government or increased civil liberties from the GOP. Quite the opposite. Increased civil liberties come from LIBERALS, not conservatives (this is especially true if you're not a wealthy straight white christian male... the ONLY constituency that the current Republican party seems to care to represent). Republicans, when given the reigns of power, spend FAR MORE MADLY than Democrats, incrase the size, scope, and power of Federal government FAR more, and are basically just reckless and irresponsible (or maybe just incompent).

Oh sure, they talk a good game, but look at their actions. Only completely gullible tools actually think the GOP stands for smaller government, fiscal resopnsibility, or personal responsibility. In fact, they stand for the opposite of each of these things, judging by their actual actions.

Don't be so gullible. And don't vote for Republicans... that would be the worst thing to ever happen to this country.

(and be aware that 80% of the National Debt is due to Republican administrations and Republican policies that continue under Democratic administrations... like the Bush Tax Cuts and various wars and unfunded entitlements like Medicare Part D).

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[tftp]

That would be absolutely true if only Volt would be selling for a reasonable price, like Tauruses ($16,500,) Camrys ($22K) and Accords ($22K.) However it is far more expensive ($35K - $40K incl. the charger,) and as result there will be no savings, ever - just a loss all the way down. At best you will see savings after 10-12 years of use. Then you'd be better off buying a Taurus, investing the difference and using investment gains to buy fuel.

As other posters already said, gasoline costs today are comparable to other costs that are associated with the car (loan, service, parking, tolls.) My gasoline costs are so small that I don't even count them.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

Next gen Volt should have substantially improved batteries. The current Volt is a precursor. They've just started down the path of battery tech for cars. This includes improved mass production as well to lower costs.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

And how about you stop putting Rs into words that don't have them? :)
Seriously, lots of words have multiple meanings. You just don't like our multiple meaning because you don't have the same one. Language is an evolving beast.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

Kammback - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamm_back

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[shutdown -p now]

I'm neither American nor Brit (not a native English speaker, in fact), so I don't have a stake in this fight. It's just entertaining to watch, so I help stirring it up occasionally.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

Appreciated. I agree, it is pretty fun. I like that /. has these two together.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[s122604]

Many people live in San Francisco but work in Silicon Valley. That'd be easy 40-50 miles one way.

Right, and I'm sure the concept of a powered parking spot is beyond even the wildest imaginations of Silicon Valley's best
I mean they've had them for 50 years in Alaska and Canada for 50 years (for block heaters), but such a concept is unimaginable anywhere else

Once you start talking about at destination charging, staying on the grid and off gasoline become that much easier.
not that it's already not doable for the 80 percent of the population who commute under 20 miles each way..

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[tftp]

Right, and I'm sure the concept of a powered parking spot is beyond even the wildest imaginations of Silicon Valley's best

Yes, as it seems. There are very few charging stations around. 99.999% of parking spots have no power; and even if there is an outlet on a wall, most likely it's not for your use. An EV owner may largely get away with stealing power, but if that becomes a problem then external outlets will be simply locked. Employers, in this market, are not too eager to splurge either. Most medium and small businesses even tell employees to use their own cars to run company errands, without compensation. It is pretty expensive to dig trenches in paved parking lots and drag cables, even if you are only planning regular 120V outlets and not very expensive quick chargers (and for what cars? Are they all standardized?) Then there will be ongoing maintenance expenses, vandalism, etc. Power in the parking lot is a headache. It could be also a good lure if a mall installs those outlets - then they have a captive audience. But even here there are not enough EVs to warrant that. Plenty of people drive trucks...

Once you start talking about at destination charging, staying on the grid and off gasoline become that much easier. not that it's already not doable for the 80 percent of the population who commute under 20 miles each way.

That theory about 80% of population is not well substantiated by neverending stream of cars on roads of South Bay. A very typical commute from Santa Clara to Gilroy, for example, is 38 miles - but you'll sit in traffic on US-101 far more than you'd think (and then lights, A/C and heater will bring your battery down.)

My personal belief is that EV will become popular only when the cost of the car drops into range of low-end cars (say, under $15K.) That's because EVs are in fact low-end cars, with these batteries and the constant need to worry about SoC. Once batteries become more capable (or charging faster) then the prices may swing in the opposite direction. If you ask me, it's very difficult to match the energy transfer speed of gasoline because hydrocarbons are extremely powerful substances. Many space rockets fly on kerosine, for example. One possible way to develop EV is to simply work toward lowering costs. If that Leaf (as a pure EV) would be selling for $10K today, it would be flying off the shelves - because the limitations of the car would be amply compensated by its low cost. I'd get one for driving down to the valley for lunch. There are always errands that are well within capabilities of the car. And there are other errands, where you need range and peace of mind. A gasoline car will be a piece of history, like a horse, but not before the battery technology makes a few serious advances.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[s122604]

That theory about 80% of population is not well substantiated by neverending stream of cars on roads of South Bay.

Not a theory, a fact, substantiated by relevant data, start here
http://www.ridetowork.org/transportation-fact-sheet
your anecdote about the traffic situation in one particular area is not substantiation of anything...

There are very few charging stations around. 99.999% of parking spots have no power

and a hundred years ago hitching posts outnumbered parking spots. Its all about the cost of gasoline, which isn't going down, and the political will to get the public sector on board with the appropriate subsidies and infrastructure updates.
To act like the lack of powered parking spots is some deal-breaking, unsurmountable problem is ridiculous
It can be done, I'd rather spend money here on things like this, than on things like the Iraq war and permanently staging the fifth fleet in the UAE (socialized expenses that are NOT paid by the gallon, but probably should be).

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[s122604]

Better Data actually
http://www.bts.gov/publications/omnistats/volume_03_issue_04/pdf/entire.pdf

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[tftp]

I have to note that both materials that you are referring to are using data from 2003. It's 9.5 years ago. But we got housing crisis by 2008 - and the crisis was characterized by costs of housing going up, up and more up. Many people couldn't buy (or even rent) in cities and because of that they had to live in adjacent towns. My example of Gilroy is not abstract; one of my coworkers did exactly that because anything closer was out of his financial capabilities. After the crisis hit another problem developed - lack of credit. Today houses are available, and for much less than in 2008 - but in order to get a mortgage you need to prove that you don't need it.

I don't have 2011 data, so this is just how I understand the situation. However freeways here are packed at rush hour, and many cars there are not doing a local hop from one exit to another - they are in for a long haul.

There are other reasons to stay away from cities. I live on the edge of the city, among nature. Birds, deer, foxes are all around, outside of cows and horses. It is peaceful here, as opposed to gang-ridden concrete jungles. People live there, but that housing is of low quality, dense, cluttered. If you live there then perhaps you can be within 20 miles from work; however it is not good for you, and anyone who can afford it tries to escape the city.

and a hundred years ago hitching posts outnumbered parking spots.

Yes, gas stations were rare then - and motorists carried cans of gas with them. Given the high energy density of gasoline, one could comfortably go on a long drive without worry. An EV does not give you that option.

Its all about the cost of gasoline, which isn't going down

It's not going down because there is political will that it remains high and keeps rising. NIMBY/BANANA people fully agree with that, and green advocates believe that humans should go back into caves - or even better they should kill themselves in an ecologically clean manner - to appease Gaia.

To act like the lack of powered parking spots is some deal-breaking, unsurmountable problem is ridiculous It can be done

Sure, it can be done if your name is Joseph Stalin. However a market economy (which the USA largely remains) is not interested in "it can be done" unless it is accompanied by "and that's how it profits you personally."

I'd rather spend money here on things like this, than on things like the Iraq war and permanently staging the fifth fleet in the UAE (socialized expenses that are NOT paid by the gallon, but probably should be).

Very few people would (or should) disagree here. Menacing most of the world is not helpful in the long run. The money could be better spent on investments into the infrastructure. At least fishing for pieces of another bridge wouldn't be a common pastime of rescue workers.

The government could invest some of that money into EVs and solar and ... wait a minute, they did just that - and they lost their shirt on it. Why is it so? Because the country is not capable of competing with China in these conditions. We have another political problem here.

In the end the government could (let's posit that) build chargers at every corner, and it could sell EVs with huge discount, so that they are sufficiently affordable to buyers of new cars. And we also can dream that the government would build new [nuclear] powerplants to charge all those cars. Many people would cry foul here for one simple reason: that government would be subverting free market principles. EVs today can't stand on their own because the technology is not ready. The government could take money from me and give to you, so you can buy an EV. Quite a few people would have a serious problem with that. This is a good illustration why the government shouldn't use taxes to benefit of a small group of people. Perhaps there is an amicable solution, like a government-issued credit to EV companies, but I don't see a politician on the arena at this time who would be even mentally capable of comprehending the problem, let alone the solution.

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your Toyota can't go 12,000 miles a year on electricity (assuming 35 miles per day)

Re:Volt is a game changer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should apartment dwellers pay for you to have a mortgage?

Who Bought Them?

[tmosley]

My guess is government car fleets are being stuffed with these shit-cans for blatantly political reasons.

Re:Who Bought Them?

[GT66]

And that guess would make you wrong. Thanks for playing.

Re:Who Bought Them?

[fiannaFailMan]

My guess is government car fleets are being stuffed with these shit-cans for blatantly political reasons.

Fascinating. Your guess is noted.

