[Phil1]

Lets hope the Volt is a success and we cover the taxpayer losses on Government Motors with volume (isn't that the way to Nirvana?) not to mention the union quarantees the taxpayers are screwed for. With a $7500 purchase subsidy to lose money yet! No one seems to be saying too much on the Volt's US parts content either. (The $8-9K battery will be made here by a S Korean Co.) What a country!

The tuna sandwich on wheat looks good, but the net price is about $50.00 net.

[Ratmagiclady]

The reason the Volt is *really* important is because of the promise of *range,* the lack of which, (And making so much of it) has been the excuse *not* to develop an electric infrastructure (or domestic battery manufacture, or this, or that, whatever serves Big Oil,) for at least since they canned the successful Evo project.

Insisting on more of the regressive thinking that keeps putting the American auto industry behind the times and getting corporate welfare no matter how much they take it out of the workers just isn't going to work any better now than it ever has.

It's a little late *now* to start crying about how the game of catch-up-ball is being gone about, after they wrapped the "bigger vehicles, scammy financing and more denial, lobbying and advertising instead of R&D and enginneering during an energy crisis" scheme around a tree. Again.

This needed doing decades ago. It's not going to get any cheaper to do the longer we leave it.

[Phil1]

"".... for at least since they canned the successful Evo project. ""


Wiki EV1:

The view of the EV1 as failure is a controversial one in itself. When viewed as an attempt to produce a viable EV product, it was a success, while certainly from GM's perspective not a commercial success as the high profit margins seen with internal combustion engine vehicles remained elusive. If one considers the vehicle as a technological showpiece—a production electric car that actually could replace a gasoline powered vehicle—the program's outcome is less clear. The EV1 was produced for the consumer market, and many lessees found driving an EV1 to be a favorable experience. On that basis, EV1 might qualify as the most successful electric car ever built.

Some analysts have suggested that it is inappropriate to compare the EV1 with existing gasoline powered commuter cars as the EV1 was, in effect, a completely new product category that had no equivalent vehicles to be judged against.

[edit] Costs
GM based the lease payments for the EV1 on an initial vehicle price of US$33,995.[1] Lease payments ranged from around $299 to $574 per month, depending on the availability of state rebates.[citation needed] Since GM did not offer consumers the option to purchase at the end of the lease, the car's residual value was never established, making it impossible to determine the actual full purchase price or replacement value. One industry official said that each EV1 cost the company about US$80,000, including research, development and other associated costs;[56] other estimates placed the vehicle's actual cost as high as $100,000.[1] GM stated the cost of the EV1 program at slightly less than $500 million before marketing and sales costs, and over $1 billion in total; a portion of this cost was defrayed by the Clinton Administration's $1.25 billion Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) program.[57][58][59] In addition, all manufacturers seeking to produce electric cars for market consumption also benefited from matching government funds committed to the United States Advanced Battery Consortium.

[e

[Ratmagiclady]

"".... for at least since they canned the successful Evo project. ""


Wiki EV1:

The view of the EV1 as failure is a controversial one in itself. When viewed as an attempt to produce a viable EV product, it was a success, while certainly from GM's perspective not a commercial success as the high profit margins seen with internal combustion engine vehicles remained elusive. If one considers the vehicle as a technological showpiece—a production electric car that actually could replace a gasoline powered vehicle—the program's outcome is less clear. The EV1 was produced for the consumer market, and many lessees found driving an EV1 to be a favorable experience. On that basis, EV1 might qualify as the most successful electric car ever built.

Some analysts have suggested that it is inappropriate to compare the EV1 with existing gasoline powered commuter cars as the EV1 was, in effect, a completely new product category that had no equivalent vehicles to be judged against.

