Can GM Challenge Tesla With a Long-Range Electric Car?

cartechboy writes "GM may sell the Chevy Volt, but it's not a sexy electric car like Tesla Model S. It's a plug-in hybrid with muddled marketing (whose owners love it even though they burn gasoline sometimes). Product exec Doug Parks says GM is developing an electric car that does 200 miles on one charge, with a price around $30,000. But he wouldn't say when, falling back on the old excuse: 'Electric car batteries are really, really expensive!' Tesla's still the only maker to offer an electric car with more than 200 miles of range, so it will be interesting to see whether GM can really build a true Tesla rival. If so, the marketing must be better than the Volt's. Otherwise, it won't matter how good the car is."

Comments

betteridge's law of headline

[poetmatt]

why do people even try to submit shit articles with bad questions? Betteridge's law easily applies here. GM is not going to "Challenge" tesla, and they don't need to. It's an explicitly unnecessary question.

The correct question is: "is GM going to continue developing and improving electric cars?" to which the answer is already clearly yes.

Re:betteridge's law of headline

[h4rr4r]

The S is a nice looking car. What do you not like about it?

The roadster was just an Elise.

Me personally I want a utilitarian vehicle. A small hatchback. I give not a single solitary fuck what it looks like, I don't spend my time staring at my car in the driveway.

Re:betteridge's law of headline

[pla]

the first one of them that get a performance electric car, that isn't fugly as all the current "green" cars....sporty looking (like the Tesla Roadster was) for the price range of a low end Vette...gets all my money.

Seriously? The Tesla S has almost the same profile as a Lamborghini Gallardo. Slightly less absurd front scoop, a bit less "sharp" in a few places, but otherwise, very similar.

I do have to agree about the price, though - If GM can do it at under $30k, awesome. $65k and up, not so cool.

Re:betteridge's law of headline

[TWiTfan]

I'm sorry, but I refused to buy genetically-modified cars.

Re:betteridge's law of headline

[BVis]

No, that's the true American Dream, not that drivel they fed you in school. The true American Dream is not "work hard, play by the rules, you'll leave something better for your children," it's "Con other people into working hard and generating revenue, then keep the revenue for yourself."

Hard work only gets you ahead if what you work hard at is screwing over people who do actual work.

Re:betteridge's law of headline

[NinePenny]

Sounds like you are the perfect candidate for an all electric Pontiac Aztek!

Re:betteridge's law of headline

[JWW]

WTF?

While I agree that the S is a great looking sedan, I've seen both Model S and a Gallardo and there is no possible way to confuse them for each other.

To add to that, when you take into account the sound, the Gallardo is thunderous and the Model S is super quiet. Oppositely impressive feats by both cars.

Re:betteridge's law of headline

[Nadaka]

A union is just a corporation that serves to equalize the negotiation power between employer and employee. The unions negotiates on behalf of the well being of its owners/clients... just like any corporation. Without a union, the absolute inequity of power between employer and employee is so disproportionate in almost every market that fair compensation can not virtually impossible to negotiate. The few exceptions are those markets that retain extremely low unemployment such as software development. Terms of a contract made under threat are invalid, without the backing of a union or extremely low unemployment in ones field, all employment contracts are made under threat on unemployment, which with America's economy and lack of welfare is a slow death sentence.

Re:betteridge's law of headline

[amiga3D]

I can tell you've never worked a production line. If you had you'd know what a stupid comment you'd just made. Are auto workers overpaid? Maybe. Underworked? Hardly. Now executive salaries are an entirely different matter. How salaried execs at a company with such dismal records make the kind of bonuses these overpaid asshats collect is inexplicable.

Re:betteridge's law of headline

[Teancum]

The advantage that GM has which far exceeds anything Tesla could do is simply access to massive amounts of capital and physical assembly plants, not to mention an army of employees who are very capable of not only designing but also building these vehicles.

