GM does appear to get EVs with the Volt, Bolt, and Spark EV not feeling under powered.
I own a Volt. When everything is working, it is definitely not under-powered. The suspension and tires can't handle what the electric motors can put out unless you are going in a straight line.
The straight-line acceleration feels well above similar gas vehicles (We're talking Ford Fusion, not Corvette when looking for a comparable car)
I have a Volt. The power train is not so cool in practice.
The car has trouble transitioning between the power sources. If I start it when the battery is low, it will refuse to be a series hybrid like it is supposed to be and run only on the gas engine. Recently it's been refusing to start the gas engine when the battery runs out, which is very not-fun while driving. The dealer can't figure out why. other than "reprogramming" the car fixes it for a while.
I own a Volt. I would not buy another Volt. GM can't handle the complexity of multiple power sources. The car regularly fails to transition properly between them.
Mostly the car refusing to become a series hybrid when the battery is low and running 100% on the gas engine, but recently it's been refusing to turn on the gas engine when the battery runs out and the dealer has no idea why. Flashing the firmware fixes it for a brief period, but it's getting rather annoying paying for tow trucks.
The Bolt, OTOH, is interesting.
no range anxiety
This doesn't really exist. The car is for commuting. Even if I run a shitload of errands, it's not doing more than 50 miles in a day....and the Bolt can do >200 miles on a charge so there's plenty of overhead remaining.
Road trip? First, those are actually pretty rare among most consumers. Second, that's what the household's other car is for.
Note part of their 'focus on electric' involves cancelling the Volt, probably their best selling vehicle with electric as the primary power source.
Actually, that would be the Bolt, not the Volt.
GM expected the Bolt to be a niche product and the Volt to be popular. The reverse happened.
Some of this would happen no matter what. But it's likely that some of these factories would have been retooled to more popular vehicles instead of expanding production in Mexico if Trump was not a moron about trade policy.
And I'm not arguing otherwise. But what does Trump's promises and phenomenal misunderstanding of coal have to do with US factory jobs? nothing.
GM isn't just closing factories in the US. Part of this change is to build new/expand existing factories in Mexico.
That is happening because Trump applied tariffs to steel, making steel more expensive in the US. Also, retaliatory tariffs on US cars make US-built cars more expensive when exported. Neither of these apply to Mexico, so GM is expanding production there.
Without these tariffs, GM would have cut some jobs and likely retooled some US factories. Instead, GM's cutting a lot more jobs and shipping the work to Mexico where Trump's trade stupidity doesn't apply.
The hole in your theory is that part of these changes is GM expanding production in Mexico.
Some of these factories may have been retooled to more popular vehicles, except for the tariffs on steel and retaliatory tariffs on US cars. Which are now in place because of Trump's idiocy on trade policy. Instead, GM's building new factories in Mexico....staffed by humans.
Because Trump actively caused this via trade policy.
These factories are being closed instead of being retooled because of tariffs applied to US-built cars. Instead of retooling, they're expanding production in Mexico.
Trump's moronic trade policy has greatly increased the cost of steel, which has cost GM $1billion. Retaliatory tariffs have also increased the price of cars built in the US. That caused GM close these plants instead of retooling them for more popular cars. Instead, GM's going to build more in Mexico which is not subject to retaliatory tariffs.
We know this because he would have won the primary if not for the "superdelegates", whose privileges were designed to subvert the democratic process
No, Sanders won 46% of the vote during the primaries/caucuses. Superdelegates did not directly flip the result.
That being said, there were plenty of shenanigans and plenty of influence of voters/caucusers by superdelegates and the party, which could easily account for a 5% swing.
Someone explain to me how Bernie was going to win the presidency when he couldn't even win a Dem primary
Sanders got 46% of the vote during the primary. It was not at all a blowout. And there was a significant amount of shenanigans during the primary (remember the supposed chair-throwing in Nevada? Didn't happen. Why were people angry? NV Democratic party decided to ignore the party rules when Clinton delegates screwed up and lost the state. Also, Iowa official results didn't quite match unofficial results called in from the caucuses. Issue was not pressed because of fear of being labeled a "sore loser")
There was also a significant amount of "Sanders can't win the general, so I guess I'll vote for Clinton" voters. Despite polling showing the opposite.
Like all "what-if" scenarios, we have no idea what really would have happened. But this particular scenario isn't all that far-fetched.
