The GM VOLT! $41,000 For A 40-Mile Car! YOU SUCKERS READY TO BITE?

Page 1 of 3  
Let's see, a trip from Washington, D.C., to Orlando, strictly on electric power, will require ONE WEEK! But that includes just recharging of the battery.
Including layovers, rest and eating -- allow TWO FULL weeks.
Face it folks, electric cars are no more than fads for the rich at this point in time.
Tom Hanks will have to have his Volt recharged twice just to get down his driveway to the Interstate.
For we ordinary motorists, the technology is years off.
In fact, we might be cited in alt.obituaries before we can buy one that's meant for driving as we know it.
---------------------------- "GM Volt's price induces some sticker shock"
By Peter Whoriskey The Washington Post Wednesday, July 28, 2010; A10
The long-anticipated Chevrolet Volt, General Motors' electric car, will cost $41,000, the company announced Tuesday, leaving consumers to decide whether its environmental appeal is worth a price far above that of similarly sized conventional autos.
Electric-car technology has been around for years, but the high cost to make the vehicles has prevented automakers from producing them for the mass market. The price announcements for the Volt and its electric rival, the Nissan Leaf, have been highly anticipated as a result. Nissan, the only other major manufacturer expected to bring such a vehicle to market this year, said the Leaf will cost $32,780.
GM and Nissan are relying on a $7,500 federal tax credit for buyers of electric vehicles to offset some of the added cost, and they're hoping that the allure of their novel power source will make up the rest.
"The Volt is a game-changing product," said Tony Posawatz, GM's vehicle line director for the Volt, which is expected to hit showrooms in November 2011.
(Photos: 2010 International Auto Show)
Although the prices are high, enthusiasts say that electric cars can reach a large, untapped market for vehicles with little or no tailpipe emissions.
The Volt can travel 40 miles on its battery charge and an additional 340 miles on a gasoline-powered generator. The all-electric Leaf has a range of 100 miles.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, then-Sen. Barack Obama pledged to put 1 million plug-in vehicles on the road by 2015.
But some analysts said they doubt that electric cars can reach a broad audience in the near term. Hybrid cars took about eight years to reach the million-unit sales mark in the United States, according to Energy Department figures.
"I'm not sure the Volt is going to be a volume vehicle," said George Magliano, director of automotive industry forecasting for North America at IHS Global Insight. "The technology still isn't there to make them cheap. At the end of the day, the consumer pays a hefty premium to make a statement."
To move the industry along and bolster U.S. manufacturing, the Obama administration has put its weight, and billions of dollars, behind an effort to develop electric cars and batteries in the United States.
In developing the Volt, GM is seeking to fulfill its promise to Congress during the government bailout to move beyond gas-guzzlers. The company had been planning the Volt long before it neared bankruptcy last year, however, as an attempt to leapfrog Toyota in the quest for fuel-efficient vehicles.
The president has expressed optimism that automakers will be able to lower the price tag of electric-vehicle technology. Earlier this month, he suggested that major reductions in battery costs, one of the primary reasons electric cars are more expensive, are on the horizon.
"Because of advances in the manufacturing, [battery] costs are expected to come down by nearly 70 percent in the next few years," Obama said at the site of a planned battery factory in Michigan. "That's going to make electric and hybrid cars and trucks more affordable for more Americans."
Both the Volt and the Leaf will cost considerably more than rival gasoline-powered compact sedans, such as the Honda Civic or the Ford Focus, each of which costs under $20,000.
Price is only one potential barrier to mass adoption, however.
Consumers must also get accustomed to plugging the cars in at home. It takes hours to recharge the vehicles, and in the absence of a network of public recharging stations, drivers that run out of juice may need a tow truck.
Both Nissan and GM are planning relatively low production levels at first, especially compared with the more than 11 million vehicles expected to be sold nationwide next year.
GM plans to produce 10,000 Volts next year, and 30,000 in 2012, company officials have said. Nissan has indicated that it will sell about 25,000 Leafs in the United States next year.
(U.S. government borrowing is $1.4 trillion this year - could buy 36,750,000 volts or ...)
As the only two major manufacturers preparing to mass-produce cars that can run on batteries, GM and Nissan are engaged in a debate over price and capability.
On purchase price, the Leaf is significantly less, though the leasing prices are very similar. The Volt will also be available by lease with a monthly payment of $350 for 36 months and $2,500 due at signing, the company said.
"The Chevrolet Volt will be the best vehicle in its class . . . because it's in a class by itself," said Joel Ewanick, vice president of U.S. marketing for GM. "No other automaker offers an electrically driven vehicle that can be your everyday driver, to take you wherever, whenever."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/27/AR2010072705834.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Apparently you missed the fact that the Volt is a Serial PHEV (plug-in hybrid electric vehicle) NOT a BEV (battery electric vehicle) when the HV battery is depleted to 40% SoC (from what I have heard) the gas engine starts and supplies the electricity needed to power the motor. This is per the SAE
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Goodbye to those $40/hour UAW car production line jobs tightening bolts and taking breaks every two hours!
