2013 Chevy Volt receives update after reports of shutdowns

[Leroy N. Soetoro]

http://www.slashgear.com/2013-chevy-volt-receives-update-after-reports-of-
shutdowns-24253704/

We’ve reached this strange moment in time when updates are released for
our cars in the same manner they’re released for our gadgets. Thus is the
case with the 2013 Chevy Volt, which GM has pushed a software update out
for after reports of shutdowns. The manufacturer is not issuing a recall,
however.

The problem cropped up on the GM-Volt forum, where users were reporting
that the Volt would randomly shut down. According to the users, the
powertrain would shutdown, but the brakes and steering would continue to
work. It would take several minutes of sitting before the car restarted
properly.

In response, GM has issued an update for the car’s software that should
solve the problem. Owners who want the update will need to head over to
their local dealer, which will update the vehicle’s software. The process
is said to take about an hour. Thus far, no reports of accidents caused by
this issue have been reported.

The Chevy Volt is an extended-range hybrid vehicle that’s currently
enjoying high sales, which jumped twice in August and September. The Volt
features a lithium-ion battery and the Voltec electric drive system with a
1.4L gasoline powered range extender. The MSRP is $39,145.


--
Obama's black racist USAG appointee.

Eric Holder, racist black United States Attorney General drops voter
intimidation charges against the Black Panthers, "You are about to be
ruled by the black man, cracker!"

Eric Holder, prejudiced black United States Attorney General settles the
hate crime debate, "Whites Not Protected by Hate Crime Laws."

Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact, to
former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel of New
York's million dollar tax evasion.

Barack Obama and Eric Holder, committed treason by knowingly and
deliberately arming enemies of the United States of America through
Operation Fast and Furious. Complicit in the murder of Federal employees
during the execution of their duties.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Dave Head]

On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 23:05:09 +0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro"
<leroys...@usurper.org> wrote:

>http://www.slashgear.com/2013-chevy-volt-receives-update-after-reports-of-
>shutdowns-24253704/
>
>We’ve reached this strange moment in time when updates are released for
>our cars in the same manner they’re released for our gadgets. Thus is the
>case with the 2013 Chevy Volt, which GM has pushed a software update out
>for after reports of shutdowns. The manufacturer is not issuing a recall,
>however.
>
>The problem cropped up on the GM-Volt forum, where users were reporting
>that the Volt would randomly shut down. According to the users, the
>powertrain would shutdown, but the brakes and steering would continue to
>work. It would take several minutes of sitting before the car restarted
>properly.
>
>In response, GM has issued an update for the car’s software that should
>solve the problem. Owners who want the update will need to head over to
>their local dealer, which will update the vehicle’s software. The process
>is said to take about an hour. Thus far, no reports of accidents caused by
>this issue have been reported.
>
>The Chevy Volt is an extended-range hybrid vehicle that’s currently
>enjoying high sales, which jumped twice in August and September. The Volt
>features a lithium-ion battery and the Voltec electric drive system with a
>1.4L gasoline powered range extender. The MSRP is $39,145.

Whatever the problems the Volt and any subsequent cars like it is
having, you better get used to it, because the new fuel economy
standards to go into effect in 2025, requiring 55 mpg, can only be met
by these sorts of hybrid or all-electric cars, at least as long as the
EPA keeps making diesel cars a practical improbability for sale in the
USA.

Otherwise, gasoline cars that get 55 mpg with the driving cycle the
EPA requires are going to look like a skateboard with a Thimble Drome.

[emoneyjoe]

I don't understand people unloading
on the Volt, the only problem I know of
is the critical nature of some lithium
batteries.

But I disagree with the assumption
that all cars will be lightweight, once
they get rid of the grille and really
streamline the front, go to all electric
with two onboard generators instead
of one big one, mileage will be above
the required 55.

The thing that can make it all
happen is lower cost ultracapacitors,
with good brake regeneration the
driving public will have the insane
acceleration and rapid braking they
want without it causing poor mileage.

Mileage will probably be well above
the 55 mandated.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:59:50 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
wrote:

>
> I don't understand people unloading
>on the Volt, the only problem I know of
>is the critical nature of some lithium
>batteries.
>

The other problem(s) is that is it not practical for moderate or
longer distance and it costs too much.I'm also curious as to how well
the heat works in very cold temperatures. Oh, and the AC in very hot
temperatures.

It has a very long way to go to appeal to the mass market.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <vin398144gn5kfp60...@4ax.com>,

IOW -- an electric paperweight.

[Dave Head]

Why is it not practical for moderate or longer distances? It'll go
from NYC to LA in a the same amount of time as a regular car. Just
keep filling the tank... like a regular car.

Don't know about the heating and cooling. It'd be good to lease it,
so's you don't have to buy it, and get used to it over 3 years or so.
Then make a decision about range-enhanced electric cars.