Re:Who Bought Them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Zero-taxes paid GE is receiving their production allocation of fleet Volts, which will be accelerated as November approaches; Obama must have a fully functional prop factory to campaign in front of during the election. Afterward? It will persist for a while as a subsidized zombie plant finishing up the remaining fleet orders and then be shut down.

Re:Who Bought Them?

[geekoid]

Why would you guess and not look it up?

Anyways, for a lot of cities, there driving is in short runs, so it would be a good purchase for them.
Our organization is trying out electric cars, because some many trips are less then 20 miles.

Re:Who Bought Them?

[DCFusor]

GE's total buy, which they justify as it will actually save them money - is only 12k total, over some years. Volts sold over 2k last month, of which 12 were fleet sales.

Re:Who Bought Them?

[Anonymous Coward]

obama said that was his plan so I guess that makes you wrong.

Thanks for no longer playing.

Re:Who Bought Them?

[tmosley]

Wow, the levels of smug coming from your post are positively toxic.

Face it, the Volt is the worst HEV ever made. They burn down people's garages a week after a minor accident. Not great. The Volt is a POS that was designed by committee and was forced on Chevy as a condition of the bailout. This is hardcore fascism, but because the sock puppet on the left hand was the one that made the decree, it MUST be SUPER AWESOME.

lol

Re:Who Bought Them?

[tmosley]

How EXACTLY should I do that? Most car companies don't post customer lists on the internet.

Re:Who Bought Them?

[Anonymous Coward]

While the Volt isn't a perfect e-car by any means, it's a promising sign.

As for the fires, they happened after accidents severe enough to puncture the central battery compartment and cause loss of fluid containment. Certainly not a "minor" accident. Even then it wasn't "a week" so much as "weeks later", and rather than "garage" it was a parking lot tantamount to a junk yard where they store totalled wrecks for later study.

As for it being a POS, I can hardly see it being worse than normal cars. It doesn't even have a transmission to strip out. Time will tell of course. :)

Re:Who Bought Them?

[DCFusor]

Check your facts. The Volt process began while Bush was prez and well before the bailout. It was shepherded by Bob Lutz, a conservative who doesn't believe in AGW. It was not forced on GM. Every single "fact" you state is dead wrong - try google or any actual source other than Faux News or R lame-barf. I'm a conservative myself. I think obummer is a total tool and loser.

It still sucks.

[Lumpy]

I get an average of 50mpg in my 2007 Civic Coupe. This is with very mild driving changes like driving 65 and not being a retard and drag racing light to light. The Price difference for a car that is the exact same size as my Civic but costs 5X more and supposedly has 20X the technology only get's marginally better gas mileage.

Who is buying the Chevy Volt? It's over priced and under delivers.

Re:It still sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

What moron rated him overrated? It's a fact, there are a lot of other cars that have NO hybrid in them and have a standard gas engine that get hybrid gas mileage. Suzuki, toyota, Honda, and other all carry cars that get hybrid gas mileage without being a hybrid or being out of reach in price.

Paying for a hybrid makes no economic sense to anyone until the price get's down to where it is affordable. The Volt is a $25,000 car, Not the $40K they are asking for it.

Re:It still sucks.

[GT66]

Your 2007 is priced on 100+ years of refinements and economies of scale on a design that has changed little and certainly doesn't include much by way of cutting edge technology (and no, your stereo doesn't count). The Volt is a completely different paradigm even beyond current run-of-the-mill hybrids like the Prius. If ever there was a mass market consumer grade car that could be considered the absolute cutting edge of technology, the Volt is it. It currently has no economy of scale as nothing like it is rolling of assembly lines anywhere else. And if you think that driving up to 40 miles using all electric is an under delivery, then I'd like to see what your designs are.

Re:It still sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

No way you get 50mpg in a non-hybrid civic coupe
  http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2007_honda_civic.shtml
May if you drafted semis all day.

Re:It still sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm always amused by people who don't realize that our distant ancestors were driving electric cars in the 19th century. And they dumped them as soon as the ICE came along because electric cars sucked ass back then and still suck ass for the same reasons today.

Electric cars are nothing new, nor is connecting a generator to the battery so it doesn't suck quite as much particularly innovative.

Re:It still sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try.

• The 2007 civic hybrid had a MSRP of around $22k. The Volt has a MSRP of around $39k. Thats less than twice as much; a far cry from 5x as much.
• The 2007 civic hybrid gets 45mpg. The Volt, for the majority of Americans, uses no gas. That's much better; a far cry from marginally better.

As with most everything in life, the Volt costs a bit more and you get a bit more. You may prefer the lower fixed cost / higher variable cost the Civic affords. Others may feel differently.

Re:It still sucks.

[afidel]

Your Civic was $6,300 new? Also the MPG on electricity is infinite so you can't compare the two vehicles based on MPG alone. Oh and I call shenanigans on 50MPG for a 07 Civic, best reported numbers at fueleconomy.gov is 40 and that's for someone with 90% highway use (fueleconomy.gov is full of hypermilers so achieving 25% better fuel economy than the best reported number is highly, highly suspicious)

Re:It still sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you put a bigger battery, motor, and engine in the Prius it still wouldn't be a Volt because?

Re:It still sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Also the MPG on electricity is infinite"

Sounds great, let's do a 400 mile race and see what the numbers end up.

The Volt ends up at 38mpg when driven in the real world.

Re:It still sucks.

[scharkalvin]

I read of a guy who transplanted a VW turbo-diesel engine into a Saturn compact with some aerodynamic mods. He is now getting MPG in the low 70's. NOT a hybrid!

Re:It still sucks.

[afidel]

Which real world? 90+% of American driving is around town or in a commute less than 20 miles, for most of the rest of the world it's probably 95+%.

Re:It still sucks.

[DCFusor]

Sour grapes much? You noisy, bad handling encono box ain't no Volt. Wanna race title for title, one either mileage or speed? Drive one, drive an Audi or BMW, and compare. Your piece of crap isn't comparable.

Re:It still sucks.

[gtbritishskull]

You drive 400 miles every day? I drive 25 miles each way to and from work. My commute is pretty typical for an American. I would probably be able to get away with using NO GAS on my daily weekday commutes.

Re:It still sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

since when is a 400 mi race real world driving. Lets take a month and drive the 5 miles to the grocery store everyday and then lets see who last longer, you can plug in the volt every night and not use a drop of gas to drive to the grocery store and back, eventually your gas powered vehicle will run out . Driving 10 miles a day round trip is no less a real world test then the 400 mi. race.

Re:It still sucks.

[AK Marc]

If you drove the better car in the manner you drove the other, then you'd see similar gains. You are comparing real-world to hypothetical. That's a logic fail. How does your real world driving match up with the EPA rating now? Why would you assume different for the other?

Re:It still sucks.

[marcomarrero]

No Civic coupes, but, two hatchbacks did 50 MPG, according to fueleconomy.gov
1994-95 Honda Civic HB VX (39 city, 50 highway)
1986-87 Honda Civic CRX HF (42 city, 51 highway)

It would be a miracle finding those with their original engines... '90's Civic engine swaps were simple, cheap, and performance was great with JDM DOHC engines like the ZC, B16A (> 160 hp), or B18C (> 200 hp).

Re:It still sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, I propose a race format of 100 race legs held on successive days.

Re:It still sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

My volt has 200 miles on it and I've used 0.1 gallons of gas. It cost around $10 in electricity to charge it.

Let me know when your 2007 Civic Coupe can meet those numbers.

Re:It still sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a 2000 Skoda Octavia estate with a 1.9l TDi engine. Last weekend I drow 90miles with 2 adults, 2 children and some luggage then after an overnight stay I drove another 95 miles with 2 adults 3 children and loads of luggage. This was on UK A-Roads mainly with some motorway driving (about 25 miles on 2nd day).

day one reported econmy was 62.7mpg (uk gallons)

day two was 60.8mpg but that included driving over the top of dartmoor straight past the prison so lots of tight corners and steep gradients.

I would love a serial hybrid but can I have a diesel one please and your american petrol engines are ridiculously innefficient. I reckon a small diesel generator running at constant revs to charge a battery pack would be far far far more efficient (mayme a 3cyl 1l engione like Hyundai used to use in the the 80's even)

The Volt is still a flop

[Transist]

It's understandable that emerging markets like electric vehicles will experience growing pains, but the Japanese offerings still make the Volt look pitiful, as far as the electric powertrain side goes. Even if you concede that the fire issues were mostly journalistic hyperbole, it still didn't meet any of the expected sales figures. If anything, I think it's evidence of stagnation of development from 'Detroit'. Not that foreign competition is anything new, but I'm afraid that GM is going to get shut out of this market in the future before it even has a real chance.

Re:The Volt is still a flop

[AK Marc]

The difference is that Toyota does not sell a pluggable Prius, nor does Honda sell a pluggable Civic/Insight hybrid.

Re:The Volt is still a flop

[lopgok]

I don't know what year you live in, but toyota does sell a pluggable prius. I will have mine this month.

Re:The Volt is still a flop

[drkoemans]

Are you sure about that? http://www.toyota.com/prius-plug-in/

I'm an R and see nothing wrong with Volt

[cpu6502]

An electric car that, if you drive long distance, becomes a gasser. Seems okay to me. Just two problems:

- pricetag. I'd probably choose a pluggable Prius or Insight or Civic instead (~$20,000 each).