GM expected the Volt to be very popular, and the Bolt to be a niche product. They were going with the common wisdom that all-electric cars will not be popular due to things like charging taking a while.
Then the reverse happened: Bolt was way more popular than Volt. It turns out consumers are not all that worried about fill-up time on a vehicle they primarily use for commuting. Road trips aren't actually all that common, and two-car households have another car for those anyway. So the customers GM expected to buy Volts bought Bolts.
The thing to remember about stories in newspapers is the story is always coming from someone. There are a lot of people in NY who hate the transit unions.
For example:
hundreds of mechanic positions have been cut because there is not enough money to pay them — even though the average total compensation for subway managers has grown to well over $200,000 a year.
Left unsaid is what the total compensation for a subway manager should be. Also "total compensation" is a lovely way to inflate the cost, since most readers will think "salary" and ignore that "total compensation" also includes health insurance, pension and other benefits.
This quote is also a lovely example of arbitrarily deciding it costs too much, which is the point I was making.
Also, to have the political corruption implied in the quotes, there would have to be a hell of a lot more transit union employees than there are. Can't make a machine when you don't have enough votes to install the machine candidate.
That being said, Cuomo is a corrupt shitbag. But you need to look towards his business deals instead of unions for that.
Only in name. Some non-NYC Democrats decided they'd have more power by allying with the Republicans in the state senate. So they did, giving the Republicans control of the chamber despite the Democratic majority.
(Btw, this just changed in the last election, because enough Republicans and breakaway Democrats lost to make this plan no longer work)
How can anyone be incentivized to solve any problems in NY state or NYC?
The Democrats in the legislature wanted to solve this problem years ago by stopping deferred maintenance. Republicans arbitrarily decided it cost too much. And since they actually have control of one house, they got their way by being more obstructionist than the Democrats.
Their predominant party controls 2/3 of the State government
Some of the non-NYC Democrats decided they'd have more power by allying with the Republicans, resulting in a Republican-controlled state senate despite the Democratic majority.
You're telling me NYC has no influence on what NY State government does?
Well, those breakaway Democrats don't retain their power by doing what NYC wants......
What incentive do rural NYers have to vote for corrupt politicians at the State level whose corruption is focused on ensuring jobs and cash for NYC Unions?
Declaring "this costs too much, so there must be massive corruption!!" is not the same as that actually being true.
NYC has one-party government. How is anyone involved incentivised to do anything beyond the absolute minimum to keep a paycheck?
That's nice. The MTA (the folks that actually run the train and subway system) is a state agency. NYC's government doesn't really matter beyond having a larger megaphone to use while complaining.
Well, gee, read up a bit on the philosophies of NYC government leadership
The MTA (the folks that run the trains and subways in NYC) is a state agency. The NYC government leadership is irrelevant.
And to be fair this is the result of decades of neglect. Plenty of blame for previous administrations, if they prefer to lament the situation instead of fixing it.
Yes, Republicans and non-NYC legislators who allied with them to take over the state legislature decided that appropriating less than the MTA needed would magically make the MTA cost less.
NY city transportation is actually a state expense. The MTA is a state agency. And a big part of the problems is that it is a state agency and the legislature has been dysfunctional for a while due to the efforts of some non-NYC members.
Close to your own neighborhood is still not necessarily in walking distance. Especially when you're talking about the suburbs and the tendency to not build sidewalks in them.
I can only imagine that it was started up again because someone ran a spreadsheet which showed that if they build this, they'll increase property values on the east side which means they can increase property taxes which means more revenue for the city. But how much of that is going back to the MTA?
Until the residents of NYC vote in a different set of people who aren't in the pockets of certain influences (Unions, ecowarriors, etc...), they're never going to have a cost effective Subway.
The subway and trains in NYC are operated by the state. NYC has consistently elected politicians who want to fix the system. But the state legislature has been controlled by non-NYC politicians until recently. They, like you, pretended that it was possible to squeeze blood from a stone and just didn't appropriate the money the MTA asked for.
Slashdot Mirror
GM does appear to get EVs with the Volt, Bolt, and Spark EV not feeling under powered.
I own a Volt. When everything is working, it is definitely not under-powered. The suspension and tires can't handle what the electric motors can put out unless you are going in a straight line.
