Consumer Reports: GM's Volt 'doesn't really make a lot of sense'
C. E. White
David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau
Washington - Consumer Reports offered a harsh initial review of the
Chevrolet Volt, questioning whether General Motors Co.'s flagship vehicle
makes economic "sense."The extended-range plug-in electric vehicle is on the
cover of the April issue - the influential magazine's annual survey of
vehicles - but the GM vehicle comes in for criticism.
"When you are looking at purely dollars and cents, it doesn't really make a
lot of sense. The Volt isn't particularly efficient as an electric vehicle
and it's not particularly good as a gas vehicle either in terms of fuel
economy," said David Champion, the senior director of Consumer Reports auto
testing center at a meeting with reporters here. "This is going to be a
tough sell to the average consumer."
The magazine said in its testing in Connecticut during a harsh winter, its
Volt is getting 25 to 27 miles on electric power alone.
GM spokesman Greg Martin noted that it's been an extremely harsh winter -
and as a Volt driver he said he's getting 29-33 miles on electric range. But
he noted that in more moderate recent weather, the range jumped to 40 miles
on electric range or higher.
Champion believes a hybrid, such as the Toyota Prius, may make more sense
for some trips.
"If you drive about 70 miles, a Prius will actually get you more miles per
gallon than the Volt does," Champion said.
But GM has noted that most Americans can avoid using gasoline for most
regular commuting with the Volt, while its gasoline engine can allow the
freedom to travel farther, if needed.
The magazine has put about 2,500 miles on its Volt. It paid $48,700,
including a $5,000 markup by a Chevy dealer.
Champion noted the Volt is about twice as expensive as a Prius.
He was said the five hour time to recharge the Volt was "annoying" and was
also critical of the power of the Volt heating system.
"You have seat heaters, which keep your body warm, but your feet get cold
and your hands get cold," Champion said.
Consumer Reports will release a full road test of the Volt later this year
and will update it.
Champion praised the heater on the all-electric Nissan Leaf - which Consumer
Reports borrowed from the Japanese automaker -- but said it also got very
short ranges in very cold weather.
On one commute, his range in a Leaf was at 43 miles when he turned onto an
eight-mile stretch of highway, but it fell from 43 to 16 miles after eight
miles at 70 mph.
"If it keeps on going down at this rate, will I get to work," Champion said.
Champion said in an interview he thinks the Volt "will sell the quantity
that they want to sell to the people that really want it."
Despite his criticism of the Volt, Champion praised its acceleration and
acknowledged that under certain driving cycles, consumers could mostly avoid
using gasoline. The magazine noted the Volt is nicely equipped and has a
"taut yet supple ride."
But he said there are a lot of trade-offs.
"They are going to live with the compromises the vehicle delivers," Champion
said. "When you look at it from a purely logical point of view, it doesn't
make an awful lot of sense."
Before Consumer Reports decides whether to recommend the Volt, it needs data
from at least 100 subscribers who own one, and a year of reliability data.
From The Detroit News:
http://detnews.com/article/20110228/AUTO01/102280401/Consumer-Reports--GM's-Volt-'doesn't-really-make-a-lot-of-sense'
Jim_Higgins
Volt, aka "Short Circuit"
hls
"C. E. White" <cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ikipsd$i8b$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Consumer Reports: GM's Volt 'doesn't really make a lot of sense'
>
dsi1
> Consumer Reports: GM's Volt 'doesn't really make a lot of sense'
None of these electric vehicles with gas engines make much sense but
they are important because they'll lead the way to a fully electric
future. You wouldn't have the Volt without the Japanese Hybrid cars,
which from most any way you look at it, are kinda silly.
Vic Smith
<cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>"When you are looking at purely dollars and cents, it doesn't really make a
>lot of sense. The Volt isn't particularly efficient as an electric vehicle
>and it's not particularly good as a gas vehicle either in terms of fuel
>economy," said David Champion, the senior director of Consumer Reports auto
>testing center at a meeting with reporters here. "This is going to be a
>tough sell to the average consumer."
>
Duh. Magazine pays $48,700 for a car with unproven leading edge
technology and then says ""This is going to be a tough sell to the
average consumer."
Brilliant.
>The magazine said in its testing in Connecticut during a harsh winter, its
>Volt is getting 25 to 27 miles on electric power alone.
>
>GM spokesman Greg Martin noted that it's been an extremely harsh winter -
>and as a Volt driver he said he's getting 29-33 miles on electric range. But
>he noted that in more moderate recent weather, the range jumped to 40 miles
>on electric range or higher.
>
Or higher? First I heard it would exceed 40 miles on electric.
>Champion believes a hybrid, such as the Toyota Prius, may make more sense
>for some trips.
>
Duh. So would just about any gas-powered econo-car.
The Volt is targeted at commuters who drive 40 miles or less per day.
>"If you drive about 70 miles, a Prius will actually get you more miles per
>gallon than the Volt does," Champion said.
>
Why would anybody who commonly drove more than 40 miles daily buy a
Volt? Defeats the purpose of the Volt.
Wait. I know who. Consumer Reports.
>But GM has noted that most Americans can avoid using gasoline for most
>regular commuting with the Volt, while its gasoline engine can allow the
>freedom to travel farther, if needed.
>
No shit. This is news?
>The magazine has put about 2,500 miles on its Volt. It paid $48,700,
>including a $5,000 markup by a Chevy dealer.
>
Suckers. The real story is why they got a free Leaf and had to pay
more than retail to buy a Volt to test.
I have a feeling CR and GM don't have a good relationship.
And what about the $7500 Fed tax credit?
>Champion noted the Volt is about twice as expensive as a Prius.
>
That's what happens when you pay a $5000 dealer markup and don't
claim your $7500 credit.
What are these guys smoking?
>He was said the five hour time to recharge the Volt was "annoying" and was
>also critical of the power of the Volt heating system.
>
>"You have seat heaters, which keep your body warm, but your feet get cold
>and your hands get cold," Champion said.
>
If you are "annoyed" because a rechargeable battery has to be
recharged, I question your sanity.
>
>On one commute, his range in a Leaf was at 43 miles when he turned onto an
>eight-mile stretch of highway, but it fell from 43 to 16 miles after eight
>miles at 70 mph.
>
>"If it keeps on going down at this rate, will I get to work," Champion said.
>
There's your real headline.
"Almost Pissed my Pants Worrying About Being Stranded by Nissan
Leaf!"
Wonder why he didn't mention being "annoyed" by charging the Leaf.
>Champion said in an interview he thinks the Volt "will sell the quantity
>that they want to sell to the people that really want it."
>
>
>"They are going to live with the compromises the vehicle delivers," Champion
>said. "When you look at it from a purely logical point of view, it doesn't
>make an awful lot of sense."
>
Not when you pay $48,700 and get gas for $3.35.
When you can buy the car for about $30k and gas is $5.00 then the
logic changes.
But reliability is yet to be proved too.
We'll see.
--Vic
Roger Blake
> None of these electric vehicles with gas engines make much sense but
> they are important because they'll lead the way to a fully electric
> future.
I have no interest in a "fully electric future" and certainly no interest
in purchasing electric or hybrid vehicles. You can keep 'em.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)
"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
tn...@mucks.net
<cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Consumer Reports: GM's Volt 'doesn't really make a lot of sense'
>
>David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau
>
>Washington - Consumer Reports offered a harsh initial review of the
>Chevrolet Volt, questioning whether General Motors Co.'s flagship vehicle
>makes economic "sense.
Since when was the Volt General Motors flagship vehicle?
hls
"dsi1" <ds...@usenet-news.net> wrote in message
news:4d6d3e41$0$21966$882e...@usenet-news.net...
