(08-08-2011 01:38 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Yes.. let's blame Obama for a car that was designed, financed and put into to motion while W. Bush was in office, and the GOP was in complete control. Brilliant.

The concept version was being shown off at car shows back in 2007. That means they must designed the car and planned on putting it into the market when the GOP had power in the presidency, senate and house of representatives.

Unless you believe that Chevy decided to build an electric car, come up with a design of a completely new engine and model of car, financed it, built it and brought it to the showrooms within a year after the Dems took congress, and even then, it's still the Bush presidency, not Obama.

The Volt was a concept car and those things almost *never* make it to production. Usually they take the good out of those cars and begin to implement them other places. What was the last concept car to make it to production?

So why is this wreck going to production despite the fact its way too expensive? Simple When the government bailed GM's A$$ out the Obama administration let them know the volt was a priority.

A good example of how to properly use a concept car is the Le Sabre (not to be confused with the production Buick cars)

The Concept car was produced in teh early 50's (exact year escapes me) GM's first use of a
* rear-mounted transmission, which would reappear in the Pontiac
* first use of the aluminum-block

These went from the Le Sabre to the Skylark, Cutlass and some European cars.

The LeSabre itself was scrapped shortly there after. The Volt *should have* suffered the same fate. And the interesting design aspects integrated into other models. (why not throw an electric engine with a gas generator in a smaller GM car?

No, the Volt is an example of politics trying to drive the market.

(08-08-2011 01:50 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  No the Volt is an example of politics trying to drive the market.

Correct. It is another example of those that know what is best for all of us (democrats) trying to social engineer the population through a business and its' product. Reduce our choices, try to force people to buy a too small (for families) and too expensive car because it is GREENer than what the market wants.

(08-08-2011 01:50 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 01:38 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Yes.. let's blame Obama for a car that was designed, financed and put into to motion while W. Bush was in office, and the GOP was in complete control. Brilliant.

The concept version was being shown off at car shows back in 2007. That means they must designed the car and planned on putting it into the market when the GOP had power in the presidency, senate and house of representatives.

Unless you believe that Chevy decided to build an electric car, come up with a design of a completely new engine and model of car, financed it, built it and brought it to the showrooms within a year after the Dems took congress, and even then, it's still the Bush presidency, not Obama.

The Volt was a concept car and those things almost *never* make it to production. Usually they take the good out of those cars and begin to implement them other places. What was the last concept car to make it to production?

Dodge Viper

It's not greener than what the market wants, that's just stupid.

Are you suggesting if you had two cars, side by side, all the same features, same look, and the only difference is one got better gas mileage and and had less emissions you wouldn't want it? You wouldn't take the greener one if everything else was the same?

I'm sure almost all rational people would prefer the greener car. They just can't afford it, or don't live somewhere that it makes sense considering their current limitations. The idea and theory was fine, the car itself just isn't that great. It's not like all hybrids have sold like gangbusters either, but that doesn't mean hybrids are a bad idea.

(08-08-2011 01:50 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 01:38 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Yes.. let's blame Obama for a car that was designed, financed and put into to motion while W. Bush was in office, and the GOP was in complete control. Brilliant.

The concept version was being shown off at car shows back in 2007. That means they must designed the car and planned on putting it into the market when the GOP had power in the presidency, senate and house of representatives.

Unless you believe that Chevy decided to build an electric car, come up with a design of a completely new engine and model of car, financed it, built it and brought it to the showrooms within a year after the Dems took congress, and even then, it's still the Bush presidency, not Obama.

The Volt was a concept car and those things almost *never* make it to production. Usually they take the good out of those cars and begin to implement them other places. What was the last concept car to make it to production?

So why is this wreck going to production despite the fact its way too expensive? Simple When the government bailed GM's A$$ out the Obama administration let them know the volt was a priority.

A good example of how to properly use a concept car is the Le Sabre (not to be confused with the production Buick cars)

The Concept car was produced in teh early 50's (exact year escapes me) GM's first use of a
* rear-mounted transmission, which would reappear in the Pontiac
* first use of the aluminum-block

These went from the Le Sabre to the Skylark, Cutlass and some European cars.

The LeSabre itself was scrapped shortly there after. The Volt *should have* suffered the same fate. And the interesting design aspects integrated into other models. (why not throw an electric engine with a gas generator in a smaller GM car?

No, the Volt is an example of politics trying to drive the market.