[edit] Costs
GM based the lease payments for the EV1 on an initial vehicle price of US$33,995.[1] Lease payments ranged from around $299 to $574 per month, depending on the availability of state rebates.[citation needed] Since GM did not offer consumers the option to purchase at the end of the lease, the car's residual value was never established, making it impossible to determine the actual full purchase price or replacement value. One industry official said that each EV1 cost the company about US$80,000, including research, development and other associated costs;[56] other estimates placed the vehicle's actual cost as high as $100,000.[1] GM stated the cost of the EV1 program at slightly less than $500 million before marketing and sales costs, and over $1 billion in total; a portion of this cost was defrayed by the Clinton Administration's $1.25 billion Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) program.[57][58][59] In addition, all manufacturers seeking to produce electric cars for market consumption also benefited from matching government funds committed to the United States Advanced Battery Consortium.

[e

Yep. Concerns of immediate profit meant that when they canned it, they turned down an opportunity to make electric vehicles a mainstream, American made product. They even resisted hybrids and CAFE standards, instead insisting on deregulation that made all American automakers have to compete at being, and marketing, the *least* sustainable models of transport, even as pollution and congestion and fuel prices were known to be bound to increase.

What went into the EVO project in the 80's was never capitalized upon, despite showing its viability, even at those prices. A billion dollars isn't actually much to get a whole new technology ready for the market.

[Phil1]

""Yep. Concerns of immediate profit meant that when they canned it, they turned down an opportunity to make electric vehicles a mainstream, American made product. ""

The Ev1 project was never intended as a full production vehicle. It was a gov't subsidised project, the vehicles were never sold but leased and went to the crusher when the "test" was over. It was estimated that the vehicles net cost was $80-$100K each. The early batch was driven by 1900 technology lead acid batteries. There was not much new technology discovered with this pilot project other than some leasees liked them in spite of the very short range. It's application would be no break through any more than an electric golf cart is. As far as a BIG OIL conspiracy....I think not. As far as filthy profits going forward...thats been handled now by Goverment Motors...there ain't none and none likely any time soon, but the cost is down and the range improved with the Volt. Hang on to your wallet even if you only own a bicycle.

[Ratmagiclady]

""Yep. Concerns of immediate profit meant that when they canned it, they turned down an opportunity to make electric vehicles a mainstream, American made product. ""

The Ev1 project was never intended as a full production vehicle. It was a gov't subsidised project, the vehicles were never sold but leased and went to the crusher when the "test" was over. It was estimated that the vehicles net cost was $80-$100K each. The early batch was driven by 1900 technology lead acid batteries.

To great protest from all concerned. In order to put an end to the phenomenon, they actually *refused* to sell them to the lessees at any price, actually.

Doesn't sound like 'failure' to me, even with lead-acid batteries. Maybe we'd have better battery tech *here* by now instead of having to buy them from Korea.

You just don't like anything someone says 'Gummint' about. If it's not corporate welfare for Wall Street instead of investment in something *real.*

[Phil1]

""To great protest from all concerned. In order to put an end to the phenomenon, they actually *refused* to sell them to the lessees at any price, actually. Doesn't sound like 'failure' to me, even with lead-acid batteries. Maybe we'd have better battery tech *here* by now instead of having to buy them from Korea.""

A manufacturer has huge liabilities that carry forward. These cars were of an experimental nature. I have to wonder if they recieved the full boat crash testing as required for production cars. Further there were no spare parts available on a continuing basis. As shocking as crushing servicable cars go, manufacturers do it all the time rather than release them as semi-servicable experiments. Thank your closest attorney. The EV1 was a test. The end crush was in the plan before #1 hit the road. If you want to squash the BIG OIL group and support the BIG COAL group, bag a Nissan Leaf, short range, all electric and no US gov't money in it other than the federal rebates.

GM is serious about the hibreds, here is todays news on it. It sounds good if people will buy them and I think they will.

GM Doubles Down on Electric Cars, Will Hire 1,000 Engineers For Them - Green Car Reports

[Ratmagiclady]

You miss the point, Phil. The fact that the Evo lessees, fully aware of that all, wanted to buy the things at *any price* means you can't say they were a failure, except from the eyes of short-term profit. The things worked, but GM sent electric cars to the crusher when they darn well could have had something viable, likely before the Prius came out.