- government funding. I don't like paying for stuff I'm not using. Hopefully it's just a temporary subsidy to jumpstart GM's hybrid production, not a permanen form of corporate welfare.

Re:I'm an R and see nothing wrong with Volt

[DCFusor]

Be sure and drive them all first. The Volt is more like a good European car, not like the Japanese econo boxes. It's a luxury car and should be compared to others like it. The PIP doesn't measure up - no range to speak of, and it's still noisy and flimsy by comparison....which is why it's cheap - it's cheap. Amd yeah, I'm a conservative myself. Sadly, that means no party has much interest for me - Right wingnut fascists who want to tell me what to do in my bedroom annoy me as much as the left wing ones who want to tell me what to do at the doctor's office.

Yes, I own one. I loved this car at first sight, then it grew on me. I now understand apple fanbois even though I'll never be one.

Re:I'm an R and see nothing wrong with Volt

[gtbritishskull]

- government funding. I don't like paying for stuff I'm not using. Hopefully it's just a temporary subsidy to jumpstart GM's hybrid production, not a permanen form of corporate welfare.

No... its a subsidy to get you to use electrons produced in the US (mostly with coal produced in the US) instead of oil produced by countries who hate us.

Re:I'm an R and see nothing wrong with Volt

[cpu6502]

It makes more sense to save our coal/oil reserves, and drain the Mideast wells dry, and thus become the sole source left on the planet with fuel. But that's longterm thinking, and the word "save" is not particularly popular anymore.

Re:I'm an R and see nothing wrong with Volt

[Confusador]

That only makes more sense if you think that the rest of the world will not be able to transition away from coal/oil in a meaningful way until after the Mideast runs out. If you think they have enough capacity to last until demand drops significantly, it makes more sense to use our stuff now and buy from them when it's cheap. Of course, in actual practice we do a bit of both so as to hedge our bets.

Re:I'm an R and see nothing wrong with Volt

[RightSaidFred99]

You know an even _better_ way to get people to use electrons produced in the US? Stop fighting foreign wars and artificially keeping the price of oil low. Let OPEC hike the shit out of it, let the middle east fend for itself. When gas is $10 a gallon there will be pressure to bring alternative power and alternatively powered cars to the US.

Re:I'm an R and see nothing wrong with Volt

[cpu6502]

>>>That only makes more sense if you think that the rest of the world will not be able to transition away from coal/oil in a meaningful way until after the Mideast runs out

They won't.

India and China are gobbling up oil faster than the U.S. is, and there's no indication they have replacements. The Mideast & Siberian wells will run dry in mere decades, which will leave the U.S. and Canada with the only supply of oil/coal in the world (if we save them rather than squander them). We'll be rich.

Re:I'm an R and see nothing wrong with Volt

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

More like a temporary subsidy to build better batteries with more life that cost less through tech advances and mass production gains. I don't see a reason GM should move toward making hybrids if they can move toward making all electric cars (now they are ICE generators built in, soon ICE will be an option, eventually no ICE). I am certain they will get both better and cheaper in gen2 and it's rather exciting actually.

Good for an electric, but that's relative

[crazyjj]

selling 2,289 units in March

Before everyone starts celebrating, keep in mind that some of the more popular gas car models out there average 40,000-60,000 units a month in sales. And the Prius hybrid sold about 30,000 units last month.

Re:Good for an electric, but that's relative

[Anonymous Coward]

As gas prices start rising, I think the Volt is going to increase in shipments. I wouldn't mind getting one and that would be my first GM car ever. I usually get the Japanese models.

Re:Good for an electric, but that's relative

[Jens_UK]

From your link, the top five cars' mean monthly sales are for 2012: 48k, 35k, 32k, 32k, 25k. "Some of the more popular models" are not averaging anywhere near 40-60k.

Re:Good for an electric, but that's relative

[Anonymous Coward]

Still doesn't help that all of those models sold at least 10 times more then the volt.

Re:Good for an electric, but that's relative

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm a prius is emancipating. If I had to drive one it would have the same effect on me as a dip in the cold Atlantic Ocean in January.
The Volt is actually new technology. I'd like to see GM replace the piston generator with a turbine.

Apparently more popular in Europe

[Meatbucket]

The volt and it's twin the Opel Ampera began sales in February and has become a big seller there, which is not surprising given how much denser and closer European cities are to each other (taking advantage of the volt's optimum range), not to mention the higher gas prices which make it more affordable.

Re:Apparently more popular in Europe

[Kagato]

The Opel is a much nicer looking car too. The volt was nice when it came out, but it took so long to get to market the style doesn't really have much impact.

Re:Apparently more popular in Europe

[tyrione]

The Opel is a much nicer looking car too. The volt was nice when it came out, but it took so long to get to market the style doesn't really have much impact.

This isn't a static solution. The Volt next generations are well underway in their designs and testing.

Re:Apparently more popular in Europe

[Kagato]

True, but GM hasn't historically likes to have homogeny in their brand line ups. The Toyota Prius looked different. Which is why I think it ran circles around the insight. When I look at the volt it looks like every other car in the Chevy line up. Outside of the Camaro they all have the same bland front ends.

Re:Apparently more popular in Europe

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

Which means it looks a lot better than a Prius or Insight :)

Bad press...

[MaWeiTao]

I have a hard time understanding why people continually crap on GM about the Volt. It's a very novel approach to the hybrid, offering significantly more electric-only range than other hybrids without the range anxiety of something like a Nissan Leaf. As for pricing; yes, it's expensive, but it's also fledgling technology. Electric-only automakers like Fisker and Tesla talk big but have little to show for all the boasting. The practical issues facing electric-only vehicles are still quite daunting.

I also don't understand the conservative backlash against this car. Here we have an American corporation trying to respond to market demand and a changing world by actually innovating. They didn't just slap together a half-assed Prius knockoff. They actually went for something new, but still practical.

The nonsense I hear repeated time and again is that the US government somehow forced this on GM. Automakers don't just pull cars out of their asses. Years of planning go into a car before the public even knows they're in development. The Volt concept was unveiled in 2007, well before they turned to the government for a bailout.

Interestingly enough, in my part of the country I've already seen a number of Volts, less than 10 but still more than the lone Nissan Leaf I encountered recently. I find it interesting given that I live in a region I'd say easily favors foreign automakers. So I found it surprising to hear that the Volt wasn't doing well. Of course it doesn't help you've got people on both sides of the aisle dumping on this car.

Re:Bad press...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I have a hard time understanding why people continually crap on GM about the Volt."

Because a Geo Metro gets better gas mileage than the Volt. Because a Geo Metro costs less than a Volt. Because the Volt power plant could still go in an efficient car, like a Geo Metro, and make it even more efficient. Because GM designed and built the Volt to make more money instead of bringing to market a small, cheap, efficient car that people want, but does not make as much money. Though GM blew it because the Volt will make none, since demand is so low, and the low profit piece of crap would have at least made some.

That is why.

Re:Bad press...

[operagost]

Conservatives attack the car because it is expensive, and only reasonably within reach of the middle class due to subsidies that every working American has to pay for. If GM had not taken a bailout AND stimulus dollars, then used the stimulus dollars to "pay off" the loan, perhaps at least that would not be a point of contention.

Re:Bad press...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, the backlash is because the taxpayers financed/bailed out the company with 10's of billions of dollars and is if that was not enough we have to pay for a tax payer funded rebate to get people to buy them.

We continue to subsidize GM every year for approximately 18 more years because of the tax free sweetheart deal obama gave GM unions so they could use the proceeds to pay for their bankrupt benefits/pension plans.

Taxpayers are sick of everything associated with a company that makes them pay 3 times for the same thing.

If you are a democrat though this all sounds great...spending other peoples money is the best way to do things and it is is always for some "noble" reason.

Re:Bad press...

[Anonymous Coward]

Geo Metros don't meet modern safety standards.

Re:Bad press...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how "conservatives" never bring these kinds of issues up about the massive oil industry tax breaks that are handed out every year. Admit it, you only hate the volt because if it does well then president Obama gets the credit.

Re:Bad press...

[pudding7]

The Volt's gas mileage for my wife would be about infinity. She rarely drives more than about 20 miles a day. How does that compare with your Geo Metro?

Re:Bad press...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd gladly trade in my 2001 S-10 pickup for a Volt. Here's why.

I agree with the statement of a Metro gets better gas mileage than the Volt. But the Volt is negative ~30 miles or so at the beginning of the trip, being that the electricity gets used FIRST.

I only commute 5 miles one way to work, on a highway--something that I would do gladly on a bike--if it was guaranteed safe, or via public transportation--if it existed where I live. So I drive for necessity. After trying to hypermile that with a tune-up, proper tire inflation, and liberal use of the cruise control, I am down to a tank of gas every three weeks. Any deviance from that commute would shorten that.

In a Volt, I wouldn't hit any of that gas unless I had to deviate from my typical commute, like a drive to a bigger city.

Re:Bad press...

[Anonymous Coward]

In as much as gas mileage goes it performs poorly, as does the Volt vs a Xebra, and a Xebra vs an electric scooter in that role. Are you going to put her into the scooter now? Or, you could only consume 1/2 gallon of gas per day in the Metro. Or put the Volt power plant in a car like the Metro and not have to design an entire new car that weighs a lot. Or put a 5hp engine in the Xebra and turn it into it's own Volt.