Are you really defending sum's post that is an Obama problem? Fox News certainly disagrees..

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/2...ctric-car/

Quote:With an investment of $7.5 billion, Bush and Congress underwrote $25 billion in loans that's translated directly into the Leaf, the Volt, Ford's electric Focus, the Think City, and Tesla and Fisker's leap from paper to plant. Now, almost five years later, we have mass-market electric cars. It's anathema for some progressives to give Bush credit for anything--just as it's anathema for more strident conservatives to see any good coming from any social engineering. They didn't like his prescription-drug coverage, either.

(08-08-2011 02:11 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  It's not greener than what the market wants, that's just stupid.

I'm not talking the market in San Francisco but the broad American car market. Isn't the idea of the car being green the main selling point that they are attempting to market it with? If not, THAT is just stupid. Who wants a small, overpriced little box that is no different than all other small overpriced boxes? What sets it apart? It's GREEN, stupid. They knew it could be sold to the real green zealots. It is the rest of the market that they needed to convince and haven't.

(08-08-2011 02:08 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 01:50 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 01:38 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Yes.. let's blame Obama for a car that was designed, financed and put into to motion while W. Bush was in office, and the GOP was in complete control. Brilliant.

The concept version was being shown off at car shows back in 2007. That means they must designed the car and planned on putting it into the market when the GOP had power in the presidency, senate and house of representatives.

Unless you believe that Chevy decided to build an electric car, come up with a design of a completely new engine and model of car, financed it, built it and brought it to the showrooms within a year after the Dems took congress, and even then, it's still the Bush presidency, not Obama.

The Volt was a concept car and those things almost *never* make it to production. Usually they take the good out of those cars and begin to implement them other places. What was the last concept car to make it to production?

Dodge Viper

And for how many years did that concept car last as a regulator production model? *three* whole years. And, like the volt, the volume was pathetic.

Now what came out of the viper? I am not sure that the V10, that it introduced is not in use by any regular consumer vehicle.

(08-08-2011 02:14 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  With an investment of $7.5 billion, Bush and Congress underwrote $25 billion in loans that's translated directly into the Leaf, the Volt, Ford's electric Focus, the Think City, and Tesla and Fisker's leap from paper to plant. Now, almost five years later, we have mass-market electric cars. It's anathema for some progressives to give Bush credit for anything--just as it's anathema for more strident conservatives to see any good coming from any social engineering. They didn't like his prescription-drug coverage, either.

On what planet is bush "a strident conservative"? No I don't think Obama completely owns the mess that is the Chevy Volt but the government does.

Hell this only proves the Volt is not sustainable. 7.5 Billion in loans five years ago and they have sold how many?

GM’s Direct of Communications attested that there are 116 new Chevy Volts currently available nationwide, plus demo units offered with a hefty discount.

Quote:GM’s floundering July sales numbers secure a roadblock to Washington’s electric roadmap, as President Obama vowed in his 2011 State of the Union Address to "break our dependence on oil" and "become the first country to have one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015." The U.S. government has invested $2.4 billion in research and development to improve EV batteries and another $300 million in grants for communities that are reducing petroleum use — not to mention, hundreds of millions of dollars in consumer subsidies.

(08-08-2011 02:11 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  It's not greener than what the market wants, that's just stupid.

Are you suggesting if you had two cars, side by side, all the same features, same look, and the only difference is one got better gas mileage and and had less emissions you wouldn't want it? You wouldn't take the greener one if everything else was the same?

I'm sure almost all rational people would prefer the greener car. They just can't afford it, or don't live somewhere that it makes sense considering their current limitations. The idea and theory was fine, the car itself just isn't that great. It's not like all hybrids have sold like gangbusters either, but that doesn't mean hybrids are a bad idea.

Why don't you people get this? This has nothing to do with the Chevy Volt in and of itself. The problem here is that the government is stepping in to make this care more affordable. When a private enterprise conducts research and development to make a product, and the enterprise needs government assistance ($7500 rebate checks) to make any sales, then the product overall is a failure. The product should succeed or fail on its own merits without gov't assistance.

(08-08-2011 12:56 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 12:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Telsa and others charge on as little as household 110v. All are (if I understand correctly) 220 capable. An electrician could hook you up for a few hundred. Some will "quick charge" on 440. Again, a couple hundo for the electrician plus the plug. Less than a grand. Probably 2000 to put in one of those GE powerstations

The Tesla S costs up to 77 thousand dollars and the roadsters tend to cost a lot more than that. This is a car for the same people that can afford their own air plane.

