Consumer Reports: GM's Volt 'doesn't really make a lot of sense'

Yup. However, at the time, the exponential growth in computer power had been pretty well established.

The cheap ram and long-term storage was predicted. The cheap CPU was predicted. They all fell along the same growth curve that had been going on for some time.

But a lot of the actual applications weren't so easy to predict, and that is what makes the future fun.

I expect to be, and I expect to be driving the same 1974 car that I am driving today. It should be up around a million miles on the odometer by then. But then, I'll probably still be using film and listening to CDs as well, so I am clearly an outlier.

--scott

Reply to
Scott Dorsey
Loading thread data ...

Your points are all valid IMHO Vic. I commute 14 mile to work, which would cost me $1.50ish in electricity a day and would only need gas every couple of months. I have a Highlander to use for everything other than my commute. The Volt makes perfect sense for me, and I am anxious for the price to come down a bit so I can afford one. HTH, Ben

Reply to
ben91932

Sounds good to me (I drive a 1975 model), though I haven't gone to CDs yet, still on records and tapes.

Those of us who are old enough to have lived through the first iteration of this envirowacko rubbish 40 years ago are going to be an extremely tough sell this time around. (Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...) I can look through magazines from the 1970s and it's all the same crap; windmills, solar panels, alternative fuels, electric cars, etc., etc. Sorry, I'm not falling for it this time.

Reply to
Roger Blake

It may not be their flagship, but they are certainly banking on it as the future of the company. That car-of-the-year award didnt hurt them any... Ben

Reply to
ben91932

I think it was a good idea back in the seventies and much of it is a good idea today. The stuff we saw in the seventies brought us the more efficient engines of today.

And yes, the emission controls systems when they first arrived in the seventies were horrible and sometimes did more harm than good, but they got better because they had to. I think you'll see the same thing happen with electric vehicles.

But I also think that the environmental impact of auto manufacturing is in many cases even more significant than the environmental impact of operating them. Build a car that lasts twice as long, you halve the effective impact of production. Unfortunately you also halve your sales....

--scott

Reply to
Scott Dorsey

It was mostly garbage then and it is mostly garbage now.

You can make a car last almost indefinitely if you have a mind to. I've been driving the same vehicle for over 30 years now and it still runs just fine. Of course I have long since removed the crude 1970s-era emissions equipment and tuned the engine for best performance.

Reply to
Roger Blake

The first emission standards were designed to be horrible and ineffective. The regulations were designed during the Nixon administration by the oil cos and automakers. The intent of the regulations from the automakers point of view was to create obstacles for foreign competition. They did succeed in killing off the VW bug but for the most part the effort only slowed the competition a bit. The real problem with new regulations was there are places like LA where important people live that really couldn't breath unless something effective was done about car exhaust. The new regulations meant that the new Cadillac was getting 6 mpg instead of the 13 mpg that the previous models did. And LA has more than its share of Cadillacs.

It was pretty clear that to make things better the regulations were going to have to actually work and could not be allowed to be just another football the politicians and big corporation kicked around, because the people who make movies were getting pissed off and that wasn't going to be pretty.

Reply to
jim

If you payed $40K for that car, and amortized it on a straight line for

10 years, it would cost you nearly $11 per day. If you paid the actual $60+ thousand that the car is reputed to cost GM and the govt, it would be closer to $15 per day even if you just let it sit idle. Energy costs would be additional.

That seems a little expensive for a 14 mile per day commute.

Reply to
hls

I really doubt that many people even considered the COTY award as being significant. And I think the Volt is a smoke and mirrors exercise to improve GM's public aura.

With the Prius and others already in existence that can do more and better, I find it rather unimpressive.

Reply to
hls

Before I retired my round-trip commute for 35 of 40 years working was less or equal than the Volt electric range. Had 2 1/2 years of a 75 mile round trip commute and 2 1/2 years of a

40 mile round trip commute. But there were also about 7 years of that when I lived in apartments where I couldn't plug in. Last 13 years the commute for both me and my wife has been about 12 miles round trip. I've read the "average" driver in the U.S. drives 32 miles a day. There's a real big market for the Volt with folks who have 2 cars and buy new - if the price comes down where it's comparable to an IC and the current gas price trends continue. I'll never have a Volt because I don't buy new cars or expensive cars. All but one of my cars have cost $2500 or less. But if it was in my nature to spend bucks on cars, I'd love to have a Volt and see how long I could avoid the gas station with it. Of course it's still not proven. CR was absolutely no help in that regard. The Volt and other electric cars kind of remind me of the history of successful technology like radios, TV's, color TV's, PC's, cell phones and cars themselves. Always people with the money to buy them and make the technology "happen" enough where the average Joe can afford one. Except for the early PC I've been a "late adopter." This is another innovation I'll sit out. Since I'm a bit long in the tooth doubt I'll ever have an electric. But since I'm always interested in cars, I find the Volt to be a pretty exciting development. Don't recall anything close to it with the potential of being a real automotive game-changer.

--Vic

Reply to
Vic Smith

Is there any reason that you think that the electric car is a bad idea?

Reply to
dsi1

I thought it would have been obvious that I was.

Reply to
dsi1

You said "our future."

Reply to
Roger Blake

I see no reason for them.

Reply to
Roger Blake

For a guy that claims to be such a forward thinker, you seem to be stuck on this technology based on the steam engine.

There were guys like you that thought the automobile would never catch on but my guess is that the 20 years from the introduction of the Model T to the 1930s pretty much changed the entire nation. Of course, back then, the naysayers had a more legs to their argument - there were few roads and hardly any place to get gas.

Reply to
dsi1

I see no reason to change it.

There were guys like you 40 years ago that though we would be out of oil in 20 years.

Reply to
Roger Blake

Us folks interested in such things were aware of the drop in RAM and storage space prices as well as the growth of processing power. Still, I'm stunned at all that has happened. I never really thought about what kind of impact all this would have on society. Who does?

Reply to
dsi1

Reply to
tnom

You have to be kidding. GM is not banking on the Volt as the future of the company.

Reply to
tnom

That's right. Point taken. :-)

Reply to
dsi1

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.