Or you could just get your Volt boner on.

Re:Bad press...

[medcalf]

The Volt is symbolic. It reminds people that we subsidize every GM and Chrystler vehicle through outstanding loans, and that we directly subsidize Volts via tax credits for buyers and indirectly through no bid government fleet purchases. It's not the Volt per se, but the government waste and interference it represents, that make the Volt subject to such mockery.

Re:Bad press...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Volt is symbolic. It reminds people that we subsidize every GM and Chrystler vehicle through outstanding loans [...]

I don't know about GM, but Chrysler paid back their loan _with_ 16% interest a year ago. This according to Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne on his 60 Minutes interview. So, US taxpayers got their money back, with interest. Uh, yeah, and an electric car.

Re:Bad press...

[Anonymous Coward]

you will have to drain your gas tank because the ethanol in it will degrade.

Re:Bad press...

[StikyPad]

GM quality is mostly crap all around (though that's generally true for all US manufacturers), and they've got a long, long way to go beyond "innovative" ideas to demonstrate otherwise. There's not even a US car in the Top 10 most reliable cars, and not a single GM vehicle on the list. The price point is really just adding insult to injury.

And I say this as a die hard fan of the Corvette and GM muscle cars of the past.

Re:Bad press...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are a democrat though this all sounds great...spending other peoples money is the best way to do things and it is is always for some "noble" reason.

Corn subsidies. Oil subsidies. Sugar tariffs. Corporate tax loopholes. Why aren't the republicans talking about any of this? Face it, they both like "spending other peoples money".

Re:Bad press...

[CaptSlaq]

Not quite, in the case of Chrysler, it would seem. At least it doesn't pass the sniff test. http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/04/the-chrysler-coincidence-bailout-loan-shuffle-to-help-fund-fiat-takeover/

Re:Bad press...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Geo Metro gets better gas mileage"
So does a motorcycle. Still doesn't explain why you would crap on the Volt. They weren't trying to compete with the Geo Metro, they were trying to make a car that someone would want to drive and made vast improvements in fuel efficiency. The cars aren't comparable. The Volt can travel 35miles on electric only, can the Geo Metro? The Volt 0-60 is 9.2 secs on electric only engine. Geo Metro is 13 seconds. Do you buy one of these cars for speed, of course not, but the point is they aren't comparable in feature set or performance.

"Geo Metro costs less than a Volt"
Obviously. You buy a Volt for different reasons than you buy a Geo Metro. Of course the Volt is going to cost more, it's higher quality, it's new technology and they don't have economy of scale yet.

"Because GM designed and built the Volt to make more money:
GM is a business with shareholders. They have to be making more money, that's how the market works.

If GM made a car comparable to Geo Metro I think you might be just as negative and complain they made a piece of crap and didn't try to do anything innovative.

Re:Bad press...

[garyebickford]

If you are a democrat though this all sounds great...spending other peoples money is the best way to do things and it is is always for some "noble" reason.

Corn subsidies. Oil subsidies. Sugar tariffs. Corporate tax loopholes. Why aren't the republicans talking about any of this? Face it, they both like "spending other peoples money".

- A big chunk of the Republicans are talking about this, and have been for 40 years that I'm aware of. Depending on how you count, they've been talking about it since before FDR. The conflict between the moderate/progressive, big government wing and the conservative, small government was a big deal back when Teddy Roosevelt (moderate/progressive) ran for President.

Actually there has been a dichotomy within the Republican Party since its founding. Lincoln was on the evidence, a big-government establishment Republican, perhaps the biggest ever. The Tea Party is just the most recent representative of the rural/suburban, self-reliant land-owning small town, small government side of the party. Those two groups will probably never really come together as a permanent cohesive unit with common goals.

Re:Bad press...

[hey!]

I also don't understand the conservative backlash against this car.

Maybe because it's new?

Re:Bad press...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Volt is symbolic. It reminds people that we subsidize every GM and Chrystler vehicle through outstanding loans

The Japanese government massively subsidized the development of the Prius.

Re:Bad press...

[Anonymous Coward]

I also don't understand the conservative backlash against this car.

had not seen a lot of that.

However, FROM a conservative POV most cars can stand on their own and do not need subsidies to be built... The current estimate is nearly 120k in subsidies PER car sold (that is falling as more are sold). That would be why you are getting people 'dumping' on it. Plus the higher than usual price tag. You can probably get a diesel at this point in time that gets better mileage.

Its an expensive car that is still a GM.

Most American cars have 1 good thing about them the engine. The rest of it is usually cheap trash. After 4+ years it will start shedding its accessories like cloths from a slutty prom date who has just pounded down pint of vodka. Electric removes the one thing from the car that they had 60+ years to get right...

After my 5th or so american car I bought a car from another country.

Re:Bad press...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a hard time understanding liberals getting behind $10k per item subsidies for cars for rich people.

Re:Bad press...

[randallman]

I did the math once. Sorry I'm too lazy to look up figures and do the math now, but at 10 cents per kWH (rate where I live) and the range per battery capacity drained for the Volt (miles per kWH or whatever units you want), the "mileage" (comparing electric to gas costs) works out to be about 100 miles per gallon for full electric operation. Using inifinity makes it sound as if electric is free. BTW, I'm all for electric cars and I'm drooling over the Tesla Model S.

Re:Bad press...

[gl4ss]

you could keep the metro running all day every day with the price difference...

volt is a welfare program.

Re:Bad press...

[YackoYak]

I agree with everything you're saying. Part of the reason for the dumping is that GM is asking for $40k for a car with Aveo styling. They could have styled it better, arguably for the same cost to manufacture.

Look at how well the 2012 Kia Optima Turbo / Hybrid line has done. To me, that's an attractive sedan for the money. I know it shouldn't be about looks, but you're asking me to drop $40k on something that I keep for 10+ years.

Fleet sales?

[CrAlt]

How much of this record number (2,289) is from big taxi or government fleet orders? Lets see if it holds these sales month after month. This "record" may be all from a few one time fleet sales.

Even with $4/gal gas they still moved 9,292's camaro's in the same month.
Total GM US sales for the month where 231,052.

The game sure has changed..

[boley1]

So now in 2012, 2289 units per month of a model is now considered a banner month. In the 80's I worked for GM in a component plant. One configuration we made was for a Chevy model, not necessarily the most popular, that I remember as being produced at 2200 units per day ( 2 shifts, 5 days per week). I remember because there were times due to problems, we could barely keep up with the assembly plant. Our LEAST popular configuration was for a top of the line Cadillac, only about 300 per day (6000 avg per month) required for it if I remember correctly.

You aren't thinking it through.

[geekoid]

Since this car will burn exactly ZERO gas for 80% of vehical use, it gtes FAR better gas mileage then your car.

SUre, if you tkae a trip to the full extent of 375 miles and average out the MPG for JUST THAT TRIP, it gets the same as your alleged 50MPG civic.

But if you extend it to all the trips you will make, its a different number.

If my wife had one of these, it would almost never burn gas because she generally doesn't go further the 12 miles during her dauily routine.

The question is: How much gas will you burn in a year?
Last year I drove about 5000 miles in 25 mile chucks(just over 12 miles each way to work). For those drives, I wouldn't have burned any gas.

I drove 8000 total.
So if I had a volt, I would have used gas for 3000 miles* Which would have been 85 gallons of gas at 35MPG**
So I drove 8000 miles, and bought 85 gallons of gas.

just under 100MPG by the end of the year.
Obviously if you are driving 100 miles a day to work, your use would be different, but I am a pretty average driver as far as vehicle use.

*actually less, because of a lot of other short trips besides work.
** Volt is 35/40 I really should use the 40 because all the extended driving would be highway.

Re:You aren't thinking it through.

[Anonymous Coward]

He burns less gas in 10 years than the price difference of the car.

Try again with real math.

Economic Sense != Best For Society

[jpapon]

I don't understand all these arguments against the Volt saying that standard gas cars are more economical.

That may very well be true, but since when do we measure benefit to society by only looking at what's cheapest?

Not educating our children would be cheaper too, should we close all schools to balance our budgets? Should we close all fire departments to save a few bucks in the short term?

Why do intelligent people make the argument that trusting the market, and the "invisible hand" will always have the best outcome? It's as if people have replaced (or augmented) their trust in God with this idea of "the market is always right". Surely this is as far from a scientific argument as one could get?

Re:Economic Sense != Best For Society

[Anonymous Coward]

You're totally right. It's much better to trust the government to pick winners, because they've done such a good job of it in the past.

Re:Economic Sense != Best For Society

[operagost]

Because the market has a better chance of gravitating toward the "common good" than an economy planned by bureaucrats?

Not educating our children would be cheaper too, should we close all schools to balance our budgets? Should we close all fire departments to save a few bucks in the short term?

Straw man.

Re:Economic Sense != Best For Society

[jpapon]

Sarcasm aside, isn't one of the key ideas of Science, and its bastard child Engineering, that by tinkering with things intelligently, we can improve on the status quo?

Sure, the government makes mistakes, but I don't see how a scientific person can buy into this idea that somehow market forces will solve all our problems.

I'm not saying that more government is always better... but clearly government has had, and will continue to, provide massive benefits to society. Why should we accept what the market dictates, when we can engineer a better solution?

Re:Economic Sense != Best For Society

[jpapon]

Because the market has a better chance of gravitating toward the "common good" than an economy planned by bureaucrats?