> On 3/1/2011 2:47 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>> Consumer Reports: GM's Volt 'doesn't really make a lot of sense'
>
> None of these electric vehicles with gas engines make much sense but they
> are important because they'll lead the way to a fully electric future.
Remember Julius and Ethel Rosenberg...Their future was also
fully electric.
hls
dsi1
> On 2011-03-01, dsi1<ds...@usenet-news.net> wrote:
>> None of these electric vehicles with gas engines make much sense but
>> they are important because they'll lead the way to a fully electric
>> future.
>
> I have no interest in a "fully electric future" and certainly no interest
> in purchasing electric or hybrid vehicles. You can keep 'em.
>
In the scheme of things, our personal opinions don't matter much do they?
dsi1
20 years ago I wouldn't have believed that our future was going to be
almost totally digital.
hls
"dsi1" <ds...@usenet-news.net> wrote in message news:4d6d70be$0$8113>
> 20 years ago I wouldn't have believed that our future was going to be
> almost totally digital.
I guess I would have.. Digital was the only intelligent course of
technology.
I used to be involved in radiocommunications, and digital coded pulse
transmission seemed to be a no brainer.
With technology, however, robustness can falter. That is not to say that
the problems wont be solved, but that there can be painful interim
situations.
For every additional component, whether integrated onto a chip or hard
wired into a board, the statistical possibility of failure increases.
We seem to be focused upon the trip. Is there a goal here somewhere??
dsi1
>
> "dsi1" <ds...@usenet-news.net> wrote in message news:4d6d70be$0$8113>
>> 20 years ago I wouldn't have believed that our future was going to be
>> almost totally digital.
>
> I guess I would have.. Digital was the only intelligent course of
> technology.
Well I guess it's too late to find out now. The price of computer RAM
was about $45 a MB so you'd probably have a hard time imagining regular
folks owing a computer with $200,000 worth of ram and drives which would
cost about $10,000,000 at the time.
The only reason we're a digital world is that cheap RAM, data storage,
and a method of moving info around at high speed exists. Without that,
we'd probably still be using film, listening to CDs, going to Tower
Records, and using computers with small sized OSes with limited memory.
My guess is that 20 years from now, we won't be doing fill-ups at gas
stations and changing motor oil. I could be wrong but I hope not, for
our sake.
Existential Angst
news:ikipsd$i8b$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Altho the Volt dudn't make a lot of sense, it will sell if for nothing else
as a, uh, vehicle for Yupsterized environmental dick-waving....
$45K for an electric motor and a battery, and some silicon.... go
figger.....
iirc, the Volt is no lightweight, either... 3800 lbs..... holy shit....
DAT will drain a battery!!!
I wonder how the Tesla gets 200 mi per charge.... if it's true.
Part of the problem is that assholes (car mfr's and The Merkin Pubic) seem
to have deliberately forgotten that the VW beetle -- and The Bus -- did
just fine with 42 hp -- up from 35 hp.
Funny, too.... my 1970 Datsun 510 got about the same mpgs as an effing
Prius.... go figger....
That manual steering was a bitch, tho -- what a workout to park dat car!
But overall, not a lot of progress in 41 years, eh?
--
EA
Bjorn
> <t...@mucks.net> wrote in message
GM hit the iceberg a long time ago and sank last year.
Whatever you call GM now or any of their products they are trying to
get back up again.
If the Volt is what is supposed to safe them they will surely have to
scale down a bit.
Bjorn
> "dsi1" <d...@usenet-news.net> wrote in message
A man was walking outside the sing sing and heard a lot of screaming.
He went in and asked what was happening.
We are executing a prisoner in an electric chair.
And why all this screaming then?
There is no electricity so we have to use a candle.
J.B. Wood
Or to quote Major Kira Nerys (Nana Visitor) from an episode of ST DS9:
"It doesn't matter what you say or what you think. All that matters is
what you do." Sincerely,
--
J. B. Wood e-mail: arl_1...@hotmail.com
Roger Blake
> In the scheme of things, our personal opinions don't matter much do they?
They do at least in terms of the directions our own lives take. I can
assure you that I will never own an electric or hybrid car. What the
rest of you do is your own business, of course.
Roger Blake
> almost totally digital.
Speak for yourself.
Roger Blake
> My guess is that 20 years from now, we won't be doing fill-ups at gas
> stations and changing motor oil. I could be wrong but I hope not, for
> our sake.
I can assure you that I will be still doing fillups at gas stations
and changing motor oil in 20 years. The installed base is far too large
to simply go away in that period of time. (You of course may elect
to purchase some stoopid electic pregnant roller skate to run around
if you desire. Just don't try to force me into one.)
hls
"Bjorn" <gos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:36c77a67-70e0-43ea...@d23g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Their Titanic maybe?
>
> GM hit the iceberg a long time ago and sank last year.
>
> Whatever you call GM now or any of their products they are trying to
> get back up again.
>
> If the Volt is what is supposed to safe them they will surely have to
> scale down a bit.
I think that the only thing that will give GM a profit on this line of
"vehicles" is that the Obama administration might force the post
office or other groups to purchase a bunch of them at ridiculous
prices.
This could force this ill begotten project to appear to work, again
at the sacrifice of the tax payers.
Scott Dorsey
>Well I guess it's too late to find out now. The price of computer RAM
>was about $45 a MB so you'd probably have a hard time imagining regular
>folks owing a computer with $200,000 worth of ram and drives which would
>cost about $10,000,000 at the time.
Yup. However, at the time, the exponential growth in computer power had
been pretty well established.
>The only reason we're a digital world is that cheap RAM, data storage,
>and a method of moving info around at high speed exists. Without that,
>we'd probably still be using film, listening to CDs, going to Tower
>Records, and using computers with small sized OSes with limited memory.
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.
>My guess is that 20 years from now, we won't be doing fill-ups at gas
>stations and changing motor oil. I could be wrong but I hope not, for
>our sake.
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
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
ben91932
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
Roger Blake
> 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.
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.
ben91932
> Since when was the Volt General Motors flagship vehicle?
the future of the company.
That car-of-the-year award didnt hurt them any...
Ben
Scott Dorsey
>
>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.
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....
Roger Blake
It was mostly garbage then and it is mostly garbage now.
> 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....
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.
jim
Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> 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.
>
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.
hls
"ben91932" <bente...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f38ee91c-e05f-4b50...@d12g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
> 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
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.
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.
Vic Smith
<bente...@gmail.com> wrote:
>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
>>
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
dsi1
> On 2011-03-01, dsi1<ds...@usenet-news.net> wrote:
>> In the scheme of things, our personal opinions don't matter much do they?
>
> They do at least in terms of the directions our own lives take. I can
> assure you that I will never own an electric or hybrid car. What the
> rest of you do is your own business, of course.
>
Is there any reason that you think that the electric car is a bad idea?
dsi1
>> 20 years ago I wouldn't have believed that our future was going to be
>> almost totally digital.
>
> Speak for yourself.
>
I thought it would have been obvious that I was.
Roger Blake
You said "our future."
dsi1
> On 2011-03-02, dsi1<ds...@usenet-news.net> wrote:
>> My guess is that 20 years from now, we won't be doing fill-ups at gas
>> stations and changing motor oil. I could be wrong but I hope not, for
>> our sake.
>
> I can assure you that I will be still doing fillups at gas stations
> and changing motor oil in 20 years. The installed base is far too large
> to simply go away in that period of time. (You of course may elect
> to purchase some stoopid electic pregnant roller skate to run around
> if you desire. Just don't try to force me into one.)