But does McDonald's have 15 million U.S. jobs for our erstwhile middle class dumb'uns?
Even Barack's brilliant administration can't put factories back together again!
------------------------ "The job machine grinds to a halt"
Op-Ed By Harold Meyerson Wednesday, July 28, 2010; A15
AIN'T NO HIRING. And ain't likely to be any for a good long time.
The problem isn't merely the greatest downturn since the Great Depression. It's also that big business has found a way to make big money without restoring the jobs it cut the past two years, or increasing its investments or even its sales, at least domestically.
In the mildly halcyon days before the 2008 crash, the one economic outlier was wages. Profit, revenue and GDP all increased; only ordinary Americans' incomes lagged behind. Today, wages are still down, employment remains low and sales revenue isn't up much, either. But profits are the outlier. They're positively soaring.
Among the 175 companies in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index that have released their second-quarter reports, the New York Times reported Sunday, revenue rose by a tidy 6.9 percent, but profits soared by a stunning 42.3 percent. Profits, that is, are increasing seven times faster than revenue. The mind, as it should, boggles.
How can America's corporations so defy gravity? Ever adaptive, they have evolved a business model that enables them to make money even while the strapped American consumer has cut back on purchasing. For one thing, they are increasingly selling and producing overseas. General Motors is going like gangbusters in China, where it now sells more cars than it does in the United States. In China, GM employs 32,000 assembly-line workers; that's just 20,000 fewer than the number of such workers it has in the States. And those American workers aren't making what they used to; new hires get $14 an hour, roughly half of what veterans pull down.
The GM model typifies that of post-crash American business: massive layoffs, productivity increases, wage reductions (due in part to the weakness of unions), and reduced sales at home; increased hiring and booming sales abroad. Another part of that model is cash retention. A Federal Reserve report last month estimated that American corporations are sitting on a record $1.8 trillion in cash reserves. As a share of corporate assets, that's the highest level since 1964.
Why invest in new plants, offices and workers, particularly here at home? Spooked by the 2008 crash, corporations want to keep more money under the mattress. More important, they're sitting pretty as profits rise.
Is this model sustainable? It's hard to say -- a double-dip recession could plunge their profits yet again. But from the American worker's perspective, the model, no less than a new downturn, is an unqualified disaster. It portends the kind of long-term, structural unemployment that we haven't seen since the 1930s. It locks into place a generation of reduced incomes.
This dystopian America already stares us in the face. Fully 46 percent of the unemployed have been without work for six months or more -- the highest level since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began measuring such things in 1947. Two years ago, just 18 percent of the unemployed were jobless for more than six months. America's private-sector job machine -- the marvel of the world since 1940 -- has clanged to a halt, and there's no place for it in corporations' new business model.
The restoration of American prosperity, then, isn't likely to be driven by our corporate sector. Across-the-board business tax cuts make no sense when business is already sitting on oceans of cash. Targeted tax cuts and credits for strategic investment and hiring within the United States, on the other hand, make excellent sense. The Obama administration has proposed expanding the tax credit for the manufacture of green technology here at home, and congressional Democrats will soon unveil legislation creating further incentives for domestic manufacturing.
Another source of jobs would be public, and public-private, investment in infrastructure. As Michael Lind and Sherle Schwenninger of the New America Foundation have argued, building a new American infrastructure of roads, rail and broadband is not only an economic necessity but also the investment with the highest multiplier effect in creating new jobs. A U.S. infrastructure investment bank, such as that proposed by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), could leverage significant private capital to begin America's rebuilding, though the idea has encountered rough sledding in (surprise) the Senate.
What won't work as an economic solution -- indeed, it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment -- is blaming the unemployed for their failure to find jobs. There are now roughly five unemployed Americans for every open job, according to the Economic Policy Institute's most recent calculations, and that ratio isn't likely to decline much if we leave it to the corporate sector to resume hiring. Corporations have figured out a way to make money without resuming hiring. Their model is premised on not resuming hiring. If the public sector doesn't fill the gap, the era of American prosperity is history.
[ snipped-for-privacy@washpost.com]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/27/AR2010072704791.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:43:40 -0700 (PDT), "J. Fartlington Poopnagel"
<snip load of unrelated rubbish>
Exactly what did you have to contribute to a discussion about Electric vehicles?
And why didn't you direct your rant at the Democrats too? I'm sure they were party to the ills of the world just as much as the Republicans.
--
Peter Hill
Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It is "coin of the realm" in which ever country it's used in. I keep some incase I travel at all, it's just as genuine as Sterling is to me and Dollars are to you.
--
Clive