How? Market forces gravitate towards what is cheaper, and more efficient (in terms of monetary costs). How is that necessarily the "common good"? In some cases it may very well be, but having faith that it will always be the best solution relies more on faith than any scientifically minded person should be willing to accept.

Re:Economic Sense != Best For Society

[jpapon]

Oh, and those statements may be straw men, but they also clearly illustrate why the statement

the market has a better chance of gravitating toward the "common good" than an economy planned by bureaucrats

is misleading, if not flat out erroneous in many cases.

Re:Economic Sense != Best For Society

[medcalf]

It's like people have replaced trusting god with trusting government. More seriously, there is a strong split in the West between two Enlightenment schools, the French school of Rousseau (whose notable followers include Marx) and the English school of Locke and others. One of the differences (and there are many) between the schools is the role of government. You represent the French school, that government should create the society you want (and likely believe we would all want if we were not deluded/corrupt/greedy/liars/etc). The English school would argue that government's role is not to decide what society should be like, but to create and safe environment in which we can each work towards what we individually see as the betterment of society and ourselves.

Re:Economic Sense != Best For Society

[AK Marc]

Yes, it was a straw man, but you missed the straw man. The straw man was "short term". Closing schools would be a bad move from even the most anti-government libertarian. Prisons and crime costs would increase more than the cost of the overpriced schools, so to keep the government at the minimum size, public schools are a requirement. I'm a libertarian, but a long-term libertarian. I want the smallest government practical, and that includes paying for some things now that have payoffs 20 years from now. Unfortunately, libertarian + planning = pinko commie (so the no-foresight libertarians tell me).

Re:Economic Sense != Best For Society

[TheSync]

Why do intelligent people make the argument that trusting the market, and the "invisible hand" will always have the best outcome?

Because evolution beats intelligent design :)

Re:Economic Sense != Best For Society

[Brannoncyll]

The problem with the free market is that it does not account for the so-called 'external cost' of a transaction . An example of such a cost is environmental damage. These imbalances must be corrected by the government through taxation or regulation. There really is no way round this.

Re:Economic Sense != Best For Society

[garyebickford]

Market forces gravitate towards what is cheaper, and more efficient (in terms of monetary costs). How is that necessarily the "common good"?

If monetary costs were the only criteria, we'd all drive Yugos. What drives the market is 'satisficing' (a real word in econ classes that means essentially 'good enough' - satisfy+suffice, or satisfy+sacriice) - the Ford Pootah costs $100 less than the Chevy Bangrove and comes in my favorite shade of blue, but the Chevy has a shinier shift knob and fits in my garage slightly better. We, the market, all weigh these factors in our minds and come up with a 'price' that includes all those tangible and intangible differences, and then we choose based on that optimal 'price' that satisfices us. Neither is perfect so we have to trade off one desire against another.

Pure monetary cost only applies for commodities, and every retail product tries its best to stay out of the commodity class by adding features (perceived or real) that 'add value'. Which is why cars never have the identical feature set.

Other non-monetary factors in that balance are the externality-related ones - greenness (perceived and real), pride of ownership, what my coworkers will say, my take on foreign oil, what I think of coal vs. nuclear, whether my wife or husband likes it, etc., and last but not least, my own perception of what constitutes the common good and how this purchase fits into it. Obviously (for most values of 'I') I'm not going to buy a car with genuine Whale penis upholstery, but if I eat beef I might consider cow leather - that ties in with another whole set of ethical and personal choices.

Re:Economic Sense != Best For Society

[garyebickford]

No, it really does continuously converge toward an optimal energy (minimum error) surface in an n-dimensional space, which can be reasonably described as the 'common good'. (Think of an economic/political system as similar to a kind of neural network - call it a complex decision network.) However what the common good is, may not be what any individual or group happens to think it is. what is important is to keep the system balanced between centralized (monopoly) power and overly decentralized (no power), both of which are dead.

For an absurd example, it may turn out (in a few thousand years) that the common good will have been the evolution of humans to a hive society with a small caste of 'queens' whose eggs are extracted and merged with selected sperm from another caste of 'drones' and genetically matched by computer to construct optimal eggs for the needs of the day. Everyone else is essentially infertile. And the populace lives in complex concrete-and-steel mounds hundreds of miles wide, delving a mile or two into the ground and two miles into the atmosphere, with a billion people in each one. And the vast majority of people never leave their home-cube once they are placed in it after the gestation and creche period. And, just because I want it, the system sends out a seedship every year to another solar system, spreading life throughout the galaxy.

That, for all we know, may be the common good. I wouldn't like living in it, and I expect neither would you. But those who are brought up in it, have been genetically engineered to live in it, will think it's just fine. And what if it means that the Earth can support a trillion humans (about 150 times as many as we have now - not so far away), without so-called 'destroying the Earth' (whatever that means)? What have we to say? That's essentially what an African termite mound does now, on a smaller scale.

Re:Economic Sense != Best For Society

[garyebickford]

Haha. Well and succinctly put.

Re:Economic Sense != Best For Society

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the market has a better chance of gravitating toward the "common good" than an economy planned by bureaucrats?

Like the days when gas was leaded, radon jewellery was all the rage, and rivers caught fire?

Re:Economic Sense != Best For Society

[Anonymous Coward]

Market forces *is* people engineering a better solution. It's about managing data available. You have 300 million people with 300 million different needs, wants, and ability to pay for it. The "Market" isn't some magical thing, it's the aggregated knowledge of all of those people. No expert in history, no super computer can manage that much data. And that's assuming that they're actually honest and altruistic enough to be really trying.

Would you rather put one smart engineer in charge of everything, or have a million engineers all working on the problem at once, trying different solutions, and keeping the ones that work? I don't understand how someone of a scientific mind who has studied the last 100 years of history can still be in favor of centralized solutions.

Re:Economic Sense != Best For Society

[RightSaidFred99]

Totally agreed. And if the US government thinks it's in our best interests to use less oil, they should tax it more or they should stop fighting wars in the middle east and let the price go up naturally, which it should as a limited commodity.

Re:Economic Sense != Best For Society

[jpapon]

I don't see why it would converge to a global maximum, and even if it did, what it is maximizing is not necessarily desirable.

However what the common good is, may not be what any individual or group happens to think it is.

Exactly... so we let the invisible hand dictate to us what "the common good" is, and have faith that it will be beneficial to mankind? What if the solution market forces are converging to is the extinction of mankind as a species (or the exhaustion of all the Earth's resources) , and free market forces are leading us down the most efficient path to that optimal solution? How could any reasonable person still call that "the common good (for mankind)"?

Re:Economic Sense != Best For Society

[jpapon]

I know you're joking, but it's a common fallacy that evolution converges to an optimal solution. It doesn't, it merely converges to a solution. Intelligent design has the potential to find much better solutions than evolution.

Re:Economic Sense != Best For Society

[garyebickford]

I don't see why it would converge to a global maximum, and even if it did, what it is maximizing is not necessarily desirable.

However what the common good is, may not be what any individual or group happens to think it is.

Exactly... so we let the invisible hand dictate to us what "the common good" is, and have faith that it will be beneficial to mankind? What if the solution market forces are converging to is the extinction of mankind as a species (or the exhaustion of all the Earth's resources) , and free market forces are leading us down the most efficient path to that optimal solution? How could any reasonable person still call that "the common good (for mankind)"?

I'm tempted to say, "Them's the breaks, man," but that would be cavalier, and also wrong. :) In the long run, market forces won't do that. That scenario is unlikely for the same reason that ecosystems don't often do that. The 'edge of chaos' - the transition between too much order and too much randomness - is the fuzzy but dynamically most energy-efficient area of that surface. It takes more energy (in society think of money and power) to maintain either a monopoly or the anarchic 'wheat field' where every member has the same position in society and nobody runs anything. Monopolies, as we can see, have to use an ever-increasing amount of money/power to maintain that monopoly. And it takes a lot of energy, pesticides, re-seeding, etc. to keep a monoculture going as the jungle always gets footholds and starts to disrupt it.

Ecosystems, and economies and polities like them, can and do sometimes result in extinction of one or more member species. That can happen in two ways that are basically the same - the conditions change in a way that makes life untenable for a species, or the rules that govern interactions among individuals and species change in just such a way. The true role of governments is to assure that the rules keep us on the edge of chaos, which will maximize diversity and minimize monopoly. That is how we make the most robust economy and the most robust political systems, versus any disruptive force.

Note that apparent 'monopolies' in ecosystems may look very monotonic - for example a climax redwood forest where the vast majority of the mass is in the form of a single species of large trees and little light reaches the ground. But actually there is a lot of other life going on there, depending on those trees in various ways. Similarly the global economy has a large number of very large organizations (nations, companies, NGOs, unions, etc., which all act in many similar ways) but at the same time there are one or more orders of magnitude smaller organizations that thrive in, under and within those large ones. In an optimal system, the size (using various measures) of those organizations vs. number will follow an inverse power law, which is commonly characteristic of living systems.

Oh, and by the way - a few years ago I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation of what it would look like to have a trillion people on Earth. It would be much different than what we are used to, but it could actually work.