That said, this advantage is gradually diminishing as Tesla is selling vehicles and has an amazing assembly plant (one that GM even jointly owned in the past). The problems with labor unions is something that Tesla has to face in California (where labor unions do have considerable influence on state labor policy), not to mention that Tesla is not really able to have that much cheaper labor costs than GM.

The question is if GM will be able to leverage their advantages knowing full well that the automobile industry is definitely changing? GM had all but written off the development of electric automobiles (just watch "Who killed the electric car?" for details) until the Tesla Roadster was built and the then CEO of GM interviewed Martin Eberhard about Tesla's view of electric automobiles. That was the foundation of the Volt... and the fact that the Volt was the only major automobile project from prior to the bankruptcy of GM that still exists today.

For those complaining about the fact that Tesla doesn't have an "affordable automobile", that simply is a reflection of the fact that Tesla lacks the capital necessary to mass produce a quarter million automobiles in the 20k-30k price range. It takes those kind of production numbers in order to profitably build cheaper cars. I certainly don't fault Tesla for not building those low end cars first but instead sticking to high end/low volume niche markets first.

Re:betteridge's law of headline

[jedidiah]

If a company can't survive without abusing it's workers, then it should not survive. The argument of "but job creators", is not an open ended excuse for total narcissism in favor of a small class of social elites.

A company with one of the key American brands couldn't keep it's doors open. That's a fundemental management failure. Trying to blame the unions is a pathetic red herring.

I'm just pissed that they took Dolly Madison down with them.

Re:betteridge's law of headline

[CastrTroy]

You are correct in a way, but I think that unions tip the scales too far in the other direction. Now instead of the corporation holding all the power, the union holds all the power. There's been more than a few cases where the union priced the workers out of a job. "American" cars are now manufactured in Mexico. Hostess had to stop making Twinkies. Lots of other examples abound. When the option is to either give employees the desired wage increase, or shut down operations while you find and train new workers, the corporation doesn't have much of a choice but to give the workers what they want.

Re:betteridge's law of headline

[poetmatt]

a union isn't automatically like you perceive. They can be good or bad, and it's up to the individual union. The function of a union as provided by Nadaka however, is correct. A union's intention is to equalize rights of the worker. Not "fuck people over" or "be lazy", as you have implied twice.

Re:betteridge's law of headline

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

10 years is nothing! Every car made should do at least 10 years.
My Jeep will be 25 this in Dec. My bike is 32.
I just bought a house, and the owners threw in the car that was sitting in the garage. It is 34 years old, and it still runs.
It is a real freak: 1979 Oldsmobile Delta 88 Coupe Diesel. That car has no business still running.

Re:betteridge's law of headline

[CdBee]

Here in Europe the PT Cruiser did better than expected after adoption by older drivers - something about the body-shape, doors and ride height apparently made it comparatively easier to enter and exit for the stiff and arthritic than many of our more conventional vehicles

Re:betteridge's law of headline

[gl4ss]

why not buy a tesla roadster if you want a tesla roadster?

roadster style cars are just a drop in the ocean in overall car sales.

you would think though that someone would make an electric suv/pickupwanabe for american consumers. just lay the batteries down low and use lighter materials for the upper parts, plenty of room there since buyers of those vehicles don't ever go offroad anyways.

Re:betteridge's law of headline

[Grishnakh]

Some automotive journalists have even credited the Aztek with being one of the largest causes of Pontiac's demise. It wasn't just an ugly car, it was a car so horrible it caused an entire car brand to be shut down.

Re:betteridge's law of headline

[guises]

Both of your examples are a little off. The auto unions certainly had influence, and it's true that ridiculous pension plans are a part of what brought down the US auto industry, but it wasn't because the unions were demanding ridiculous pension plans. Those happened because it was a concession that the auto execs could give to the unions that wouldn't negatively impact short-term investors.