The straight-line acceleration feels well above similar gas vehicles (We're talking Ford Fusion, not Corvette when looking for a comparable car)
I have a Volt. The power train is not so cool in practice.
The car has trouble transitioning between the power sources. If I start it when the battery is low, it will refuse to be a series hybrid like it is supposed to be and run only on the gas engine. Recently it's been refusing to start the gas engine when the battery runs out, which is very not-fun while driving. The dealer can't figure out why. other than "reprogramming" the car fixes it for a while.
I own a Volt. I would not buy another Volt. GM can't handle the complexity of multiple power sources. The car regularly fails to transition properly between them.
Mostly the car refusing to become a series hybrid when the battery is low and running 100% on the gas engine, but recently it's been refusing to turn on the gas engine when the battery runs out and the dealer has no idea why. Flashing the firmware fixes it for a brief period, but it's getting rather annoying paying for tow trucks.
The Bolt, OTOH, is interesting.
no range anxiety
This doesn't really exist. The car is for commuting. Even if I run a shitload of errands, it's not doing more than 50 miles in a day....and the Bolt can do >200 miles on a charge so there's plenty of overhead remaining.
Road trip? First, those are actually pretty rare among most consumers. Second, that's what the household's other car is for.
Note part of their 'focus on electric' involves cancelling the Volt, probably their best selling vehicle with electric as the primary power source.
Actually, that would be the Bolt, not the Volt.
GM expected the Bolt to be a niche product and the Volt to be popular. The reverse happened.
Some of this would happen no matter what. But it's likely that some of these factories would have been retooled to more popular vehicles instead of expanding production in Mexico if Trump was not a moron about trade policy.
And I'm not arguing otherwise. But what does Trump's promises and phenomenal misunderstanding of coal have to do with US factory jobs? nothing.
GM isn't just closing factories in the US. Part of this change is to build new/expand existing factories in Mexico.
That is happening because Trump applied tariffs to steel, making steel more expensive in the US. Also, retaliatory tariffs on US cars make US-built cars more expensive when exported. Neither of these apply to Mexico, so GM is expanding production there.
Without these tariffs, GM would have cut some jobs and likely retooled some US factories. Instead, GM's cutting a lot more jobs and shipping the work to Mexico where Trump's trade stupidity doesn't apply.
The hole in your theory is that part of these changes is GM expanding production in Mexico.
Some of these factories may have been retooled to more popular vehicles, except for the tariffs on steel and retaliatory tariffs on US cars. Which are now in place because of Trump's idiocy on trade policy. Instead, GM's building new factories in Mexico....staffed by humans.
Because Trump actively caused this via trade policy.
These factories are being closed instead of being retooled because of tariffs applied to US-built cars. Instead of retooling, they're expanding production in Mexico.
Trump is not to blame for the closures
Trump's moronic trade policy has greatly increased the cost of steel, which has cost GM $1billion. Retaliatory tariffs have also increased the price of cars built in the US. That caused GM close these plants instead of retooling them for more popular cars. Instead, GM's going to build more in Mexico which is not subject to retaliatory tariffs.
So yes, this is on Trump.
We know this because he would have won the primary if not for the "superdelegates", whose privileges were designed to subvert the democratic process
No, Sanders won 46% of the vote during the primaries/caucuses. Superdelegates did not directly flip the result.
That being said, there were plenty of shenanigans and plenty of influence of voters/caucusers by superdelegates and the party, which could easily account for a 5% swing.
Someone explain to me how Bernie was going to win the presidency when he couldn't even win a Dem primary
Sanders got 46% of the vote during the primary. It was not at all a blowout. And there was a significant amount of shenanigans during the primary (remember the supposed chair-throwing in Nevada? Didn't happen. Why were people angry? NV Democratic party decided to ignore the party rules when Clinton delegates screwed up and lost the state. Also, Iowa official results didn't quite match unofficial results called in from the caucuses. Issue was not pressed because of fear of being labeled a "sore loser")
There was also a significant amount of "Sanders can't win the general, so I guess I'll vote for Clinton" voters. Despite polling showing the opposite.
Like all "what-if" scenarios, we have no idea what really would have happened. But this particular scenario isn't all that far-fetched.
Whats up with cancelinv Volt?
GM expected the Volt to be very popular, and the Bolt to be a niche product. They were going with the common wisdom that all-electric cars will not be popular due to things like charging taking a while.