Re:Economic Sense != Best For Society

[garyebickford]

I'll just add, that I made not have made it clear that if the 'market' does do as you say, then it is probably due to laws or other governmental intrusions that skewed the system to allow it. In particular, governments that encourage bigness and monopolies are sacrificing the energy and dynamic response of the system. Monopolies can only exist with government support. That is why the US founders placed firm limits on the lengths of monopolies via patents and copyrights, recognizing that there needs to be a time for new things to be protected, (like putting a fence around your baby trees, to keep them from being eaten by deer), but that eventually all entities/organisms must survive on their own in the garden. The best government is an organic gardener.

Re:Economic Sense != Best For Society

[TheSync]

Intelligent design has the potential to find much better solutions than evolution.

Intelligent design and planned economies both face the same problem: lack of omnipotent, all-knowing planner to produce optimal plans.

Evolution and the free market find distributed, network solutions using local knowledge, even if they are not theoretically optimal.

Re:Economic Sense != Best For Society

[Anonymous Coward]

>Not educating our children would be cheaper too, should we close all schools to balance our budgets?

Careful... Santorum actually suggested this

Cost is becoming more competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait till the summer kiddies. The price of gasoline is set to spike (again). The gloating, SUV driving bastards yelping about how bad a deal the Volt is, will secretly be bitching every time the pump goes "DING!". That's what's happening to your wallet "DING!, DING!, DING!" Where I live, wind turbines are starting to become more common. One of these on an acerage could split between powering the house, and charging the car (you can run off stored power for a while), and then you wouldn't give a crap about how much gasoline costs. If you have to go on a long trip, suck it up and put that expensive gasoline into the car. Otherwise, even a 300km range would be plenty, and you could let other people pay world prices, and laugh yourself silly every time you pass a gas station, every time you see someone on TV complaining about the price of gasoline, every time you hear that OPEC is meeting once again.

Google says he's right:

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is still your friend:

The plan....
http://gm-volt.com/2008/11/24/gm-voltcom-viability-plan-suggestion-massive-government-fleet-sales-of-battery-warranty-free-chevy-volts/

The downpayment....
http://green.autoblog.com/2010/04/01/u-s-government-to-purchase-first-100-chevy-volts-and-thousands/

The followup...
http://nlpc.org/stories/2012/01/04/chevy-volt-fleet-sales-rise-retail-demand-remains-weak

Very Few

[Kagato]

Accord to forbes:

"Only 160 of the March sales total of 2,289 were fleet orders."

Yes, you're making his argument for him.

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't going to get any economies of scale moving the pathetic amounts they've been moving off the showroom floor, ever. Something about a $40K Civic sized car made by General Misery that occasionally catches fire, but not with consumers.

Nihilism

[metrometro]

The ability of the GOP primary to generate bile is amazing. If you had told me a year ago that the GOP field would pile abuse on an American made car that is (fairly or not) a poster child for American innovation, and it turns out is also a success competing against imports, I would have told you that was crazy. But there it is. Not exactly the Party of Ideas.

Re:Nihilism

[emaname]

I agree. Something has changed in the GOP and not in a good way. And I say that as one who has always voted Republican except for a recent state elections. This is not the Republican party of my father. I can find more and more quotes from past Republicans that refute and denigrate the current GOP mindset. There is something weirdly evil about the GOP now.

Re:Nihilism

[Anonymous Coward]

What? The electric car is a piece of junk! They might be good in specific scenarios or in warm climates. But they just don't work in northern regions due to snow. I will ONLY take my family out in my 4x4 SUV during a harsh winter. So if you live in a heavy snow state then you're going to need a second, more powerful car in the winter. It's just not financially feasible.

By the way, we receive our electric from a coal power plant. So if I bought an electric car, it would indirectly be a "coal powered vehicle." Doesn't sound very environmentally friendly to me.

Re:Nihilism

[Anonymous Coward]

natural progression, its amazing its taken this long. Since nixon began to appeal to alienated, paranoid, racist white people, and discovered it can win elections, its been a slow race to the bottom. just as both parties are beholden to large corporate donations, race to the bottom. and democrats playing the "hey, im better than THEM" card. they are, generally, better, but getting worse at the national level (my local democrats are decent, as were probably many local republicans 50 years ago). intelligent progressive political analysts have seen this building for half a century, and have been ignored by most citizens and the power elites. hate to say we told them so, but we did. sorry you had to see your party become this. I would MUCH rather see a real debate between, say, an old fashioned fiscal conservative and a progressive democrat, where they share basic assumptions like: government is good (how much is the debate), people deserve access to information, and a fair shot at success, etc etc. god im tired of thinking about this. i want my nation back!

Re:Nihilism

[tyrione]

I agree. Something has changed in the GOP and not in a good way. And I say that as one who has always voted Republican except for a recent state elections. This is not the Republican party of my father. I can find more and more quotes from past Republicans that refute and denigrate the current GOP mindset. There is something weirdly evil about the GOP now.

The GOP turned into a pile of slime when Reagan won the Presidency and embraced all the far right fringe elements into the fold. The Moral Minority has taken over your party. The Republican Party ceased to be respectable after Eisenhower.

The Democrat party was slime until they embraced Civil Rights and then the Racists started heading over to the GOP who welcomed them with open arms.

Re:Nihilism

[jwhitener]

I think the GOP and conservative media has, over the last 20 years, realized that they don't have to say 100% truth at all times, that their ideas can be based entirely on ideology and not fact, and that a winning strategy in any situation is to just remain far to the right of any opponent. No matter how far right that takes you.

Ronald Reagan would have been considered too liberal by this current GOP. Assuming the GOP is generating this bile as part of a actual plan, one can only assume that they are intentionally pushing the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window as far right as possible.

And I think it's working. Obama even mentioned that 15 years ago he would have been called a centrist. That doesn't exactly fire up his base....

What I can't get is why the Dems aren't as effective in pushing the Overton Window left as the GOP is at pushing it right. The Dems have a base that demands more facts? Dunno.

How quaint. . . .

[Salgak1]

. . . a coal-powered car. And if the cost of purchasing, insuring the-higher-value vehicle, and additional maintenance is factored in, it becomes significantly more expensive than an equivalent efficient gas-powered car. And according to reports, the average income of a Chevy Volt buyer is over US$170,000. Not exactly a recipe for a significant solution, even if the purchase and operation economics were more favorable. . .

Re:How quaint. . . .

[BasilBrush]

That's one way of thinking about it. The other is "How futuristic, a nuclear-powered car."

Value is in the eye of the beholder

[Vrtigo1]

Let's assume the following:

*You buy a normal ICE car that averages 30mpg (there are plenty that do)
*You keep the car for 5 years and drive 1250 miles a month (15000 miles a year)
*Fuel price is presently $4/gal and will rise by 1% every month for the next 5 years

Given these assumptions, your 5 year fuel cost is $13611.61.

So now let's assume that you pay $22k out the door for the above car (which is a good estimate for a ICE car comparable in size/features to the Volt).

Your 5 year TCO (just figuring based on car and fuel cost, assuming maintenance, insurance, etc is identical) is 35611.61.

That having been said, if you're the type of person who doesn't keep cars that long, then you're probably better off buying an ICE car as I expect the volt will take a much larger depreciation hit (dollar amount, not percentage) over the first 2-3 years.

That's ROUGHLY what I'd expect to pay for a volt after figuring in tax, title, license, and figuring in the tax credit. I don't have data on how much electricity it takes to charge the volt, so I've omitted electricity costs over the 5 years, but just off this 5 minute analysis, it doesn't look like the TCOs of volt vs ICE is all that different over 5 years.

Re:Value is in the eye of the beholder

[Anonymous Coward]

15,000 per year is higher than average. You're also assuming the VOLT will use zero gas over that span in addition to not factoring the cost of electricity. Finally, what is the battery replacement cost after 5 years? The VOLT will go 30 miles on a charge initially, after 5 years it may be degraded to 20 or less. I would suspect the true TCO will end up being less than an ICE over that time. How much is acceptable is still up in the air. Even with equal TCO, I still wouldn't be buying one. The incentive just isn't there yet. But I am hopefully optimistic in 10 years we will be there.

Re:Value is in the eye of the beholder

[fiannaFailMan]

I expect the volt will take a much larger depreciation hit (dollar amount, not percentage) over the first 2-3 years

Why?

You party animal!

[Anonymous Coward]

You must have a very active nightlife. I don't see a problem with plugging the car in by 9PM to have it ready for my commute in the morning. (And you're not dead in the water if you don't plug it in, so maybe you skip a day and have to use some precious gasoline on your commute the next day.)

Re:You party animal!

[TheLink]

I wonder if it's possible to plug it while at work.

Is it a real car?

[Sketchly]

I mean, can you spin the tyres on it when you pull out of the driveway, and does it make a satisfying noise as you rev the nuts off it? I suspect 'not'. So what's the point of it, really?

Re:Is it a real car?

[AK Marc]

To get you from one place to another safely. Please, just buy hot wheels cars and stay off the roads so the rest of us adults can travel safely.

Still easier controlling emissions at the plant

[Anonymous Coward]

It's still easier controlling the emissions from the handful of coal plants rather than at the millions of tailpipes. Plus there's the *option* of going to a cleaner generation method (nuclear, wind, solar, natural gas.) What are the options for your gasoline car?

I wonder...

[Anachragnome]

I wonder what kind of car the employees at the Detroit/Hamtramck Assembly Plant are driving this month...

Nerds criticizing first-adopters?