[Dave Head]

Electricity is insanely cheap to power cars with when compared to
gasoline. Its like going back to 30 or 40 cents per gallon gasoline.
The appeal will be there when people figure that out, and if/when the
selling price of the electrics gets more reasonable.

[Vic Smith]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:31:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:

If you were actually "curious" you could get all that info on the Volt
owners' forum.
I don't know what you mean by "practical."
You mean practical to you?
As far as "mass market,"
"Still, the Volt’s 133rd-place ranking placed it ahead of industry
stalwarts like the Audi A6, BMW 7-Series, Porsche Cayenne and
Mercedes-Benz S-Class, and it outsold most hybrids including the
Toyota Prius plug-in, Honda Civic, Kia Optima, Toyota Highlander and
Lexus RX 450h."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2012/09/24/august-chevrolet-volt-sales-redefine-failure/

Volt owners, Merc owners, A6 owners, etc, aren't mass market.
They are elites.

[Harry K]

On Nov 1, 5:13 am, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:31:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:

> >On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:59:50 -0500, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com>

> >wrote:
>
> >>       I don't understand people unloading
> >>on the Volt, the only problem I know of
> >>is the critical nature of some lithium
> >>batteries.
>
> >The other problem(s) is that is it not practical for moderate or
> >longer distance and it costs too much.I'm also curious as to how well
> >the heat works in very cold temperatures.  Oh, and the AC in very hot
> >temperatures.
>
> >It has a very long way to go to appeal to the mass market.
>
> Why is it not practical for moderate or longer distances?  It'll go
> from NYC to LA in a the same amount of time as a regular car.  Just
> keep filling the tank... like a regular car.

Exacllty. YOu wouldn't be driving that way expensive "electric car",
you would be driving a "way expensive gas driven one of small size and
limited passenger/cargo capacity. Not to mention performaance a model
A would laugh at.

>
> Don't know about the heating and cooling.  It'd be good to lease it,
> so's you don't have to buy it, and get used to it over 3 years or so.
> Then make a decision about range-enhanced electric cars.

Harry K

[Dave Head]

On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 07:55:22 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <tur...@q.com>
wrote:

The Volt 0 - 60 is 8.9 seconds. Not all that bad. Not as good as my
Subaru WRX, but in the ballpark with my Jeep Cherokee.

[Dave Head]

On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 07:55:22 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <tur...@q.com>
wrote:

And the point of the Volt is to offer electric car performance where
you drive it most of the time, while allowing it to drive as far as
you want on the rare occasion that you go for long distances. If your
long distances aren't rare, you're going to have to wait for a better
electric car.

[Jeff M]

The Chevy Volt and similar alternative power vehicles are cutting edge
technologies. But, as anyone responsible for buying much high-tech
equipment can tell you, the cutting edge is also the bleeding edge.
Being on that edge is often very expensive, though, especially for the
"early adapters," who may be motivated more by concerns other than
strict practicality, anyway.

Still, I'd rate the Volt as almost practical for many average users.
But there are currently better choices available. I don't think buying
a Prius or Volt is as practical as buying a Diesel VW Jetta TDI, for
example, is today. But it won't take long for alternative power
vehicles to be viable mainstream choices.

Early autos underwent a similar evolution, of course. Early designs
were often very expensive, not very practical and lacked a supporting
infrastructure of decent roads, fuel availability, and the like. That
made horses and wagons the better option for years after the automobile
was first invented. But before long, Mr. Ford began making Model T's
and WWI proved the practical superiority of automotive power over horse
power for general transportation, and we haven't looked back since.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 08:13:02 -0400, Dave Head <rall...@att.net>
wrote:



>>

>>It has a very long way to go to appeal to the mass market.
>
>Why is it not practical for moderate or longer distances? It'll go
>from NYC to LA in a the same amount of time as a regular car. Just
>keep filling the tank... like a regular car.
>
>Don't know about the heating and cooling. It'd be good to lease it,
>so's you don't have to buy it, and get used to it over 3 years or so.
>Then make a decision about range-enhanced electric cars.

Sure, but my present car can do that and it cost about $5000 less and
has more equipment. Not much of an incentive to buy one yet.

Perhaps in 5 or 10 or 20 years, it may be a good deal, just not there
yet.

As for leasing, I'd be stuck with it for 3 years if I did not like it.
Buying it, I can always sell or trade it at any time, even if it is at
a loss. Maybe a 3 to 6 month rental would be a good test.

My daily commute is 48 miles round trip so I don't see the benefit and
full savings on fuel yet.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 13:35:51 -0400, Dave Head <rall...@att.net>
wrote:



>

>The Volt 0 - 60 is 8.9 seconds. Not all that bad. Not as good as my
>Subaru WRX, but in the ballpark with my Jeep Cherokee.