>
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.
Roger Blake
I see no reason for them.
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.
I see no reason to change it.
> 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
There were guys like you 40 years ago that though we would be out of oil
in 20 years.
dsi1
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?
tn...@mucks.net
tn...@mucks.net
<bente...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Since when was the Volt General Motors flagship vehicle?
> It may not be their flagship, but they are certainly banking on it as
>the future of the company.
You have to be kidding. GM is not banking on the Volt as the future
dsi1
> On 2011-03-02, dsi1<ds...@usenet-news.net> wrote:
>> I thought it would have been obvious that I was.
>
> You said "our future."
>
That's right. Point taken. :-)
Ed Pawlowski
"dsi1" <ds...@usenet-news.net> wrote in message
news:4d6eb067$0$14834$882e...@usenet-news.net...
I can assure you I won't own one either, but perhaps my children or
grandchildren will. Right now, they are very expensive toys for people that
want to show they are green. One day though, they may become practical and
useable by many daily commuters. I just don't see in in my lifetime, which
I hope to be at least 20 or 30 more years.
In 1902, many people thought the horseless carriage was just a novelty and
man would never fly.
hls
"Vic Smith" <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> 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
*******
Price is comparable to an IC now...or whenever they are fully marketed.
Priced similar to a Lexus, maybe. I dont see the advantage for the
price. And the risk...It is your money, you buy whatever you want.
> Volt and see how long I could avoid the gas station with it.
****Son has a Honda Insight.. Claims to regularly get 60+ mpg, and
recently claimed near 80. The Insight is old technology.
> Of course it's still not proven.
*****
Of course it isnt.. Based on GM's past, I would definitely NOT pay $40-60K
for a new product line from them. Have been hafted by them enough
that I have learned that lesson.
hls
"Ed Pawlowski" <e...@snetnospam.net> wrote in message
> I can assure you I won't own one either, but perhaps my children or
> grandchildren will. Right now, they are very expensive toys for people
> that want to show they are green. One day though, they may become
> practical and useable by many daily commuters. I just don't see in in my
> lifetime, which I hope to be at least 20 or 30 more years.
>
> In 1902, many people thought the horseless carriage was just a novelty and
> man would never fly.
******
I cant say I will never own one, but I dont want one, dont see the economy
of them, and have no intention of buying one.
If push came to shove, I would much rather own a small high tech diesel
which could be powered on soybean oil.
Heck, I only stopped riding my bike a couple of years ago when some
criminal burglarized my property.
dsi1
I suspect that this will move faster than you think - at least the
potential is there. It all hinges on a battery capacity that's better
than what's available today. Once that point in battery development is
reached, change will be rapid. Just a guess.
The electric car would seem to be dead simple as far as manufacturing
goes - just junk everything connected with the engine, fuel system,
ignition system, transmission, exhaust system and keep everything else.
My guess is that a electric motor is going to be lighter and simpler and
cheaper than a piston engine - a lot cheaper.
>
> In 1902, many people thought the horseless carriage was just a novelty
> and man would never fly.
If history has taught us anything, it is that technology drives change
whether we're ready for it or not. The reality of this world is that the
majority of drivers are not piston-lovin' speed-freaking gear-heads.
Most folks just want to get in a car and get to where they want to go
with a minimum of fuss - they don't give a crap about internal or
external combustion or electric or hampster power.
Bjorn
> On 3/2/2011 1:20 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:4d6eb067$0$14834$882e...@usenet-news.net...
> >> On 3/2/2011 3:13 AM, Roger Blake wrote:
The geneva motor show 2011 is very much showing off electrical cars
and look at this one
dsi1
Pretty impressive - I think I'll pick one up. :-)
Roger Blake
> I can assure you I won't own one either, but perhaps my children or
> grandchildren will. Right now, they are very expensive toys for people that
> want to show they are green.
Yes, they are merely status symbols for ecofreaks who want to pretend
they are "saving the planet." (Hint to stoopid hippies: "the planet"
does not need saving! But I digress...)
Internal combustion is a tried and true, practical method of providing
execellent measures of power and range for a vehicle that can be used
for a vast array of purposes in a wide range of environments. "Recharging"
is easily accomplished in a few minutes at a fueling station.
How far will your electric car go on the freeway on a hot, rainy
summer night with the lights, wipers, and air conditioning going?
How long does it take to recharge once the batteries run flat? How
will you even recharge it at home if you live in an apartment? Can
you pull a boat or RV trailer with it? Can you haul a heavy load of
tools or parts to a job in the next state with it? How long will
the batteries last and how much will they cost to replace?
I am not particularly impressed by hybrids either. All that complex
array of technology in a Prius to deliver essentially the same miles
per gallon as a 1980 VW Rabbit Diesel. I'm underwhelmed.
Feh. Until a miracle in battery technology or some other type of
mobile electrical source comes into play (such as the fictional
"Mister Fusion" of "Back to the Future" fame) electric vehicles
will remain at best overpriced, short-range, limited-use items
suitable if anything only for short inner-city runs and as status
symbols that imbecilic enviro-weenies use to make themselves
feel good.
> I just don't see in in my lifetime, which
> I hope to be at least 20 or 30 more years.
Same here.
> In 1902, many people thought the horseless carriage was just a novelty and
> man would never fly.
Oh, I know it is "possible." However it will never be "practical"
unless there is a dramatic improvement in battery technology. This
has been sought for the last 40 years (at least) and there has been
remarkably little progress in that area. It's taken that long to
get from "utterly and completely unpractical" to "barely usable in
a limited set of circumstances."
We may ultimately get to something that actually has the flexibility
and usefulness of an internal-combustion powered vehicle but I do
not believe it is likely in my lifetime.
Even if and when such a thing is developed the many millions of gas
and diesel powered vehicles will not disappear overnight. Not
everyone will be willing or able to go out and buy an expensive
new electric vehicle. Unlike other technology-driven items such as
computers, cameras, and home entertainment, cars and trucks will
remain high-ticket items that, unless one is wealthy, cannot simply
be discarded and replaced on a whim.
So to reiterate, yes, I fully expect to still be filling up my
gasoline-powered car at a filling station in 20 years time.
Bjorn
The oil shortage and ever increasing demand is vastly surpassing
supply resultin in ever higher prices.
It is more a question if there will be any stations for you to get oil
in 20 years time so the situation with electrics will be reversed.
You can charge an electric vehicle anywhere there is electricity and
that is most anywhere and you will not need to look for a special
station for it.
Most people have electricity at home.
The US has been sleeping while Europe has been planning for this for
many years.
Hybrids may have a place in history but even they are too complex and
too expensive.
Volt is a hybrid even if it has been branded as an electric.
Electrical vehicles predate the combustion vehicles and they are
taking over even if the production capacity is low at the moment and
it will take a long time to replace the old technology.
It is really amazing though how much has happened in recent months in
this area.
The warning signs have been around for decades but many people are
blind and noone is as blind as a man who does not want to see.
Unfortunately for many people the whole system around them is based on
driving around every day for everything.
So not only do we need to change all our thinking from oil to electric
in our cars we need to get better public transport and rearrange where
and how we live and all of that will take time.
It would have been better for the citizens of the US if this would
have started sooner and having to do it now when they are forced to do
it because the scarcity and price of oil.
Europe has been at it for decades to improve public transport and
raised the price of oil with taxes to get people prepared for the
future so this price hike coming now is not as much of a problem for
us in Europe and just take a look at this years geneva motor show and
you will see a lot of electrical cars available.