The course they chose, instead, is what drove GM near to extinction. Not the unions, not the liberals, not the consumers, not even 'the market' apart from for *finance products and downsizing and outsourcing for stockholders' purses,* ...not making cars or the American economy or what people want.... the *profits and big oil ideology.*

Sure, it may have been an experiment, but it *worked.* They chose what to do and not do about it. They could have made another model with newer tech.. Slam dunk. Could have spent money on infrastructure instead of lobbying for lower standards and marketing some notion of anything responsible being a threat to masculinity everywhere... could have done a lot of things.

[Phil1]

""You miss the point, Phil. The fact that the Evo lessees, fully aware of that all, wanted to buy the things at *any price* means you can't say they were a failure, except from the eyes of short-term profit. The things worked, but GM sent electric cars to the crusher when they darn well could have had something viable, likely before the Prius came out. ""

The 'viability' of a short range 100% electric car remains to be seen on a practical basis. The Tesla is in outer space price wise. The only thing I am aware of close to production/practical is the Leaf. I believe it will be a small niche item in the best of markets. Regarding your 'any price' comment I have to say that some wannabee buyers were interested in them for collector interest and more were interested in them at a good end-of-lease write down distress sale. In any event, much was made of the crushing which was part of the program design from it's inception. The thing worked like a golf cart works or an electric fork lift from the 1960s works. Not much new there other then the box it came in. The working part comes in when GM decided not to go 100% electric and go hibred as did a number of other mfgs without Big Uncle's cash.

Saying the EV1 was a profit failure too is wrong in the sense that by anyone's pencil it was never intended or could it have been a profitable project. The facts do remain it was quite expensive on a per unit basis by all estimates.

[Phil1]

The Volt is in production now, a short video:

2011 Chevrolet Volt Rolls Down The Production Line [Video] - All Cars Electric

[ihasa]

Sorry to go off topic but while the Volt is admirable, it isn't any more economical than a modern turbo-diesel family size euro-hatchback.

The Volt is rated at 72mpg (imperial) on a typical mix of gasoline and electric powered driving, vs 74mpg (imperial) for, say a Seat Ibiza 1.4TDI, running purely on diesel. Yes the Volt's probably a bit faster and bigger but the Ibiza is in the Ford Focus price range. These sort of fuel economies are not really earth shattering. 100mpg+ would be something to crow about, not this!

[Phil1]

For the short electric mode or a typical metro commuter use (50+ miles or so) the Volt should exceed 100MPG. I believe the gov't economy ratings only go to 99MPG. I would suspect the market will be receptive to a vehicle that has a normal range of 300+ miles. Out west where I live 100 mile trips are every day for many so a short range (all electric) may find a more limited market. The idea here is to reduce petro use. Last I checked, the wall plug energy equivelant to a gallon of gasoline ($3.29 Calif prices) is about $1.75. In the so west most of our electrical power is a mix of nuke, hydro, nat gas, a small amount of coal (Black Mesa) and a small mix of wind and solar in the grid. There is even a little geo thermal and some menthane gas co-generation. In the rest of the country coal is the big source. It depends on where you are if you go to the carbon emission church. Los Angeles power is supposed to have achieved 20% renewable with a near target of 40% if the city and the DWP do not declare bankruptcy any time soon.

My ancient old non turbo Rabbit VW diesel got well over 46MPG and with an extra tank in the spare tire well gave it a range of over 800 miles. It was loud, noisey and stinky though. The modern turbo diesels will obviously beat that easily and be pretty clean too.

[larryinlc]

This thread has gone off a bit of a tangent, but I remember reading this a while back on topspeed.com.

This bit of information comes from Motor Trend, who have just recently completed a thorough test of the new Volt. During this test, one of their staff members averaged 127 miles per gallon.

That number came after driving the city streets in Los Angeles and the highways around the area. During the test, the electric battery ran out of juice and the motor kicked in to recharge it. If you end up traveling over 70 miles per hour, the motor will kick in to help the wheels, but it will also make the Volt more efficient.

On the next trip, the Motor Trend guys cranked the Volt up to its top speed and drove the hell out of it. They averaged 75 miles per gallon, which is truly amazing. It turns out this is one fuel efficient vehicle.