These cars are for hobbyist, not the average family (not that the Volt is either).

The roadster, certainly. It outruns a ferrari 0-60. It's helped fund most of the research for this car.

You should be fair. The Base Tesla (including the subsidy) runs right at 50k (49.9 from their site), which is still more than the Volt, but not by as much as you imply. It is also appointed like a Lexus and not a Chevy, looks like a Maserati and seats 7 not 4. 0-60 in 5.6 seconds and fully recharges in 45 minutes at 440v. The volt is 8.5 seconds. All of that's worth something to lots of people. It's like saying a Corolla is a better buy than a Lexus Sedan... or that a Lexus sedan is for hobbyists.

SURELY we could sacrifice a second or two in zero-60 time, seating for 4-5 instead of 7 and cloth instead of leather and get down to near Volt's price range...

More importantly, while I'm confident they've taken advantage of subsidies and grants... Tesla doesn't have an order for thousands of their vehicles from the government... and I'm confident its investors want a higher irr than GMs.

If Tesla COULD produce 5,000 cars/month... I'm betting the price would be even lower

I'm not arguing for Tesla for everyone... I'm basically saying we can go 40+mpg on TDI and others... and infinite mpg on all electric that go 100+ miles/day... and can fully recharge in 45 minutes with some modifications (Ge power station) and 2 hours via your dryer hook-up. Why do we need to screw with hybrids which seem to rely on crappy styling and cheap looking plastic to achieve mediocre results?

(08-08-2011 02:24 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 02:14 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  With an investment of $7.5 billion, Bush and Congress underwrote $25 billion in loans that's translated directly into the Leaf, the Volt, Ford's electric Focus, the Think City, and Tesla and Fisker's leap from paper to plant. Now, almost five years later, we have mass-market electric cars. It's anathema for some progressives to give Bush credit for anything--just as it's anathema for more strident conservatives to see any good coming from any social engineering. They didn't like his prescription-drug coverage, either.

On what planet is bush "a strident conservative"? No I don't think Obama completely owns the mess that is the Chevy Volt but the government does.

Fox New's apparently considering that's the article that quoted section comes from.. And completely owns the mess? Come on..give it up, the facts are all there in front of you. Conservatives were claiming this is as their own 4 years ago.

Obama's done plenty wrong you can legitimately point to, you don't have to make things up on top of it, it's just silly.

You were both obviously wrong, don't try to rewrite history now. The Volt was clearly going into production before Obama's socialist-kenyan-muslim government took over.

(08-08-2011 02:17 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 02:11 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  It's not greener than what the market wants, that's just stupid.

I'm not talking the market in San Francisco but the broad American car market. Isn't the idea of the car being green the main selling point that they are attempting to market it with? If not, THAT is just stupid. Who wants a small, overpriced little box that is no different than all other small overpriced boxes? What sets it apart? It's GREEN, stupid. They knew it could be sold to the real green zealots. It is the rest of the market that they needed to convince and haven't.

What would I know about San Fransisco's market? I live in Chicago.

Your example is just wrong. It's not just an overpriced box vs. another overpriced box. If that was the case, and they were equally overpriced and everything else is the same, then yes, people would most likely choose the green car. But that isn't the case. There are plenty of hybrids that are cheaper and more practical for those not living in a big city w/ short commutes.

The point was, there are plenty of options for people who want greener cars. It being green isn't the problem. Plenty of people out there would love to own greener cars. When you buy a car you don't buy it for just one factor (at least most of us don't).

It's not like I go buy a car just because it has the highest safety rating and don't look at anything else. Yeah, that's a factor, and something I look for, but there are plenty of cars out there w/ decent safety ratings. I'll choose the one that is both safe, and reasonably priced and meets a host of other requirements I look for in a car. Just because the Volt is green doesn't mean it's going to automatically sell. Just like any hybrid is not going to automatically sell. Some do, some don't. That doesn't mean the idea of a green car or an electric car is bad.

(08-08-2011 03:38 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Obama's socialist-kenyan-muslim government.

Hey, you said it not me....

(08-05-2011 12:59 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 11:52 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 11:31 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 11:18 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 11:02 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  What do you care? You can't afford either one.

I care that he spits out lies and misinformation about something has no clue about.