Clive
<e...@snetnospam.net> writes
>Right now, they are very expensive toys for people that want to show
>they are green. One day though, they may become practical and useable
>by many daily commuters.
generated somewhere and that generator uses fuel, all driving electric
cars do is move the pollution to a different district.
--
Clive
Roger Blake
> I don't see that they're "green" at all. Electricity has to be
> generated somewhere and that generator uses fuel, all driving electric
> cars do is move the pollution to a different district.
For the idiot greenies that is sufficent for them to feel good
about themselves and lord it over the rest of us.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hls
"Clive" <cl...@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > I don't see that
> generated somewhere and that generator uses fuel, all driving electric
> cars do is move the pollution to a different district.
> --
> Clive
>
USA. This process may be as cheap as we have but is not as good
as it gets.
There is some hydroelectric, of course, but not as in Scandinavia.
And, we shut the door on atomic power plants a long time back. It
will take time to make up the lost ground, if we even reopen that
technology.
We are diddling with wind power and solar, but that is also in its
early stages.
I dont see that there is any clear answer, especially in a country
where no one wants to cooperate with anyone else, and where the
government is run by buffoons with their hands out.
Scott Dorsey
>
>I suspect that this will move faster than you think - at least the
>potential is there. It all hinges on a battery capacity that's better
>than what's available today. Once that point in battery development is
>reached, change will be rapid. Just a guess.
The problem is that this was the state we were in around 1920, when
electric cars were very popular for driving around town, but severely
limited in range by the lead-acid batteries.
Today battery density is a whole lot better than it was in 1920, but
it's still the limiting factor in spite of a whole lot of research.
>The electric car would seem to be dead simple as far as manufacturing
>goes - just junk everything connected with the engine, fuel system,
>ignition system, transmission, exhaust system and keep everything else.
>My guess is that a electric motor is going to be lighter and simpler and
>cheaper than a piston engine - a lot cheaper.
Right. The fancy stuff is all in the drive electronics and the charge
electronics, and electronics have become very cheap. "Anything made of
silicon will eventually cost a dime" as an instructor of mine used to say.
The only part that is expensive and difficult with current technology is
the battery, but that still remains a big deal.
>If history has taught us anything, it is that technology drives change
>whether we're ready for it or not. The reality of this world is that the
>majority of drivers are not piston-lovin' speed-freaking gear-heads.
>Most folks just want to get in a car and get to where they want to go
>with a minimum of fuss - they don't give a crap about internal or
>external combustion or electric or hampster power.
Sure, but the other thing history has taught us is that most people who
make predictions about the future are wrong. So I try to refrain from
making predictions, especially when my own money is involved.
Scott Dorsey
And/or move it to a different material, yes. But that's something useful
and important.
You also do get a little more efficiency from the electric because the
electric motor is about as efficient at delivering low power as it is
at full throttle, but the transmission losses may make up for that.
That's why money needs to be invested in reducing transmission losses and
cleaner power production as well as in batteries. These things don't just
benefit drivers either, they benefit all electric power users.
Vinnie
> On 2011-03-02, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snetnospam.net> wrote:
>> I can assure you I won't own one either, but perhaps my children or
>> grandchildren will. Right now, they are very expensive toys for people that
>> want to show they are green.
>
> Yes, they are merely status symbols for ecofreaks who want to pretend
> they are "saving the planet." (Hint to stoopid hippies: "the planet"
> does not need saving! But I digress...)
>
> Internal combustion is a tried and true, practical method of providing
> execellent measures of power and range for a vehicle that can be used
> for a vast array of purposes in a wide range of environments. "Recharging"
> is easily accomplished in a few minutes at a fueling station.
>
But, but, but, that Tin Lizzie won't go up that thar muddy path over
yonder like my 'ol Nellie.
And besides, why should I look around for that expensive gas-o-line
fluid when grass and hay is free? Oats is cheap too.
> How far will your electric car go on the freeway on a hot, rainy
> summer night with the lights, wipers, and air conditioning going?
For the Volt as far as you want to go.
On all electric, probably about 25-30 miles.
Then the IC engine kicks in.
> How long does it take to recharge once the batteries run flat?
Volt batteries don't go flat. IC engine kicks in before that happens.
Recharge to 100% and 25-50 mile range without IC takes 4-5 hours at 220V,
8-12 hours at 110V.
How
> will you even recharge it at home if you live in an apartment?
You don't buy a Volt unless you can recharge it.
Common sense prevails.
Can
> you pull a boat or RV trailer with it?
You buy a gas guzzler for that.
Again, common sense prevails.
Can you haul a heavy load of
> tools or parts to a job in the next state with it?
Why would you do that?
You can do that with a beat up $500 Toyota Corolla.
Why pay +$30k for an electric?
And yet once again, common sense is victorious.
How long will
> the batteries last and how much will they cost to replace?
>
8 year, 100K mile warranty for the Volt. Same for the Leaf.
Nobody knows what they will cost to replace.
The Prius has fostered a battery aftermarket and from my reading a reman
can cost as low as $1300, and new costs $2200.
Sometimes only a cell module needs replacement.
Economy of scale and market forces will rule.
How long does the engine in a Camry last?
How much will it cost to replace it?
Anyway, why do you care about battery cost?
You've said you would never buy an electric car.
> I am not particularly impressed by hybrids either. All that complex
> array of technology in a Prius to deliver essentially the same miles
> per gallon as a 1980 VW Rabbit Diesel. I'm underwhelmed.
>
This is for you then.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rs7XQK5yiM
BTW, for those who want to find the facts, owners are reporting their
real world experience. Just google GM Volt experience.
I'm waiting for the breakdowns on the side of the road or fires.
That's about the only thing that can kill the Volt in the short term.
When one of the "commercial" reviewers starts talking about how you can
get better "mileage" with a Prius, note how many miles they are running
on IC, and how much they are paying for gas and kwh.
I saw one such evaluation that used $2.38 in electric costs though the
national average is $1.38. To prove the Prius was better on "mileage."
They used the national average gas price - at the time - $2.92.
Anybody here paying $2.92 for gas?
Pretty shallow article overall.
http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1633/hyped-hybrid-the-chevy-volt-gets-average-mileage-for-a-hybrid/
Oh, wait. Consumer Reports.
Let's be clear. Logic says you buy the Volt to run nearly always
electric. That means 25-50 miles a day.
If you can't do that, why would you buy it?
Doesn't make sense. The real point of the Volt is to not use gas.
The IC engine is there for range flexibility and so you don't have to
worry about stranding.
That's why the GM Volt is selling and Nissan Leaf and Tesla aren't.
> Feh. Until a miracle in battery technology or some other type of
> mobile electrical source comes into play (such as the fictional
> "Mister Fusion" of "Back to the Future" fame) electric vehicles
> will remain at best overpriced, short-range, limited-use items
> suitable if anything only for short inner-city runs and as status
> symbols that imbecilic enviro-weenies use to make themselves
> feel good.
>
Yep, know the feeling.
I would shake my head in disgust when I saw people using those brick
cell phones and paying $3-400 per month for that crap.
>
> Oh, I know it is "possible." However it will never be "practical"
> unless there is a dramatic improvement in battery technology. This
> has been sought for the last 40 years (at least) and there has been
> remarkably little progress in that area. It's taken that long to
> get from "utterly and completely unpractical" to "barely usable in
> a limited set of circumstances."
>
There's been no real incentive to improve batteries to propel cars.
Looming $5.00 a gallon gas is now providing the incentive.
Paisan, open your eyes.
Battery technology has now advanced to where an major automaker is
selling all the Volts they can produce.
What you or I think or buy means nothing.
There's only one real question to be answered.