The hostess thing was a little different. Apparently the company had been so mismanaged that the baker's union couldn't bring themselves to believe the claims that the executives were making, they thought it was a bluff. And there's always the possibility that they were right - this could easily have been a case of the two sides playing chicken until they crashed and the company went belly-up.

Regardless, it's very clear that the unions don't "hold all the power." That claim just doesn't make any sense in the face of these two events or any other. You could make the claim that the unions "hold some of the power" as opposed to the executives having all of it. I don't see that as a bad thing.

Re:betteridge's law of headline

[EETech1]

I was talking to a construction worker about the Union, and he made a good point. He said that he has worked for a dozen construction companies before starting his own, and nearly every one of the companies he worked for was now out of business for one reason or another, and the only reason he had a pension was because the union made sure it was properly managed.

One of the few good points I've heard on the Union that's relevant nowadays.

Cheers!

They're just attempting to stay relevant

[djupedal]

GM made wild promises about the Volt that it didn't follow thru on and now they're just making noise to try to convince investors to stick around. Until they do something that matters in this space, it's hard to take these types of statements seriously.

Re:They're just attempting to stay relevant

[drinkypoo]

What wild promises?

Wild promises of building an EV and not a hybrid, and then wild promises of a revolutionary drivetrain which never appeared?

I'm not saying the volt isn't a perfectly fine automobile, I've never driven one, so how would I know? They don't seem to be owned by people who drive like douchewaffles are are the prii, so perhaps there's something to the notion that they're worth owning. But it's not what was promised at all.

Re:They're just attempting to stay relevant

[SirSpammenot]

The car is all about efficiency. Only under certain, slim, circumstances can the gas engine divert some of it's mechanical output to the drive train through the ring gear.

1) car must be running on gas already becuase of:
A) battery is "empty" or
B) user selected to use gas, despite range still on the battery (ie: "hold" or "mountain" modes)
2) You must be cruising at high speed within a very limited range

Since the car is electric, it is basically ALWAYS running off the battery. When the gas engine kicks on to generate electricity it is clutched into the smaller of the two motors, the larger motor is connected to the ring gear to drive the car. SOMETIMES it is more efficient (in this special tiny window) to bypass the energy conversion (mechanical->electrical->mechanical) and use some of the mechancial energy directly. Note I said "some" as the car is still generating juice as well. Friggin genius that they can balance everything that way.

Just as in the Prius and other parallel hybrids, the high torque electric motors provide the short duration boost on acceleration so that the gas engine doesn't have to ramp up to provide it. But in the Volt's case, the gas engine isn't MADE to be able to pull the car entirely by itself anyway, so if you floor it the gas engine just disconnects and goes back to generation duties. The car goes to native 100% electric propulsion and just zooms away without you ever knowing all the machinations going on under the hood.

Sure they could.

[Kenja]

But they would be lease only, GM would refuse to sell them to anyone and then they would for no reason take them all back and destroy them.

Re:Sure they could.

[Kenja]

And yet... GM refused to sell them to people with the money and willingness to buy them. GM decided they would rather destroy the cars then sell them (shrug).

Re:Sure they could.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's all kinds of liability issues that most of Slashdot doesn't care to acknowledge. Anytime legal matters come up you guys just make up your mind that life shouldn't work that way and act like that somehow absolves any guilty party of responsibility. Unfortunately, for those of us who have to live in the real world, life doesn't work out that way. There would be all kinds of question of tax credits offered to GM if there were any, parts availability, and liability for environmental factors of disposing of such new technology.
 
Have you even began to consider the implications of the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act on selling off a previous for-lease-only unit that has no public supply chain let alone GM's control over who made the original parts? If I were GM I wouldn't want that headache. This isn't like seeing a used lawnmower at a flea market.