Then the reverse happened: Bolt was way more popular than Volt. It turns out consumers are not all that worried about fill-up time on a vehicle they primarily use for commuting. Road trips aren't actually all that common, and two-car households have another car for those anyway. So the customers GM expected to buy Volts bought Bolts.
The thing to remember about stories in newspapers is the story is always coming from someone. There are a lot of people in NY who hate the transit unions.
For example:
hundreds of mechanic positions have been cut because there is not enough money to pay them — even though the average total compensation for subway managers has grown to well over $200,000 a year.
Left unsaid is what the total compensation for a subway manager should be. Also "total compensation" is a lovely way to inflate the cost, since most readers will think "salary" and ignore that "total compensation" also includes health insurance, pension and other benefits.
This quote is also a lovely example of arbitrarily deciding it costs too much, which is the point I was making.
Also, to have the political corruption implied in the quotes, there would have to be a hell of a lot more transit union employees than there are. Can't make a machine when you don't have enough votes to install the machine candidate.
That being said, Cuomo is a corrupt shitbag. But you need to look towards his business deals instead of unions for that.
NY State is also essentially one-party
Only in name. Some non-NYC Democrats decided they'd have more power by allying with the Republicans in the state senate. So they did, giving the Republicans control of the chamber despite the Democratic majority.
(Btw, this just changed in the last election, because enough Republicans and breakaway Democrats lost to make this plan no longer work)
How can anyone be incentivized to solve any problems in NY state or NYC?
The Democrats in the legislature wanted to solve this problem years ago by stopping deferred maintenance. Republicans arbitrarily decided it cost too much. And since they actually have control of one house, they got their way by being more obstructionist than the Democrats.
Their predominant party controls 2/3 of the State government
Some of the non-NYC Democrats decided they'd have more power by allying with the Republicans, resulting in a Republican-controlled state senate despite the Democratic majority.
You're telling me NYC has no influence on what NY State government does?
Well, those breakaway Democrats don't retain their power by doing what NYC wants......
What incentive do rural NYers have to vote for corrupt politicians at the State level whose corruption is focused on ensuring jobs and cash for NYC Unions?
Declaring "this costs too much, so there must be massive corruption!!" is not the same as that actually being true.
The MTA is a state agency. The politicians you need to complain about are located in Albany.
NYC has one-party government. How is anyone involved incentivised to do anything beyond the absolute minimum to keep a paycheck?
That's nice. The MTA (the folks that actually run the train and subway system) is a state agency. NYC's government doesn't really matter beyond having a larger megaphone to use while complaining.
Because that's way more complicated and thus way more expensive than using the existing income tax system to get nearly the same result.
Well, gee, read up a bit on the philosophies of NYC government leadership
The MTA (the folks that run the trains and subways in NYC) is a state agency. The NYC government leadership is irrelevant.
And to be fair this is the result of decades of neglect. Plenty of blame for previous administrations, if they prefer to lament the situation instead of fixing it.
Yes, Republicans and non-NYC legislators who allied with them to take over the state legislature decided that appropriating less than the MTA needed would magically make the MTA cost less.
NY city transportation is actually a state expense. The MTA is a state agency. And a big part of the problems is that it is a state agency and the legislature has been dysfunctional for a while due to the efforts of some non-NYC members.
Federal Gas Tax says otherwise. (It's been used to fund public transportation systems)
and most commutes are perhaps half an hour walk
[Citation Required]
Yes. You'll find it in the NY state budget because the MTA is a state agency.
Close to your own neighborhood is still not necessarily in walking distance. Especially when you're talking about the suburbs and the tendency to not build sidewalks in them.
I can only imagine that it was started up again because someone ran a spreadsheet which showed that if they build this, they'll increase property values on the east side which means they can increase property taxes which means more revenue for the city. But how much of that is going back to the MTA?
None. the MTA is funded by the state.
Until the residents of NYC vote in a different set of people who aren't in the pockets of certain influences (Unions, ecowarriors, etc...), they're never going to have a cost effective Subway.
The subway and trains in NYC are operated by the state. NYC has consistently elected politicians who want to fix the system. But the state legislature has been controlled by non-NYC politicians until recently. They, like you, pretended that it was possible to squeeze blood from a stone and just didn't appropriate the money the MTA asked for.