Can GM recover their investment, and make a profit on sales?
That's all that counts.
Mark
> 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
>
>
>
thats a good plan except for the way car insurance works, you will
have to pay for insurance for both vehicles and you will never save
enough gas to cover that cost......
if the gov't wants us to start using commuter cars for commuting, they
need to fix that problem.
Mark
Clive
<rogb...@iname.invalid> writes
>I am not particularly impressed by hybrids either. All that complex
>array of technology in a Prius to deliver essentially the same miles
>per gallon as a 1980 VW Rabbit Diesel. I'm underwhelmed.
the mpg was lousy. Now with ohc and properly timed direct injection,
fuel economy has soared. A big source of fuel use is accelerating, by
using the braking to charge a battery which helps with the acceleration
a lot more fuel can be saved, hence the good milage of a hybrid.
>This
>has been sought for the last 40 years (at least) and there has been
>remarkably little progress in that area. It's taken that long to
>get from "utterly and completely unpractical" to "barely usable in
>a limited set of circumstances."
mobile phone. I had one of the first digital phones this side of the
pond and it's life was about 8 hours on standby (Ni-Cad). Modern
phones have driven the technology so that they now last three to four
days between charges.
Even if batteries don't make the grade, hybridisation is a good idea,
and it's price will drop as mass-production increases and competition
from China forces the hand of the current major players.
--
Clive
Clive
>and changing motor oil in 20 years. The installed base is far too large
>to simply go away in that period of time. (You of course may elect
>to purchase some stoopid electic pregnant roller skate to run around
>if you desire. Just don't try to force me into one.)
start paying those prices, you might have a change of heart.
--
Clive
Roger Blake
> start paying those prices, you might have a change of heart.
That's because you permit your government to impose punitive taxes
on gasoline. Americans may not be quite as complacent about such
a move. In any event, even if gas prices rose to European socialist
levels here I would still not purchase a hybrid or electric vehicle.
Roger Blake
> the mpg was lousy.
I don't care much about mileage. My current vehicle gets about 15 mpg
and I'm perfectly happy with that.
However, something like a 1960 Rambler American with side-valve
carbureted engine and overdrive transmission is capable of mileage
in the 30 mpg range.
> fuel economy has soared. A big source of fuel use is accelerating, by
I have a 30-year-old Popular Science magazine with "10 40-mpg imported cars"
on the cover. There are not many that get much better than that.
> Batteries have come on by leaps and bounds since the big advance of the
> mobile phone.
They still have a long way to go to be practical for an all-electric
vehicle.
> Even if batteries don't make the grade, hybridisation is a good idea,
I do not believe that is the case. As I've said, I would not purchase one.
dsi1
> Even if batteries don't make the grade, hybridisation is a good idea,
> and it's price will drop as mass-production increases and competition
> from China forces the hand of the current major players.
The Hybrid is a bad idea because it's more complex than a conventional
automobile or a full electric. However, hybrids are a needed step if
most of us are going to transition to full electric. Ha ha, I have to
say "most of us" on this newsgroup.
My Sonata has a wonderful engine - it's a V6 with double overhead cams
and variable valve timing and it's smooth as silk with a lot of guts but
I'd like to think that simpler is always better. That engine is
fiendishly complex. An electric motor is a simple beast capable of high
torque almost instantly and doesn't need an ignition or fuel system, has
no valves or variable timing or sprockets or timing chain or lubrication
system or oil changes or leaky valve covers or oil filters or exhaust
system or water cooling, no cold start or PVC valves or starter needed.
The reality is that something so complex is going to require a lot of
maintenance and troubleshooting can be a problem if something goes
wrong. For more info on this, just read the posts here.
An all electric car's drive system is gonna be a no brainer. The control
system is going to be pretty sophisticated but my guess is that you'll
just pull the box out and replace it if there's any problems. As it
goes, living with an automobile should be a lot easier. People in the
future will be surprised at how much we had to put up with in the
internal combustion engine.
Ed Pawlowski
In theory, it may be more efficient to generate electricity and move it to
the car battery. The gasoline engine is not very good at extracting all the
power out of a gallon of fuel, so if a better converter is available, it may
help. I say "in theory" because I have no idea of the efficiency of a coal
plant. Nuclear may be better, as is hydro. Perhaps some slick new turbine
is better at extracting power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine#Energy_efficiency
Most steel engines have a thermodynamic limit of 37%. Even when aided with
turbochargers and stock efficiency aids, most engines retain an average
efficiency of about 18%-20%.[10][11] Rocket engine efficiencies are better
still, up to 70%, because they combust at very high temperatures and
pressures and are able to have very high expansion ratios.[12]
Clive
<ds...@usenet-news.net> writes
> An electric motor is a simple beast capable of high torque almost
>instantly and doesn't need an ignition or fuel system, has no valves or
>variable timing or sprockets or timing chain or lubrication system or
>oil changes or leaky valve covers or oil filters or exhaust system or
>water cooling, no cold start or PVC valves or starter needed.
torque. Are you proposing forced ventilation, self ventilation or
water cooling?
--
Clive
AMuzi
It sells because most people think electricity comes from a
little stream in Wisconsin.
Electricity is primarily from coal.
Regarding dams, we've been ripping those out for years. The
contribution from hydroelectric power is lower than in the
1940s.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
dsi1
> In message <4d701306$0$27692$882e7...@usenet-news.net>, dsi1
> <d...@usenet-news.net> writes> An electric motor is a simple beast capable of high torque almost
> >instantly and doesn't need an ignition or fuel system, has no valves or
> >variable timing or sprockets or timing chain or lubrication system or
> >oil changes or leaky valve covers or oil filters or exhaust system or
> >water cooling, no cold start or PVC valves or starter needed.
>
> Electric motors generate a lot of heat, especially at low revs and high
> torque. Are you proposing forced ventilation, self ventilation or
> water cooling?
> --
> Clive
My guess is that most cars will have passive cooling with liquid
cooling for high performance cars. Just my guess.
AMuzi
Obama Motors is selling 25,000 of the first 2 years (30,000)
Volts to GE which is headed by Obama's new BFF Imelt.
Nice sale! Probably a tough negotiation in there someplace.
Clive
<01ef9486-40ae-4f31...@l14g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
dsi1 <david12...@gmail.com> writes
>passive cooling
New term on me. What is it?
--
Clive
Scott Dorsey
Cooling without active fans or pumps. The Model T used passive water
cooling. Harley-Davidson Panheads use passive air cooling.
The heat issues with the electric car are more due to resistive losses
in the battery than losses in the motor. Active liquid cooling of the
batteries has been suggested. In a lot of cases, though, just having
thermal mass to smooth out the occasional large peak current demands
causing brief peak heat loads turns out to be sufficient.
Clive
<klu...@panix.com> writes
>The heat issues with the electric car are more due to resistive losses
>in the battery than losses in the motor. Active liquid cooling of the
>batteries has been suggested. In a lot of cases, though, just having
>thermal mass to smooth out the occasional large peak current demands
>causing brief peak heat loads turns out to be sufficient.
through current draw, then it has greater internal resistance than is
good for it, causing a voltage drop across the motor terminals, which
will of course mean lower torque and top speed.
--
Clive
Scott Dorsey
>This raises an interesting question, if the battery is getting hot
>through current draw, then it has greater internal resistance than is
>good for it, causing a voltage drop across the motor terminals, which
>will of course mean lower torque and top speed.
Right. But what is the question?
Life is just like that. Nothing has zero resistance, and we're talking
an awful lot of watts here. Battery technology improves but there is
always some resistive loss.