Re:Nissan Leaf

[Ralph Wiggam]

Nissan's way of hitting that lower price point is to use cheaper batteries than get more like 85-90 mile range. I have had my Nissan Leaf for about 4 months and I adore it. Not that many people need to drive more than 80 miles in a day. And even with a 250 mile range, road trips are not feasible in the near future regardless of what Elon Musk tells you.

Marketing? Why?

[rcotran]

"If so, the marketing must be better than the Volt's. Otherwise, it won't matter how good the car is." Tesla hasn't done any marketing besides just being an amazing car. And they are selling like hotcakes. The only reason car manufacturers have to market their "next-gen" ICE cars is that with each passing year, the changes on new models are incremental at best. The Tesla Model S is a revolutionary car in every sense of the word and therefore required zero marketing for it to literally sell-out for months ahead of time.

Re:No.

[0123456]

GM wants to make cars that people want to buy. Most people don't want to buy electric cars that are twice the cost of a Civic and can only drive a couple of hundred miles before they have to stop for an hour to 'refuel'.

Re:Nissan Leaf

[yurtinus]

The Leaf isn't bad for what it is - but it in no way rivals the Tesla. Comparing a performance luxury sedan with a 200 mile range to an economy car with a 70 mile range is apples and oranges. A Leaf with a larger battery pack could even the comparisons, or an upmarket sedan with somewhat shorter range, but as they are the cars are simply too different.

PR

[TheUglyAmerican]

Sounds like they're trying to pump sugar daddy for more cash.

Re:PR

[SirSpammenot]

Time to update your tropes, gentlemen. Point of fact: The government wanted GM to drop the Voltec program in exchange for bailout guarantees. But the GM executives fought for it precisely becuase it represented the long term future of the company. The government eventually caved and the Volt was allowed to reach production (since it had been in development for 2 years already). Calling it a bailout car is just, well, tropey.

Now that EVERY car manufacturer in the world has announced plans for electric models, some rather aggressively like VW, maybe it is possible that throwing out years of American investment would have been a loss to the country?

Re:The unpleasanteness of low energy density

[rcotran]

Have you driven a Model S? Do that, and then come back here. You'll understand.

Re:No.

[mlts]

GM has one advantage though. In some states, Tesla is forbidden to sell cars because they are not going through dealers. Plus, GM also has a lot larger advertising warchest.

It is taking time, but I think the GM is wising up to the same lesson that smacked them in the '80s -- either you do something for the demands of the customers, or lose market share to a company who does. Ford knows this, and is putting out hybrid cars, and the 100% electric Focus [1]. Dodge is still out in left field, but their parent company, Fiat, has the 500e which can go head to head with the Leaf.

Here is the ironic thing: If I want a hybrid pickup truck, GM is the only game in town. Yes, the Silverado doesn't have the tow capacity as a pure gasser, but the ability for it to use zero fuel when idling is a big feature on jobsites (to keep the heater/AC going) as well as in traffic.

[1]: I know there is a market for 100% electric cars, but I still worry I wouldn't be able to find a charging station if some situation arose. Of course, I can always stick a portable Honda generator in the trunk, but that isn't exactly the fastest way to charge the vehicle's batteries.

Maybe the best compromise for a 100% electric car is a built in Onan generator that can be flipped on for battery charging while on the go. That way, the fuel system can be gasoline, LP gas, or diesel and not affect anything but the generator and the charge controller.

Re:Nissan Leaf

[afidel]

The problem I have with the Leaf is that my 25 mile commute would be way too much for it in the winter where I often get stuck in 2 hour traffic jams at temps from 32 to 0F, if my employer had a charge station it might be enough to risk it but draining 70+% of the battery just for locomotion during ideal temp days doesn't leave enough safety margin for cold weather performance plus heater usage.

Re:Nissan Leaf

[shadowrat]

And even with a 250 mile range, road trips are not feasible in the near future regardless of what Elon Musk tells you.

I saw a Tesla S with DC plates on it in Cape Cod over the 4th. While there are certainly other explanations it would appear that it was driven there.