What you are failing to grasp is that the Volt in and of itself may not be a bad product for certain consumers. The problem is the vehicle is grossly overpriced for what you can get out of it. On top of that, the gov't is subsidizing each car by $7500 each. If you could get this car for $25K (unsubsidized) or less, I think it would sell a lot better.

I do not agree that the Chevy Volt is a green car. All you are doing is trading CO2 emissions from burning gasoline for CO2 emissions from power plants that use fossil fuels. Now if the country can draw the majority of its power from nuclear, wind, solar, biomass and tidal energy power plants, then it would be green. Until then, the Chevy Volt pollutes every bit as much as most of the other cars currently on the road.

Try reading my earlier post again. I said it isn't selling very well because it costs too much. I am not missing anything.

I understood your post fine. I don't think you quite understand why people are calling the Volt a failed product. The Volt succeeds in what it is trying to accomplish. However, the quality of the product itself is not the only determinant to declaring it successful or not. If the cost is too high, and the government has to subsidize part of the cost for the product, then it is a failure. The consumers either 1) want a lot higher mpg equivalent via a battery that will last a lot longer or 2) want the price to drop significantly to the point where a car like this is attractive to consumers.

A general rule of thumb: When the gov't has to pay consumers to buy a product, it is not a successful product.

THIS. Add government subsidies to my "END it" list.

(08-08-2011 04:14 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 03:38 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Obama's socialist-kenyan-muslim government.

Hey, you said it not me....

Yes.. even a liberal-hippie-tree hugging-socialist-muslim-communist like myself knows how to use sarcasm

(08-06-2011 03:15 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 03:53 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 12:30 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Here fool:

Quote:According to General Motors the Volt can travel 25 to 50 miles (40 to 80 km) on its lithium-ion battery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt

Also:

Quote: Lithium ion batteries are commonly used in cell phones and notebook computers. Regular batteries contain acid and toxic metals such as cadmium, and they produce toxic reactions when they're put into landfills. Lithium ion batteries are more environmentally friendly, but they can still cause dangers when thrown into a landfill.

Dangers to Environment

Lithium ion batteries are nontoxic, and they've been rated safe for landfill disposal. The reason they're non-toxic is that they don't contain materials that are dangerous to the environment by themselves; metals like cobalt make up most of each battery. Despite the name, there is no lithium present in these batteries. If a lithium ion battery in a landfill ruptures and comes into contact with water, however, it can create a dangerous mixture that will sink down into the groundwater.

Dangers to Wildlife

The concern that animals who prowl landfills will mistake batteries for food applies to lithium ion batteries. Even though animals aren't supposed to be in landfills in the first place, they do make their way in to find waste that's edible. Eating lithium ion batteries is dangerous, especially if the metals they contain--cobalt, copper, nickel and iron--leach into an animal's system. The metals can cause great harm and likely death. The same is true for people who eat these batteries.

Wasted Space

One of the biggest harms that lithium ion batteries cause in landfills is that they take up space. The batteries are completely recyclable, but many millions of them are thrown away every year because they're considered landfill-safe. The salvage price for the metals, according to "Computer World," isn't enough to make concerted recycling efforts financially worthwhile. Thus, millions of tons of lithium ion batteries are added to landfills, taking up room that could be saved. Additionally, throwing the batteries away means that fresh metals have to be mined, and mining has a much bigger environmental impact than simple recycling would. http://www.ehow.com/list_7199592_hazards...fills.html

25-50 miles? For $40K? Is that right?

That's not a car, it's a golf cart.

Not exactly. The battery alone on a charge only goes that far but what these morons forget to mention is the gas generator which in turn keeps charging the battery as you drive.

Yea, I thought that had to be wrong.

A general rule of thumb: When the gov't has to pay consumers to buy a product, it is not a successful product.



Corn and Oil. Or those the exception ?

Well, that is one way the government has been picking winners and losers. The other way is that they MANDATE that a product must be sold (for the good of all of us, of course). Think ethanol. Think subsidies. Anybody really believe that a market in the private sector would have developed for ethanol without government interference? Me neither.

(08-09-2011 10:59 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  A general rule of thumb: When the gov't has to pay consumers to buy a product, it is not a successful product.


Corn and Oil. Or those the exception ?

Come on Mach.. you know it's only socialism when you're trying to support a new industry that might actually improve things at some point. It's capitalism when you're bailing out banks, giving large tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas or helping out oil companies.