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 11:57:22 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Oh how I wish there was a gradual way to do that. Right now the phrase "moderate inflation" seem to be a unicorn. But In the real world, America will have big problems if it can't get off of the oil teat. That is the _ONLY_ real problem.

Good idea.

That is not actually true. It really depends on _All_ the options. Right now the dollar is losing value and the euro regaining value. But we need more of it. We need more inflation than what we currently have.

Why do you think that the Fed or the Treasury needs to borrow what it can print or what it can tax for?

That is actually hilarious. A nation that prints its own money and whose debt is DEFINED in its own money, cannot EVER have a "greek-style" debt crises. There are other dangers but a "greek-style" debt crises is certainly not among them.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is no reason to borrow. There has been no reason for it since 1973. What should have been happening over the last 30 years was the creation of a system in which government must tax money back out of the economy or risk extreme currency devaluation and inflation. There should be no borrowing.
As far as ending the welfare state, idiot. The current SS and Medicare systems aren't the problem, and if they are then the solution is going to be insurance premium increases (FICA and MEDICARE are insurance premiums). The problem causing the deficits is too much military crap and insufficient taxation of the people that _WANT_ imperialism.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Iceland_to_the_European_Union
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Neither of which currently use the modern high output batteries that are powering the Volt, they use lead acid batteries, dummy, although hybrids soon will be using the new batteries.

/27/AR2010072705834.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I don't know were you got the "4,500 watt for 3-4 hours," information but if that is factual then it will only take 4.5 KWH per hour, 18 KWH or LESS. The average cost per KWHs around the county ranges from 6c to 12c per KWH. I doubt the Volt can be re-charged for less than $2, it is not that inexpensive.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Socialist or not, I love it, why? Because it's good to punish the cheating Republican from robbing our moneys through their Scamming investment 401K, Scamming Short of Power, Scamming Stock market etc..
Let the cheaters pay high bills to compensate for the past wrong. American is down today because of them...Yet...Them...them..them.....Dumb......Dumb......Dumb......Dumb...Rightards.......Heehee.........
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes

Socialist or not, I love it, why? Because it's good to punish the cheating Republican from robbing our moneys through their Scamming investment 401K, Scamming Short of Power, Scamming Stock market etc..
Let the cheaters pay high bills to compensate for the past wrong. American is down today because of them...Yet...Them...them..them.....Dumb......Dumb......Dumb......Dumb...Rightards.......Heehee.........
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Duh, the Volt has a 40 mile range on the batteries alone and a 250 range while being recharged by the generator. A total range of 290 per tank of gas.
The questions one needs to ask are, when the Volt is plugged in, how many KWHs are required to recharge a fully depleted battery pack, at say 9c per KWH, and how many gallons per hour will be consumed when the engine is running the generator. Once one knows that, the true cost per mile can be determined verses the CAFE rating for a conventional powered mid-size car like the Volt.
The Volt is a true electric car, not a hybrid, since the engine can not power the vehicle
wrote:

Car buyers are the people who have the strongest opposition to electric vehicles. Until such time as they make an electric/hybrid minivan with a range of up to 200 miles, an electric/hybrid car is a useless luxury for me and my family.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29/07/2010 6:00 AM, Mike wrote:

Not a full performance capabilities. Range is only 40-60 miles if the battery is new.
Which raises the point, while GM says it will warranty the battery for 8 years, one important thing seems missing from the warrenty. Will at 8 years it go 40 miles before the engine is needed ot will it go 2 miles before the engine is needed?
Batteries don't usually fail right off, but deteriorate slowly. At what point does the GM warranty and taxpayers fork out for a new battery? It hasn't been defined.

That is important too. And needs to be defined in the warranty. How many watts does it take to charge? As batteries get older, they may consume more to charge and hold their chrage for a shorter duration.
Watts from the wall are not free, it is entirely possible and older battery could be an energy gussler but not replaceble as it hasn't met GMs criteria for replacement.

Volk is shockingly over priced POC.

--
Marxism and socialism, leveling the field to the common denominator of
poverty.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Canuck57 wrote:

Surely we can trust GM to honor the spirit of the warranty, after it IS Government Motors? <max sarcasm>
--
Service Guarantees Citizenship

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29/07/2010 7:07 AM, Jim_Higgins wrote:

Yep, taxpayers will warranty it. But there is an indication the US governemnt might have to make some hard choices if GM looses more money. In fact, GM might get sold the Chinese for debt concessions.
Washington DC has pooched the economy real good. Debt-spend is failing so bad, the USD is now in trouble.
--
We are all self-made, but only the rich will admit it.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
As we have come to expect your opinions do not usually reflect the facts. You could not afford a Volt in any event.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Said the person that does not own a GM....
But agree, they are abnormally expensive to own.
On 29/07/2010 9:34 AM, Mike wrote:

--
We are all self-made, but only the rich will admit it.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

??? The engine most certainly can "power the vehicle." It might not be able to power it directly through gears and a driveshaft, but that doesn't mean it isn't powering the vehicle. Once your battteries have been dicharged to a predetermined level, you essentially have a gasolinie powered car that uses a generator/motor set to drive the wheels instead of using a conventional direct mechanical drive train. BUT the engine is still "powering the vehicle". Once you are in this mode, the batteries are now essentially a big capacitor that supply extra energy for acceleration.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You make an interesting point re the battery as an "extra energy" source but how much will the battery have to give after the 40 miles?
Many (most?) current gas powered cars have a 100~200+ hp engine. This provides a level of power (acceleration, passing power, etc.) that our driving habits now expect and "need". I suspect the Volt's supplemental gas engine would have less hp (<< 100 hp) because it serves only to supplement the battery. I think many people will feel the Volt to be significantly underpowered when operating on depleted-battery/supplemental-gas-generator power.
I recall watching a PBS program that discussed the creation of the US national highway system during the 1950s. One point made was the difficulty cars of the time had getting up to "highway speed" (~45 mph) from entry ramps. Highways speeds are now closer to 70 mph and cars/trucks are much larger than during the 50's.
When push comes to shove, I would not trust the depleted Volt battery to offer much help if an 18 wheeler was barreling towards me at an entry ramp.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:03:51 -0400, "JimG"

Probably no worse that the '64 Bug I drove for years. You adjust, and pick your spot. The Bug was 50hp, the Volt generator 71hp. I've heard the motor has a "sport mode ", and since from what I've read the battery only depletes to 30% maybe there's a way to goose it for merging. I see plenty of cars with power to spare and the driver doesn't know how to merge. Most ramps are better designed/longer than in the past. But lack of merging power is an issue for some. I'd rather have it than not. Many questions about this car won't be known until it gets in the hands of consumers. I haven't seen one full fledged road test yet.
--Vic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.