Re:it will market itself

[afidel]

For electric cars with a 200+ mile range there's a $7,500 federal tax credit so yeah, it would end up at ~$25k after discount but plus fees.

Re:Nissan Leaf

[Smidge204]

I wasn't aware Nissan as even trying to make a Tesla rival.

Tesla has put their energies into making a brand based on performance and style. Nissan's LEAF offering is focused on affordability. They are not competing for the same market any more than Hyundai is competing with Lamborghini.
=Smidge=

Sell the car, lease the batteries.

[jfisherwa]

.. then they could advertise much cheaper prices, get people in the door, and sell multiple range options based on the batteries they could afford/lease.

Re:The unpleasanteness of low energy density

[drinkypoo]

When I look at the tables for MJ/kg here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density , I see 9.0 for Li-air batteries and around 46 for liquid fuels.
It's a heavy handicap, and I'm not sure that technical prowess and good marketing can overcome it.

The world's most efficient internal combustion engine is 50% efficient. It's the size of a house, and it's in a container ship. Very efficient automobile engines are around 25% efficient. These are expensive engines with direct injection and forced induction.

The electric motors commonly used on EVs are 95% efficient while going forward and as good as 90% efficient while doing regenerative braking, something that is much more expensive and failure-prone with ICEs (which is why we don't have KERS on all our cars.) And EVs commonly eliminate the transmission, which can easily consume another 10-15% of your total system efficiency.

Now, do the math again.

Re:Nissan Leaf

[CanHasDIY]

Nissan's way of hitting that lower price point is to use cheaper batteries than get more like 85-90 mile range. I have had my Nissan Leaf for about 4 months and I adore it. Not that many people need to drive more than 80 miles in a day. And even with a 250 mile range, road trips are not feasible in the near future regardless of what Elon Musk tells you.

I could live with the low range if the darn thing could be 'filled' from empty in the same amount of time it takes to fill my diesel (which, incidentally, has more than double the range of an S, and rarely dips below 40 MPG).

If I'm not mistaken, the fastest charging method for a Tesla is using one of the Superchargers (assuming they're available in your area - the nearest one to me is more than 1200 miles away), which still takes at least an hour to get an 80% charge... and that's assuming no lines at the "pump."

An hour waiting is bad enough, but if there's 2 people in front of me... that's 3 hours before I can get back on the road. Fuck that shit, I gots places to be.

Re:Nissan Leaf

[bitt3n]

I saw a Tesla S with DC plates on it in Cape Cod over the 4th. While there are certainly other explanations it would appear that it was driven there.

was it towing a diesel generator?

Re: The unpleasanteness of low energy density

[tysonedwards]

A Model S weighs *only* 611 pounds more than my Infiniti M37. Add 145lbs of gas, and the delta is quite a bit closer.

I don't think it matters

[damn_registrars]

Basically, even if GM made the greatest electric car the world will ever see, I don't think they could challenge Tesla with it. GM draws so many negative connotations - especially in the electric car field - that they have a nearly insurmountable obstacle to overcome. Even if they hadn't gone broke and needed the government support, they still would have to face the fact that they killed the EV1 in spite of many efforts from lessees to keep it going. Even if none of that had happened you still have the fact that the Chevy Volt was a contender to knock off Duke Nukem Forever on the vaporware lifetime achievement polls. Even if you ignore all of that you still have the fact that GM hasn't managed to get enough of their engineers in one room long enough to make a mass market hybrid that can outdo the Camry hybrid as a family car.

I for one would love to see GM stick around, so that Ford has more competition. Some of my favorite Fords exist in their current states because they have competition from GM.

They can't compete without supercharging

[istartedi]

Tesla's superchargers are what make it truly revolutionary. Pony up the bucks and get viable road-trip capability with no charge at the charger. Ummm... let me rephrase that... ummm... without spending any money at the point of charging. Yes, the car itself is expensive; but you have to factor that in.