Bjorn
I guess that atomic power will come back and then it will be
electricity for the vehicles.
They decided to stop atomic in many countries some decades ago but it
is coming back now that oil is disappearing.
Whatever it will be after oil it will not be used directly in cars so
the electrical path for cars is a sure thing whatever will be used to
generate it.
You would not put coal in cars but using coal to create electricity is
ok and new technology is possible to make coal power plants better and
they need not pollute.
Clive
<klu...@panix.com> writes
>Life is just like that. Nothing has zero resistance, and we're talking
>an awful lot of watts here. Battery technology improves but there is
>always some resistive loss.
is so low that you can still get 300 amps to the starter terminals at 12
volts.
--
Clive
Bjorn
> In message <ikpn0q$7d...@panix2.panix.com>, Scott Dorsey
It is interesting to read about the batteries in Tesla
Roger Blake
> Obama Motors is selling 25,000 of the first 2 years (30,000)
> Volts to GE which is headed by Obama's new BFF Imelt.
>
> Nice sale! Probably a tough negotiation in there someplace.
About the only way they're going to move those overpriced turkeys
(and Government Motors is still losing money on every one!) is
0bama forcing them down peoples' throats, and forcing them into
corporate fleets is probably seen as a good place to start.
They've only had 281 voluntary Volt takers in Februrary, most likely
all braindead environmentalist types. Nissan Leaf sales were even
more dismal at 87 sold.
Roger Blake
> The reality is that something so complex is going to require a lot of
> maintenance and troubleshooting can be a problem if something goes
> wrong. For more info on this, just read the posts here.
The six-cylinder engine in my 1975 Hornet is a marvel of simplicity
and durability. In the 36 years since it was manufactured it has
required no internal repairs, just service of peripheral systems
which are inexpensive and simple to deal with. The 3-speed Chrysler
Torqueflite transmission is still smooth and responsive and has
likewise never required internal repairs.
The driveline is about as bulletproof as one could want, much more
reliable and inexpensive to service overall than an array of batteries
would have been over the same period of time.
> An all electric car's drive system is gonna be a no brainer.
To fully replace gas and diesel engines with electric motors you
need BATTERIES (or some more exotic electricity source) that will
allow the car to drive for hundreds of miles with lights, air
conditioner, and other accessories running - on the freeway where
there is virtually no stopping to take advantage of regenerative
braking. You need to be able to haul trailers and heavy work loads
while maintaining range. The batteries will need to be fully
rechargeable within a few minutes. (People are not going to put up
with waiting hours for battery chargers, especially when refueling on
a trip.) You're going to need to provide some means to recharge
them wherever they are, including parking lots of apartment and
condo complexes. And the batteries should either be inexpensive
to replace or last the life of the vehicle. (Which from my standpoint
needs to be at least 20-30 years if not more.)
Until you have batteries that can do all this (and we are a long ways
from that), your vision of an all-electric vehicle future is nothing
more than a 1970s pipe dream of what the year 2000 will be like.
> goes, living with an automobile should be a lot easier. People in the
> future will be surprised at how much we had to put up with in the
> internal combustion engine.
It is much more likely that people in the near future will still be using
internal combustion engines. Fifty, a hundred, or a thousand years from now?
Possibly by then there will be a breakthrough that will permit a truly
usable, general-purpose electric vehicle. Or perhaps not. Don't know and
don't care, I won't be around to worry about it; but it is a no-brainer
that internal combustion will still be around at least as long as I am.
Bjorn
Trains are driving on electricity and there are plans to allow
vehicles on the road get electricity from lines above the road similar
to what trains do today.
Then you do not need very much of batteries in the vehicle itself.
It is not a question of what you want or would like to do it is more a
question of what you can do when there is no more oil.
Scott Dorsey
300 amps at 12V is not even five horsepower. You want real peak current,
a NiCd will do a whole lot better than a lead/acid cell because of much
lower internal resistance... and a lithium stack better than that.
But you don't get 100% efficiency no matter what, and even with 99%
efficiency you're still going to be dumping considerable heat just because
of the number of kilowatts involved.
Vinnie
>>
> " major automaker is selling all the Volts they can produce."
>
> Obama Motors is selling 25,000 of the first 2 years (30,000) Volts to GE
> which is headed by Obama's new BFF Imelt.
>
> Nice sale! Probably a tough negotiation in there someplace.
>
Lying gets you nowhere any more.
Ain't it a shame?
This says it's 12,000 Volts over 5 years, and 13,000 "other" electric.
http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1051446_ge-buying-25k-evs--starting-with-the-2011-chevrolet-volt
What's even more stupid is to be surprised that a company called General
ELECTRIC says it is committed to buying electrically propelled cars.
Even more stupid yet is to believe anything a CEO says.
Duh.
Ciao!
Clive
<klu...@panix.com> writes
>But you don't get 100% efficiency no matter what, and even with 99%
>efficiency you're still going to be dumping considerable heat just because
>of the number of kilowatts involved.
resistance that gives the motor the volts and amps it wants.
--
Clive
Daniel who wants to know
> news:0d735dd5-9ef8-4bb3...@o10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
> Trains are driving on electricity and there are plans to allow
> vehicles on the road get electricity from lines above the road similar
> to what trains do today.
>
> Then you do not need very much of batteries in the vehicle itself.
>
> It is not a question of what you want or would like to do it is more a
> question of what you can do when there is no more oil.
We all just as well give up arguing, Roger won't ever "get it". Not
everybody who wants a Prius is a "tree hugging eco-weenie" which BTW note
how the ICE lovers are always strong burly manly men and anyone else is a
weenie.
I want a Prius not for any global environmental impact, real or imagined I
want it partly for the local impact but mostly for the power possibilities
ala the Pri-UPS project (use the car as a near silent 5kw backup generator).
I couldn't care less about AGW but what I do care about is sitting behind
cars like Roger's at a red light and having to put up with his un-catalytic
converter-ed exhaust. Call me selfish but it is my lungs after all (I don't
smoke either).
Other than that people who go "a certain compact or subcompact from 1988 got
the same MPG as a Prius" don't get it either. The Prius is a midsize built
primarily for low emissions, not for MPG. The fact that it gets better MPG
than a smaller vehicle, such as the Echo/Yaris (which uses the same engine)
is just a bonus. That it gets better MPG than a smaller Diesel car is
amazing considering the no throttle loss and more energy (and cost) per
gallon of Diesel. For instance it (NHW20 US model) has a wideband front O2
sensor, a Thermos bottle (Dewar flask) that stores hot coolant to help it
warm up faster, a flexible/inflatable "bladder" in the fuel tank and a
filler neck seal that stops the escape of vapors that make you smell like
gas, and when first started cold it drives on battery power and runs the ICE
with extremely retarded ignition timing to send more heat out the exhaust
manifold and help "light off" the catalytic converter faster.
Other than that I don't want the ZVW30 Prius (2010,2011-...) because IMO
they FUBARed it with the interior dash/console suspended arch, they removed
the Thermos bottle if favor of an exhaust heat recovery device, removed the
fuel bladder, changed the hydraulic braking system, and bumped the engine
from a 1.5 to a 1.8.
Until I can get an NHW20 I will just keep driving my 2nd gen Lumina 3100
with the MIL on for an EGR insufficient flow code until summer when I can
pull the intake and clean the passages and replace the gaskets.
Clive
>rechargeable within a few minutes. (People are not going to put up
>with waiting hours for battery chargers, especially when refueling on
>a trip.)
from either a static rail or overhead cable. What's wrong in putting
strips over hundreds of miles of motorway and allow cars to pick up
juice on the move, batteries then only for towns and parking?