[Anonymous Coward]

While I do agree with everyone that the Chevy Volt save no money and is significantly more expensive than buying, say, a Prius, I still don't understand all of the hate.

We are all computer nerds/geeks, here. A lot of us are first-adopters of new PC technology. When you buy the top-of-the-line CPU or video card, it can cost double the price of the 2nd or third-tier one but only achieve small gains over the cheaper ones. But a lot of us still buy them because we want the latest-and-greatest. And then we add liquid cooling to top it off.

I think Volt buyers are the same as we are, but with cars. I think the Volt is a game-changer for electric vehicles. All-electric for your daily commute and gas for your trips saves a huge amount of money. Ford also envisions this new type of hybrid with their future hybrids having the capability of pressing a button to turn all-electric mode on and off--you will choose exactly when you want your car to be an EV and when you want it to be gas-powered. I suppose they assume that you are smarter than your car in determining when to use EV mode.

So why can't we accept that the Volt is a first-generation rethinking of an electric hybrid vehicle, and, like all things, it'll be another generation or two before it's ready for the average joe? Until then, the Volt is a car for auto first-adopters.

Record sales????

[jvillain]

When your product has no history shouldn't every week be record sales? It's like the global warming scare head lines about record temperatures, as long as you ingnore the 99.9% of the earths history when we weren't taking temperatures.

Re:Record sales????

[garyebickford]

Only if sales are monotonically increasing. I think a many folks were put off by that whole 'catching fire' issue a few months back, so now memories have faded maybe things are getting back to normal.

Re:Record sales????

[Anonymous Coward]

The "catching fire" thing was a political smoke screen that all the knuckle draggers latched onto because they thought Obama could be tarnished by it.

Reactionary politics

[microbox]

I have a hard time understanding why people continually crap on GM about the Volt.

Democrats are for it, which means that Fox, the Koch bothers, and every conservative think tank is against it.

I have a real car.

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, can you spin the tyres on it when you pull out of the driveway...

Yes, but why I want to? It would make tire marks on the driveway.

...and does it make a satisfying noise as you rev the nuts off it? I suspect 'not'.

It makes a noise, but not one I would call "satisfying".

So what's the point of it, really?

It takes me from one place to another at speed, in comfort and in safety. What do you use your car for?

Miles per dollar

[tepples]

The Volt's gas mileage for my wife would be about infinity

B But the gas-equivalent mileage is far less than infinity because your power company charges more than zero for electric energy. How many kWh of electric energy does it take to charge the Volt for 20 miles of driving? How much does this energy cost? How many gallons does the Volt burn in 20 miles of extended range driving? How much does this energy cost? From these I can compute miles per dollar and a gas-equivalent mileage for electric driving.

Opel Ampera - European twin of the Volt - owner...

[Anynomous Coward]

...here. What seems to be missing from all the discussions is that the Volt/Ampera is a very good, comfortable and well-equipped 'European style' car first. Its smooth and elegant power delivery is actually way more useable in daily traffic than an IC with much better figures on paper. Granted, it may not be for everyone for various reasons, but if the electric range suits your daily commute, your energy costs are half and your driving comfort double those of a clattering, noisy, smelly and soot spewing diesel that needs 4 jerky gear changes to reach 100km/h. It isn't cheap, but the price is roughly the same as a similarly equipped same old same old lease-slut BMW 320d ED.

I was sceptical about GM, but it turns that they have done their most decent job in years. Give it time; it's qualities will become evident as more people discover it irl and more versions appear.

Street creds: 528i, 525i, 944S2, Z3 2.8, 645Ci.

Sneetches

[tepples]

Had the same car had a "H" logo on it, or perhaps a three pointed star, people would be buying this vehicle left and right.

Are we really living in the world of the Sneetches where buyers like stars on their cars? If so, perhaps Chrysler needs to hire its own Sylvester McMonkey McBean and bring back the five-pointed Pentastar or the Fratzog. Or does Chrysler not count as a US automaker because Fiat owns it? In any case, GM shut down one of its "H" brands in 2010, but it still has Holden in Australia.

Fracking

[tepples]

Anonymous Coward wrote:

we get our (extra) power from natural gas, which burns FAR cleaner than gasoline.

So how the frack do you drill for that without polluting the groundwater and causing earthquakes?

The conundrum of EVs

[InvisiBill]

A large part of the problem with EVs is that current technology limits their range. To really get the most out of an EV, you have to not drive all that much to begin with. However, if you're not driving that much, you're also not buying that much gas. Even if you completely eliminate your entire gasoline bill, the total amount of money you're saving isn't that much.

One local news station recently ran a story about a dealership rolling out the first all-electric vehicle in the area, the Mitsu i-MiEV. The car costs $29,000 and has a range of 68 miles. If you were to drive the full 68 miles every day for a year (24,820 miles) in a 30mpg car, you'd use 827 1/3 gallons of gasoline, which is $3,309.33 at $4/gal. You'd be saving $16,546.67 over 5 years. A 40mpg car would drop the savings to $12,410. If you're not willing to push the limits of your battery capacity and play it safe at 50 miles daily (18,250 miles), you're only saving $12,166.67 or $9,125 over the gas cars. There are a lot of variables that come into play, but you may not end up saving all that much compared to the extra cost of the car (the 38mpg Smart coupe starts at $12,500).

However, the dealership itself says that the car isn't meant to be your sole vehicle. It's meant for known-distance commutes and quick trips to the store. Figure in the cost of a second car, even if it's just a beater or a rental, if you ever want to go more than 68 miles without stopping to recharge it. Plus, it's an ugly little 4-door Smart-looking thing. To quote my girlfriend when I opened the page, "What is that? It's horrible!"

There's no way I could get by with just an i-MiEV. However, a Volt would work out very well for me. I commute about 20 miles a day, and the nearest city with a mall and public transit is about 20 miles away. I wouldn't feel safe with a range of only 68 miles, but most of my driving in the Volt would be electric. Even compared to my 25/37mpg Cobalt, I figure the Volt (including electricity costs and some gas for longer trips) would cost me about $500 a year, rather than the $2,000 I spent last year. The 35/40mpg Volt is obviously much more economical if you never have to get into the gasoline, but the option is there if a longer trip suddenly comes up (e.g. having to drive to a remote site for work).

Despite being pretty much the ideal candidate for the Volt, I'm not sure if I'd ever actually make up the difference in price (after the tax credit). Though there are Priuses that have been running on the same batteries for over 10 years now, I'm still a little wary of the new technology (on top of being a new model). The styling isn't my first choice, but it's not terrible either. It's definitely not in the same class as my cheap base model Cobalt and I like the geek factor of the Volt. If gas prices go up significantly, the Volt would save me even more compared to the Cobalt. Regardless of savings or greenness, I don't mind the idea of lowering oil dependency. I'd feel a little more comfortable with a second gen Volt, but I'm hoping that they continue to flop and they go on clearance so I can snag one cheap (a few people managed to get brand new GMC Syclones for about 1/3 off when dealerships were trying to dump them). I also wouldn't mind seeing a (bio-)diesel option instead of gasoline for the ICE.

I really like the idea of using battery power for average commuting and such, but having nearly infinite range thanks to the gasoline engine if needed. Until battery rechargers are as plentiful and quick as gas stations, I think the Volt's hybrid setup is much more practical.

Moving the pollution argument is B.S.

[LoveMuscle]

Gasoline takes between 4kWh and 7.5kWh per gallon to refine. Electric cars can go between 16 (on the low end) and 41 miles (on the high end) on that same amount of electricity. Unless your replacing a gasoline car that gets better that 40mpg you are NOT just moving the pollution. Replacing a car that gets 16mph and you are completely eliminating the pollution from he petroleum refining process and burning at the vehicle, but also REDUCING the pollution generated by the local power plant as your using fewer total kWh. Of course the answer is "it depends" but for the average case you argument is basically pro-oil nonsense..

Re:record sales?

[Falconhell]

There are no socialist politicians in the US, just right wing and far right nutjob. Its interesting the lengths people will go to find a way to abuse the man because he is black

What was that you said, troll?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2741535&cid=39525081

maintenance

[dutchwhizzman]

"electrical vehicles" don't usually come without a gasoline engine. They tend to require more maintenance than a WW2 era technology 20 MPG gas guzzler oversized USA straight-line-only vehicle. Yes, most are still that, even when glorified with electronic fuel injection and gizmo's inside the car.

Modern jap/euro cars tend to weigh less and are just as comfortable, if you pick the right ones. That will save you half of the fuel you are burning in your yank tank easily. Fuel won't stay at the $1/gallon mark for long. At this rate, expect $2 per gallon within the next 3-5 years. Staying with your gas guzzler will make life expensive really quickly. Not producing your own compact cars but rather importing them or licensing them will not help economy a lot either.

Re:maintenance

[Medievalist]

My 2002 Prius has over 125,000 miles on it and requires less maintenance than any vehicle I have ever owned, bar none.

I have owned more than ten vehicles - my first car was a 1967 Pontiac Catalina that I bought in 1978. I've owned Ford, Datsun/Nissan, Toyota, several VWs, Porsche, Honda, and various flavors of GM and Chrysler. I have always done all my own maintenance and repairs (except for recall work, because that comes free). I have successfully done a total VW engine rebuild including line-boring the main bearings and regrinding valves. So it's not like I don't know what I'm talking about.