Unless GM is also planning a supercharger infrastructure of its own, or partnering with Tesla to allow their vehicle to pull up and charge, it's hobbled right out of the gate.

Yeah fine, you go 200 miles then... GM has no answer. Tesla does.

Re:Nissan Leaf

[afidel]

Yes, I'll jump right on incurring those 10-15% fees to sell and buy a house, plus pay more for a similar school district closer to my work, have way less land, and be farther from my parents and my inlaws just so I can save ~20-30 hours per year in commute time, not.

Re:No.

[Belial6]

That is why we need a standard plug in the back of the car. I've been saying for years that we should have all electric cars, and a standard plug for hooking up a generator. Then we could put the generator on a small trailer. It would be trivial to hook and unhook it, so we wouldn't need to haul the generator around when we were not on trips. We could get all of the liquid fuel goodness that we need for long trips, and we could change our car's fuel type by just getting a new generator.

The generator trailers could even be rented by companies like Hertz or U-haul. Since it wouldn't be a full vehicle, the cost and liability would be far less than with a full car. So, people could go all electric for 99% of their driving, and swing by Hertz to rent a generator if they want to drive across country.

Re:gm is too out of touch to compete.

[Anonymous Coward]

For example: the PT Cruiser was such a collosal piece of shit, it was rebranded the Chevy HHR in what i can only imagine was a complete lack of respect for their customer.

The Dart is based on a version of the Fiat Compact platform
the Pontiac G6 is based on an Opel platform
the Ford Fiesta is based on a Mazda platform

I can't tell if you're trying to group all US auto manufactures together or are just ignorant.

PT Cruiser: Chrysler
HHR: Chevy (GM)
Dart: Dodge (Chrysler)
G6: Pontiac (GM, Retired)
Fiesta: Ford (Who has worked with Mazda since the 80's, not really news there)

I don't believe that GM is serious about an EV

[AnalogDiehard]

Over twenty years ago GM made the EV-1 electric car. It was only available for lease. The leasees were so happy with it that they wanted to buy the car, but the cars were reclaimed and destroyed under very questionable circumstances and production lines were promptly shut down. There are GM executives who are known to be rabidly hostile to EVs. Chevron, in collusion with the automakers, ultimately bought the patent to the EV-ideal environmentally-friendly NiMh battery and refuses to license it in a format suitable for EVs.

The oil and auto industries colluded to keep EVs and any other competitive technology from eroding the profits of Big Oil. They did it before when they conspired through shell companies to acquire and destroy streetcar companies. Streetcars were powered by electricity not fossil fuel, so by forcing consumers away from streetcars they had little choice but to buy cars. Auto makers fattened their profits, as did oil companies.

I find it hard to believe that GM is at all serious about EVs.

Re:I don't believe that GM is serious about an EV

[nojayuk]

The EV-1 was an experiment, not a production car. They cost GM about $250,000 each to hand-build and they were leased only to people who already owned one or more petrol/gasoline cars as the EV-1's reliability couldn't be guaranteed and it might be recalled for upgrading or examination at any time during the lease.

At the end of the experiment they were recalled and scrapped. If they had been sold on then GM would have been liable to provide a very expensive maintenance and parts supply operation for them for ten years minimum by law.

The results were useful but proved that electric cars at that time were not quite ready for prime-time, not when gas cost less than a buck a gallon and the EV-1 had a range at full charge of about 80 miles or so. The original Ni-Cd and later Ni-MH batteries weren't up to the job but lithium tech batteries with their greater capacity, fast-charge capability and high current drain made the later development of hybrids and full-electric cars feasible.

Re:I don't believe that GM is serious about an EV

[Anachragnome]

First hand experience with this type of behavior...What started out as an anecdote from an instructor turned into a lesson in Big Business.