--
Clive
Vic Smith
<m...@here.edu> wrote:
>
>Until I can get an NHW20 I will just keep driving my 2nd gen Lumina 3100
>with the MIL on for an EGR insufficient flow code until summer when I can
>pull the intake and clean the passages and replace the gaskets.
>
Had that last year on mine, a '97.
Just pulled the EGR, put a short section of dog cable in a drill, and
cleaned the port from there.
I had picked up an EGR gasket at a parts store for a buck or two, but
could have used the old gasket.
Hardest thing was finding the dog cable.
I had read that thick weed whacker cable would work, but only had thin
stuff. Don't think ANY weed whacker cable would have cleared it, as
it was almost solidly plugged.
Then I spotted the old kinked dog cable behind a box in the garage,
It's stranded, and about 3/16" to 1/4" thick.
Think about having something like that when you start.
Even if you pull the throttle body, you need to clean that passage..
--Vic
dsi1
> On 2011-03-03, dsi1<ds...@usenet-news.net> wrote:
>> The reality is that something so complex is going to require a lot of
>> maintenance and troubleshooting can be a problem if something goes
>> wrong. For more info on this, just read the posts here.
>
> The six-cylinder engine in my 1975 Hornet is a marvel of simplicity
> and durability. In the 36 years since it was manufactured it has
> required no internal repairs, just service of peripheral systems
> which are inexpensive and simple to deal with. The 3-speed Chrysler
> Torqueflite transmission is still smooth and responsive and has
> likewise never required internal repairs.
How is any of this relevant?
>
> The driveline is about as bulletproof as one could want, much more
> reliable and inexpensive to service overall than an array of batteries
> would have been over the same period of time.
>
>> An all electric car's drive system is gonna be a no brainer.
>
> To fully replace gas and diesel engines with electric motors you
> need BATTERIES (or some more exotic electricity source) that will
> allow the car to drive for hundreds of miles with lights, air
> conditioner, and other accessories running - on the freeway where
> there is virtually no stopping to take advantage of regenerative
> braking. You need to be able to haul trailers and heavy work loads
> while maintaining range. The batteries will need to be fully
> rechargeable within a few minutes. (People are not going to put up
> with waiting hours for battery chargers, especially when refueling on
> a trip.) You're going to need to provide some means to recharge
> them wherever they are, including parking lots of apartment and
> condo complexes. And the batteries should either be inexpensive
> to replace or last the life of the vehicle. (Which from my standpoint
> needs to be at least 20-30 years if not more.)
It's frustrating talking to you guys. It's always the same thing -
everybody knows the major problem is with the batteries. It's the reason
we all ain't driving electric cars. WE GOT THAT, OK?
Daniel who wants to know
news:9k62n6hljgn0edj78...@4ax.com...
Thanks for the tip. I had tried using a coathanger wire as mine, also a '97
was so plugged that the idle didn't even change much when I pulled the valve
with it running, it helped for awhile and made the light intermittent but it
has been solidly on since the beginning of winter. Luckily I have access to
a 2 post lift and an OTC 4000 Enhanced scanner with the Pathfinder 96
software and it shows GM specific stuff. Having both always helps.
aemeijers
> In message <2011030...@news.eternal-september.org>, Roger Blake
> <rogb...@iname.invalid> writes
>> and changing motor oil in 20 years. The installed base is far too large
>> to simply go away in that period of time. (You of course may elect
>> to purchase some stoopid electic pregnant roller skate to run around
>> if you desire. Just don't try to force me into one.)
> At the moment we're paying $9.91 for an imperial gallon. When you start
> paying those prices, you might have a change of heart.
No, if they tried charging prices that high here, we'd have a change of
government. Most of that 9.91 is taxes, not fuel cost.
--
aem sends...
Clive
<aeme...@att.net> writes
>No, if they tried charging prices that high here, we'd have a change of
>government. Most of that 9.91 is taxes, not fuel cost.
news is full of 73 oil crisis doom at the moment and I just wondered how
it would play over there if fuel went to the prices that we pay. Also
remember that the duty we pay on fuel is fixed so when fuel goes up,
like you we pay more, but much lower increase in proportion.
--
Clive
Scott Dorsey
>
>No, if they tried charging prices that high here, we'd have a change of
>government. Most of that 9.91 is taxes, not fuel cost.
Most of those taxes, though, go for maintaining road infrastructure that
you use when you burn gasoline. Whereas in the US we can't seem to keep
specific-use taxes segregated.
I don't mind high gas prices if it means roads are maintained better. I
only mind paying a gas tax which gets used for something totally unrelated.
jim
Are you aware that the US government is
driving the cost of labor up by taxing
it at the rate they do?
By not taxing workers wages heavily
and by providing national health care
European countries don't add as much to the cost of labor
that means manufacturing jobs tend to not migrate away
This is because of reduced labor costs
and increased transportation costs
The US government drives the cost of fuel down
by not taxing it heavily and using the tax from labor
to finance expensive foreign policy
to keep the price of fuel low
Some of the consequence of this is
that jobs migrate to other countries
and fuel is used wastefully
If instead of that taxation scheme
fuel was heavily taxed for government revenue
and labor was cheaper due to reduction
in payroll taxes and health insurance costs
Then
More of the goods that people buy locally
would be made by workers with local jobs
instead of workers half-way around the world
-jim
>
> --
> aem sends...
Stewart
"C. E. White" <cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ikipsd$i8b$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Consumer Reports: GM's Volt 'doesn't really make a lot of sense'
>
> David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau
>
> Washington - Consumer Reports offered a harsh initial review of the
> Chevrolet Volt, questioning whether General Motors Co.'s flagship
> vehicle makes economic "sense."The extended-range plug-in electric
> vehicle is on the cover of the April issue - the influential
> magazine's annual survey of vehicles - but the GM vehicle comes in
> for criticism.
>
> "When you are looking at purely dollars and cents, it doesn't really
> make a lot of sense. The Volt isn't particularly efficient as an
> electric vehicle and it's not particularly good as a gas vehicle
> either in terms of fuel economy," said David Champion, the senior
> director of Consumer Reports auto testing center at a meeting with
> reporters here. "This is going to be a tough sell to the average
> consumer."
>
> The magazine said in its testing in Connecticut during a harsh
> winter, its Volt is getting 25 to 27 miles on electric power alone.
>
> GM spokesman Greg Martin noted that it's been an extremely harsh
> winter - and as a Volt driver he said he's getting 29-33 miles on
> electric range. But he noted that in more moderate recent weather,
> the range jumped to 40 miles on electric range or higher.
>
> Champion believes a hybrid, such as the Toyota Prius, may make more
> sense for some trips.
>
> "If you drive about 70 miles, a Prius will actually get you more
> miles per gallon than the Volt does," Champion said.
>
> But GM has noted that most Americans can avoid using gasoline for
> most regular commuting with the Volt, while its gasoline engine can
> allow the freedom to travel farther, if needed.
>
> The magazine has put about 2,500 miles on its Volt. It paid $48,700,
> including a $5,000 markup by a Chevy dealer.
>
> Champion noted the Volt is about twice as expensive as a Prius.
>
> He was said the five hour time to recharge the Volt was "annoying"
> and was also critical of the power of the Volt heating system.
>
> "You have seat heaters, which keep your body warm, but your feet get
> cold and your hands get cold," Champion said.
>
> Consumer Reports will release a full road test of the Volt later
> this year and will update it.
>
> Champion praised the heater on the all-electric Nissan Leaf - which
> Consumer Reports borrowed from the Japanese automaker -- but said it
> also got very short ranges in very cold weather.