The vehicle I traded in for the Prius in 2001 was getting about 16mpg and the Prius has averaged around 47mpg.

47 - 16 = 31 difference in mpg
125k / 31 = 4032.25 difference in gallons of gas
4032.25 x $3 a gallon = $12,096 dollars saved

I suck at math. Somebody check my work? It looks to me like the Prius will literally pay for itself if I keep it for another 100k miles. The car cost me $20K in 2001.

oops $5/gallon

[dutchwhizzman]

Bloody empirical measurements again, start thinking metric you folks... $5/gallon will turn into $10/gallon soon enough.

O RLY?

[bsa3]

Texas has nothing to worry about. Until we actually start building more nuclear plants, the energy for all those electric cars you want to see on the roads will come from coal and natural gas. The EPA just introduced some more rules to favor natural gas over coal, and guess which state produces the most natural gas. (HInt: Its capital is Austin.)

The Saudis don't have to worry that much, either. Only 60% of petroleum is used for transportation, and much of that is for aviation. They'd be more worried about their pets in DC failing to block the Keystone pipeline.

You can't see difference because you ignore facts

[Anonymous Coward]

FACT: The Volt requires DAILY recharging. According to published numbers, it cost about $4 per charge. That is $120+ a month in electric cost.

FACT: If you take your example, 1250 miles a month means that the vehicle will be running on the gas engine for the great majority of the time. Remember, the Volt only has an average of 25 miles per charge. Given that the Volt gas engine has a miserable 24 mpg (claimed, ~20 real), you will be spending more on gas for the same drive (40+% more).

So in the end, for the same conditions you presented you will get an average of $7,120 of electric cost ($4 x 365 x 5) on top of $10K+ for gas (remember, the Volt is a gas guzzler). Adding the $40K+ price tag, that 5 year TCO is no less than $57,120 (ignoring any other maintenance cost) .... a $20K difference.

Volt success

[Anonymous Coward]

The Republicans are sure gonna love this. Ha Ha Ha

The Hot Setup...

[rally2xs]

...is to lease it, anyway. $349 a month makes it pretty darn affordable. Then just buy it after 3 years for something like $19k, if I remember right.

And it doesn't need 10 hours to charge. More like 4. Just get the 220 volt charger. No problems running it 80 miles a day in 2 separate charges, and electricity is about 1/5th the cost of gasoline.

Re:record sales?

[RightSaidFred99]

What's even more amazing is how many people will crawl out of the woodwork to point their fingers all around to call everyone "racist".

What you said: You're just abusing him because he's black.

What I heard: Hey, everyone, I'm all post racial and shit! Look at me! Hey, look over here at me, I'm a sensitive post racial soul and anyone who disagrees with Obama is one of those backwards racists! But forget all that, hey look at me I'm post-racial!

Kind of a sad form of ego gratification, isn't it?

Volt - the COAL car of the future

[Anonymous Coward]

So nice to see people embracing coal as a source of energy! The thermodynamically retarded use coal to boil water to make stream to run a turbine to turn a generator to lose lots of energy in transmission over the power grid only to waste more charging up a battery!!! Moonbats are retarded when it comes to science!!! The current powerline technology cannot handle the load and electric cars are a joke!

Volt Owner Comments...

[Anonymous Coward]

As an actual OWNER of a Volt, I can tell you it's a great car. Yes, yes, yes, it's a bit pricey, but remember that the first 200,000 of them get a $7500 federal tax credit. I know the right HATES this idea of tax credits, unless, of course it's going to the oil companies, but lets move on to the qualities of the car. First, it is the smoothest and quietest ride I've ever experienced. It is appointed inside like a luxury car, not a plasticy foreign model. For the most part, my money went to hire Americans to design and build a car in America that pollutes far less, and I'm not sending a stream of cash to oil-producing governments who are not exactly friendly to our values. It's a win, win, win.

Let's talk fuel economy. In the year I've had the Volt I have yet to go to a gas station! YES, I'm still on my dealer tank of gas. As a matter of fact, the Volt just told me that I'm going to have to burn the remaining fuel and refill to keep the gasoline fresh (It's a very smart car...). Obviously the Volt fits my driving style with most of my driving within the 40 mile electric range. However, if i WANT to drive from San Francisco to LA, I can still do that and STILL get 40 MPG on gasoline. Driving on electricity and charging with PG&E rates, I get my 40 miles on a charge for about $1.82. Stated another way, if gas is $4.50 a gallon, I would get about 99 miles on that one gallon (equivalent). That's about 1/4 to 1/3 the cost of gasoline if I drive electric. Not bad!

I see no downsides to the Volt. It's extremely innovative and a great car to drive. Go out to your local Chevy dealer and TRY ONE! (No I don't work for GM or own any stock in the company...)

Big deal.

[ksemlerK]

It's still not a big seller by any margin. So what? The Chevrolet Volt sold 2,289 units in March of 2012. Meanwhile, the Chevrolet Silverado 1500 sold 32,555 in March of 2012. Congratulations Volt line, you managed to sell 7.031% of the total volume of Silverados in one month. Last year combined, Chevrolet Volt vehicles didn't even meet up to one MONTH of sales of the Chevrolet Silverado. U.S. Chevrolet dealers sold a total of 7,671 Volts last year

March 2012 Top 15 Pickup Truck Sales

2011 Chevrolet Volt Misses The Mark

This wouldn't have anything to do with GE would it

[ai4px]

This would't have anything at all to do with GE would it? Would it? http://gas2.org/2012/02/20/ge-forcing-employees-into-chevy-volts/

Really.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the car was an outright improvement on every statistic for vehicles, saves money, and lowers cost....they would replace their other vehicles and have more than one model.

Its as easy as that.

Notice the Prius sells for MUCH lower cost, and now has multiple models. THis is a developed product now. This model however will take some time to develop not only it's place in the market, but to find customers willing to pay MORE for a car that doesn't really do anything different.

re: Volt and perceptions due to U.S.A. build

[King_TJ]

I have to disagree with you.

First of all, the criticism of the Prius is ultimately still quite valid. The cars haven't really existed on the road long enough for the issue to rear its ugly head, but we know batteries have a finite lifespan. I don't think most educated people believed a Prius battery pack would, say, wear out completely in 2 years, like your cellphone battery might. But I can easily see a situation developing where someone buys a new Prius, owns it long enough to pay off the 5 or 6 year loan they've got on it, and then maybe they keep it another year or two. Well, now, it's an old "beater" of a car, so they trade it in for whatever "pennies on the dollar" trade they can get out of it. Problem is, by then, I doubt the battery pack holds more than a fraction of its original charge. It may still charge to some extent, but the car probably gets far worse gas mileage than it used to. In that condition, its major reason for existence is negated.

That means it's pretty much a disposable car at that point .... not really practical to buy used/cheap as a vehicle too far outside the life of a bank loan on its initial purchase.

By contrast? I remember, for example, my parents buying a Chevy Nova back in 1976. It was the less expensive model with the V6 engine, not the bigger V8. Converted to today's dollars, certainly cheaper than any entry model Prius. I was 5 years old at that time. I didn't even try to get my drivers' license when I first turned 15 or 16 like many teens did. I got mine when I was closer to 18. But guess what car they gave me to use as my daily driver? Yep... that Nova. Never had an engine rebuild or anything either, in all that time. (I think it did have transmission problems once and they got that repaired or rebuilt.) I eventually wrecked it and it was totalled out by insurance, but got some good use and driving experience out of it.

I just don't see any of the hybrids like the Prius giving people that kind of usable life, without investing a good chunk of the car's new price, repeatedly, for a battery swap, first.

Presidents and gas prices

[Medievalist]

When will you people get it thru your head that presidents have NO CONTROL over gas prices.

We'd be a lot better off if that was actually true.

http://www.google.com/#q=president+authorizes+release+strategic+petroleum+reserve

re: Volt vs. Fisker or Tesla

[King_TJ]

IMO, Fisker and Tesla are trying to do something VERY different than GM or Nissan (with the Leaf).

In a sense, I'd say they're being smarter and more realistic about what the electric technology, today, is and isn't.
They're essentially saying, "Look... we know some of you want to buy an electric car primarily because it's cool. It's high-tech and different than what everybody else is driving. It even offers some potential performance improvements over a gasoline car since electric motors can generate LOADS of torque. So we're going to cater to that, and build you sexy, performance sports cars with this stuff!"

The money-conscious consumer who frets about paying $4/gallon for gas is really NOT that interested in the rather pedestrian-looking sedans like the Volt, or the compact cars like the Leaf, as long as the initial sticker price is anywhere over the mid $15K range or so. These are the people who scrape their money together to make loan payments on the new Mazda 2 or the like. And yes, they're often still of the mindset that if they came into some money with a new, much better paying job, or won a lottery, or ?? They'd want a sexy, performance vehicle for a change ... not dumping $50K into a Volt with home charging station.

Off-grid charging

[Envy Life]

True, if plugged into the grid. However, if the car is charged with a solar charging station then the gas mileage would be infinity.

Opportunity cost

[tepples]

True, if plugged into the grid. However, if the car is charged with a solar charging station

Then the mileage can be computed from the opportunity cost of not being able to use the PV panel's power for something else. For example, you might have to buy power from the grid to power home appliances while most of the power goes to your car. Or you might miss out on using a grid-tie inverter to sell power back to the electric company while charging the car.