Many years ago I attended an automotive trade school with the intention of focusing on fuel systems and computerized engine controls. One of my instructors, while explaining the demise of carburetors, mentioned a modified Chevy V-8 getting 80 MPG. I pressed him on this claim. He went on to tell the story of the Moody Brothers, racers at heart and some of the best race-engine builders of their time. As my instructor explained it, while experimenting to extract every ounce of horse-power from their engines, they discovered something that everyone had simply over-looked--fuel evaporation.

The way I understand it, they discovered that much of the energy in gasoline (and other modified fuels used in racing) is lost as a result of incomplete combustion--the fuel/air mixture consisted of many large droplets of fuel, rather then a completely evaporated and gaseous mixture. The result was incomplete combustion and lost potential energy, not to mention an increase in pollutants such as carbon monoxide and free hydrocarbons. To remedy the situation, they remote mounted the carburetor and installed a series of venturi--one after the other--inline to the intake manifold. The venturi were not used to draw additional fuel into the charge, but rather to simply expose the fuel charge to rapidly alternating pressures. This alternating effect literally breaks up the droplets to the point the air/fuel charge consists of air and a gaseous fuel. The result was a more complete burn of the incoming fuel. The Moody Bros simply found a very simple way of vastly increasing the efficiency of carbureted engines. My instructor (who was apparently involved to some degree--he also claimed to have gotten 60 MPG from a pair of Weber carbs in his VW Bug) boldly stated that the Moody Brothers had achieved 80 MPG with an otherwise-stock Chevy 350. I had serious doubts--why wasn't everyone doing this then? I asked him as much. He stated that shortly after word got around in the close community of engine builders, Standard Oil simply offered them $11,000,000 to outright buy the rights/patent from them. Being the 60's, they'd have been fools to not take the offer--that was a huge amount of money back then.

I still wasn't sold. So I decided to try it myself.

At the time, I owned a 1960 Ford Falcon Ranchero with a stock 170CI straight-6 engine. It was an odd engine in that it had a integral intake manifold--it was literally part of the cylinder-head with no gasket. But another oddity caught my eye not long after that day in class--a 1" thick plate of metal located between the carburetor and the intake. After a little thinking, I realized the only purpose it served was as a location to mount a PCV valve. This was an after-thought on the part of Ford--they had just recently realized that drawing off the fuel that accumulated in the crankcase oil drastically increased engine life, and as a result had hastily added PCV valves during assembly by adding this small plate.

I took the plate off and used J-B Weld to create a venturi inside this plate. My brother came up with the ingenious idea of using a melted candle to create an instant mold for the J-B Weld--I simply got the J-B Weld where I wanted it, placed the plate on some waxpaper, then poured melted candlewax into it. The wax instantly cooled into a mold allowing the J-B Weld to cure overnight without sagging. The next morning, after a little sanding, I put everything back together and fired it up.

The first thing I noticed was instant throttle response--no more gulping when the pedal was mashed to the floor. On test drive, the vehicle seemed to have significantly more power, allowing me drive up a certain hill in the area in 3rd gear, whereas before a downshift to 2nd was required. Back in the garage, I pulled the single jet out of the carburetor, heated it up and filled it with a plug of solder. I then re-drilled it to 50

Re:I don't believe that GM is serious about an EV

[Anachragnome]

"At the end of the experiment they were recalled and scrapped."

In reality, they scrapped them as soon as they won their lawsuit against CARB. That ruling effectively reversed state law that required electric vehicles--the entire time GM was leasing electric vehicles, their lawyers were fighting to overturn laws that required electric vehicles be sold. The EV-1 was GM's response to those requirements, and when the requirements were reversed they repossessed all the EV-1s and crushed them.