>
> On one commute, his range in a Leaf was at 43 miles when he turned
> onto an eight-mile stretch of highway, but it fell from 43 to 16
> miles after eight miles at 70 mph.
>
> "If it keeps on going down at this rate, will I get to work,"
> Champion said.
>
> Champion said in an interview he thinks the Volt "will sell the
> quantity that they want to sell to the people that really want it."
>
> Despite his criticism of the Volt, Champion praised its acceleration
> and acknowledged that under certain driving cycles, consumers could
> mostly avoid using gasoline. The magazine noted the Volt is nicely
> equipped and has a "taut yet supple ride."
>
> But he said there are a lot of trade-offs.
>
> "They are going to live with the compromises the vehicle delivers,"
> Champion said. "When you look at it from a purely logical point of
> view, it doesn't make an awful lot of sense."
>
> Before Consumer Reports decides whether to recommend the Volt, it
> needs data from at least 100 subscribers who own one, and a year of
> reliability data.
>
> dshep...@detnews.com
>
> From The Detroit News:
> http://detnews.com/article/20110228/AUTO01/102280401/Consumer-Reports--GM's-Volt-'doesn't-really-make-a-lot-of-sense'
>
The cost of electricity in CT is hovering around $0.25 a KWH, so cost
savings is virtually nil for this vehicle. Add to that that 50% of
electrical generation in this country is generated through burning
coal, the carbon footprint savings are marginal, at best. A hybrid
makes much more sense.
Stewart
"dsi1" <ds...@usenet-news.net> wrote in message
news:4d6eb067$0$14834$882e...@usenet-news.net...
> On 3/2/2011 3:13 AM, Roger Blake wrote:
>> On 2011-03-01, dsi1<ds...@usenet-news.net> wrote:
>>> In the scheme of things, our personal opinions don't matter much
>>> do they?
>>
>> They do at least in terms of the directions our own lives take. I
>> can
>> assure you that I will never own an electric or hybrid car. What
>> the
>> rest of you do is your own business, of course.
>>
>
> Is there any reason that you think that the electric car is a bad
> idea?
50% of electrical generation in the US is through the burning of coal.
This negates "green features" of this car. Depending on where you
live, the electrical costs could be equal to or higher than the
equivalent fuel costs. As we (the general American public) buy into
the liberal hysteria about these types of vehicles, electrical
distribution costs will go even higher as new infrastructure is
needed. Imagine a few million of these in Cal, where rolling
brownouts are the norm.
If anything, the hybrid is a better choice, IMO.
dsi1
> "dsi1" <d...@usenet-news.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4d6eb067$0$14834$882e...@usenet-news.net...
>
> > On 3/2/2011 3:13 AM, Roger Blake wrote:
> >>> In the scheme of things, our personal opinions don't matter much
> >>> do they?
>
> >> They do at least in terms of the directions our own lives take. I
> >> can
> >> assure you that I will never own an electric or hybrid car. What
> >> the
> >> rest of you do is your own business, of course.
>
> > Is there any reason that you think that the electric car is a bad
> > idea?
>
> 50% of electrical generation in the US is through the burning of coal.
> This negates "green features" of this car. Depending on where you
> live, the electrical costs could be equal to or higher than the
> equivalent fuel costs. As we (the general American public) buy into
> the liberal hysteria about these types of vehicles, electrical
> distribution costs will go even higher as new infrastructure is
> needed. Imagine a few million of these in Cal, where rolling
> brownouts are the norm.
> If anything, the hybrid is a better choice, IMO.
I did realize that the electricity would have to come from a factory
although I'm not so sure that it's cleaner to convert oil to gasoline
using coal or oil and then transport it in some way using more coal or
oil or gas or diesel and then use some electricity to pump it into our
tanks and then finally burning the gas in a piston engine. My guess is
that you'd be able to go a lot farther on a buck of electricity vs a
buck of gas - although that's just a guess on my part. The way we
distribute electricity will have to be rebuilt but I'm assuming that
we can do it.
bob urz
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 07:39:56 -0800 (PST), ben91932
> <bente...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Since when was the Volt General Motors flagship vehicle?
>> It may not be their flagship, but they are certainly banking on it as
>> the future of the company.
>
> You have to be kidding. GM is not banking on the Volt as the future
> of the company.
>
>> That car-of-the-year award didnt hurt them any...
>> Ben
I will wait for the "watt", and luxo Cadillac version the "Kilo-watt".
Maybe they will replace the Corvette with the "amp".
But it still see great "resistance" from the general public.
"Inductance" into the car hall of fame is doubtful.
It will be helpful to have a large trunk "capacitance" for gear.
When the electric owners get that large home electric bill,
it will be "Power Factor" time in figuring out if its practical at all.
Turning on the "AC" will have a whole new meaning.
bob
ben91932
> Maybe they will replace the Corvette with the "amp".
> But it still see great "resistance" from the general public.
> bob
Folks had trouble accepting seat belts, fuel injection, air bags, disc
brakes, radial tires etc
While I find the resistance to EV's silly, I guess I should have
expected it..
Ben
Daniel who wants to know
"Stewart" <gort...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ikvuj9$bd$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
> The cost of electricity in CT is hovering around $0.25 a KWH, so cost
> savings is virtually nil for this vehicle.
No kidding, a proper EV is about 4 miles per KWh (250Wh per mile), that
makes 16 miles per dollar for you. Current gas prices mean a 50MPG vehicle
is about 15 miles per dollar.
hls
"Bjorn" <gos...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:eb3bebcd-58e9-You would not
ok and new technology is possible to make coal power plants better and
they need not pollute.
******
They pollute automatically with the CO2 output.
hls
"ben91932" <bente...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1d2782f8-> While I
> expected it..
> Ben
True.. I dont resist them, really, as a concept. I resist them personally
and I think that they are, at this time, a rather poor choice of technology.
Why do I care at all? Because lurking in there, I know I will be paying
a part of this.
Vinnie
>
> The cost of electricity in CT is hovering around $0.25 a KWH, so cost
> savings is virtually nil for this vehicle. Add to that that 50% of
> electrical generation in this country is generated through burning
> coal, the carbon footprint savings are marginal, at best. A hybrid
> makes much more sense.
>
Average KWH cost in the U.S. is 12 cents.
http://energybible.com/solar_energy/electric_rates-by-state.html
Nobody really cares about how "clean" the GM VOLT is.
Except for CT residents, nobody cares that people are stuck in CT.
Coal plants aren't a problem as long as the prevailing westerlies
continue to drop most of the acid rain on the libs in CT.
GM is a right wing company.
As you can see from the above electric rate chart, their target market
isn't the left-wing "Blue" states with high electric rates.
Their main goal with the Volt is to piss off the lib suckers in CT and
other "Blue" states who are paying high electric costs by making them
jealous when they see a Volt, and turn them into supporters of nuke
power generation.
Then with more nuke plants they will sell even more Volts.
Ciao!
Stewart
"dsi1" <david12...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfba3302-fd42-40de...@j9g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
The bottom line is that it is not the cure all, and not as cut and
dried as either side would like you to believe. We Still will need a
huge investment in distribution as well as generation, and an
alternative to coal is needed.
Maybe we can switch to natural gas power generation, what with all the
hydrofraking that has been legalized it must be in abundance.
Stewart
"Daniel who wants to know" <m...@here.edu> wrote in message
news:il0pb7$tqv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Hardly stellar considering the price tag for making a more simple
vehicle.
Kevin Bottorff
news:0_idnVBAE7Vvcu7Q...@giganews.com:
except co2 is not a polutant. thats greene bs KB