Citation:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/smart-transportation-solutions/advanced-vehicle-technologies/electric-cars/californias-zero-emission-1.html

Re:I don't believe that GM is serious about an EV

[geekoid]

It's not true. It's been around in one form or another. Here is a little thinking applied to it:

If Shell(any company, really) had this tech they would make a mint licensing it. Remember it's about money, oil is just a product. I would guess they could gt 200 dollars a vehicle in licensing. So, Billions a year.(yes, it's based on a guess but I hope you see the point)
These cars would still need Gas.
They would have stopped any EV developments for at least a decade.
And by sitting on it it means they risk someone else developing it, and then they would be screwed.

It's the same problem with most every other corporate conspiracy theory.

oh, and the discover it 50 years ago and no one else in the world did? No other engineer? no other non american car company?

Stop spreading lies.

What promises?

[sjbe]

Wild promises of building an EV and not a hybrid, and then wild promises of a revolutionary drivetrain which never appeared?

What drive train do you think they promised? I'm not aware of any similar drive train from their major competitors. The Volt uses the gas engine to power the electric motors which actually drive the car - kind of like a diesel locomotive. The hybrid offerings from Honda, Ford and Toyota work differently. They can drive the car straight off the gas motor which is quite different. The Volt has the best all electric range among similar hybrid cars (around 40 miles) and I'm not aware of any cars near production that can match that. The Volt could be turned into an EV rather easily since removing the engine would provide lots of room for batteries. The economics of it just don't make much sense yet.

I'm not saying the volt isn't a perfectly fine automobile, I've never driven one, so how would I know?

I have driven one and can confirm they are nice. You can tell the money went into the drivetrain instead of the interior (not super plush) but it drives very nicely.

Re:No.

[Cyberax]

I own a Volt. Right now you can simply ignore the direct gasoline engine connection to the wheels - it only activates at speeds more than 50mph and with an empty battery, it increases fuel economy by about 10% at these conditions.

A better designed gas engine might get better economy, but GM ran out of time when they were designing the original Volt. There are rumors that the next Volt model might lose the direct connection between wheels and the engine. But yeah, a diesel-powered Volt would be a great thing...

Re:Nissan Leaf

[Cyberax]

The fastest way to charge Tesla is a battery swap which takes about 30 seconds.

Re:Nissan Leaf

[bitt3n]

What if I want to enjoy the unparalleled driving experience that Tesla offers without sacrificing the ability to piss off dirty tree-hugging hippies?

Re: Nissan Leaf

[beltsbear]

Have a bumper sticker that says, "my other car is a Hummer H1"

Re:Nissan Leaf

[emars]

The LEAF would work in your scenario easily. The energy economy of the Nissan LEAF is greater at slow speeds.... actually, 12 MPH is the sweet spot.. you could likely get 200 miles from the LEAF if you kept it at 12 MPH. ;) Using the heater is a drain on the traction battery, but you've got seat heaters and a steering wheel heater and the ability to pre-heat the cabin before you leave. The 2013 model has a heat pump which is supposed to make heating the cabin more efficient.

Re:GM advantages and disadvantages

[jedidiah]

GM is GMs single biggest disadvantage.

All of the "advantages of scale" also come with the a "disadvantage of scale" that negates everything else. It is the essential problem with every corporation that is "too big to fail".

GM should be getting pushed out of the way by 3 more Teslas.

That is the free market that we should have but don't.

Re:No.

[locopuyo]

It should be micro usb like everything else.

Re:No.

[beanpoppa]

Well, most people are idiots. There are PLENTY of two-car households that could replace one of their 'commuter' cars with an all-electric car that has 100-200 mile range. Most people drive 50 miles, round-trip, for work. They plug in nightly, and are fine for their commute. Their other car can either be a regular ICE, or a hybrid, or a range-extended hybrid (if it would be justified), and would serve as the car to use when they have a long family road-trip.

People who think that electric cars are useless unless they can meet the needs of every car (300+ mile range and 5 minute recharge) are being silly. I need a car big enough to carry suitcases and seat my 6 person family, but only one of my cars has to meet this need. The other car only needs to be big enough and efficient to take me to work and back.