Not so bad, but I like my Sonata 2.0 Turbo at 5.8 seconds. It is fun
getting on to the highway.

[Harry K]

On Nov 1, 10:57 am, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 07:55:22 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <turn...@q.com>

Not sure of the Volt's range on electric but at least one of the
electrics is around 50 miles. Notat all practical ffor me as I live
almost exactly 50 miles either way from the two nearest cities.

Normal shopping range for me is a 60 mile roundtrip with a couple
trips per year to the cities.

Harry K

[Daniel W. Rouse Jr.]

"Dave Head" <rall...@att.net> wrote in message
news:rmp498t5b70qrb7ks...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:31:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:59:50 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I don't understand people unloading
>>>on the Volt, the only problem I know of
>>>is the critical nature of some lithium
>>>batteries.
>>>
>>
>>The other problem(s) is that is it not practical for moderate or
>>longer distance and it costs too much.I'm also curious as to how well
>>the heat works in very cold temperatures. Oh, and the AC in very hot
>>temperatures.
>>
>>It has a very long way to go to appeal to the mass market.
>
> Why is it not practical for moderate or longer distances? It'll go
> from NYC to LA in a the same amount of time as a regular car. Just
> keep filling the tank... like a regular car.
>

Fail--I demand a minimum of 300 miles on electric only cars, and also a
minimum of 300 miles on gas/electric hybrids before the gas engine has to
kick in. If the electric engine can only go 50 or so miles before the gas
engine kicks in, and I have to keep filling the gas engine, I might as well
buy a cheaper gas-only engine.

> Don't know about the heating and cooling. It'd be good to lease it,
> so's you don't have to buy it, and get used to it over 3 years or so.
> Then make a decision about range-enhanced electric cars.

I've ridden in a Volt. It was interesting to hear only tire and road noise
when the electric only engine was running. The A/C seemed to work just as
well as any gas engine vehicle. However, finding the nearest charging
station with a compatible charger plug was the owner's next concern as they
only had something like 9 miles left on the electric only engine. Anything
past that, they would have had to use the gas engine.

So I'll pass on the Volt, and any other electric or electric/hybrid car,
until the electric engine alone can get a minimum of 300 miles on a single
charge.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 22:47:48 -0700, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
<dwro...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:



>So I'll pass on the Volt, and any other electric or electric/hybrid car,
>until the electric engine alone can get a minimum of 300 miles on a single
>charge.

Everyone's needs vary but even half that is pretty good. A fifty mile
round trip commute to work is fairly common and a weekend jaunt can be
100 or so. Probably a half dozen times a year I need much more in a
day. But you have to be able to plug it in easily at a hotel parking
lot or a quick charge while eating dinner, etc. That may come down
the road too if enough cars use the same plug.

[Dave Head]

On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 22:47:48 -0700, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
<dwro...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:

>So I'll pass on the Volt, and any other electric or electric/hybrid car,
>until the electric engine alone can get a minimum of 300 miles on a single
>charge.

I'd like that too, but we'll have to wait for someone to invent the
"magic battery" that will store that much energy. No such animal
exists at a usable price.

[Ashton Crusher]

Keep in mind that on this group most of the people probably like
"fast" but to the average car buyer, anything that can do 0 - 60 in 11
seconds or less will feel like a rocket to them.

[Ashton Crusher]

On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 20:49:56 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <tur...@q.com>
wrote:

Why isn't that practical? So you go one way on all electric and get
100 mpg equivalent, then you come back and have to use the generator
and get 32 mpg. Your trip averaged 66 mpg. I don't think you'll do
that good in a VW TDI.

[Gunner]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 08:14:32 -0400, Dave Head <rall...@att.net>

wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 23:32:25 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
><orfai...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <vin398144gn5kfp60...@4ax.com>,
>> Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:59:50 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > I don't understand people unloading
>>> >on the Volt, the only problem I know of
>>> >is the critical nature of some lithium
>>> >batteries.
>>> >
>>>
>>> The other problem(s) is that is it not practical for moderate or
>>> longer distance and it costs too much.I'm also curious as to how well
>>> the heat works in very cold temperatures. Oh, and the AC in very hot
>>> temperatures.
>>>
>>> It has a very long way to go to appeal to the mass market.
>>
>>IOW -- an electric paperweight.
>
>Electricity is insanely cheap to power cars with when compared to
>gasoline. Its like going back to 30 or 40 cents per gallon gasoline.
>The appeal will be there when people figure that out, and if/when the
>selling price of the electrics gets more reasonable.

Then build highways with a third rail, cause at this stage of the
game....batteries simply dont do anything except cost a shitload of
money for batteries and have LONG charge times.

They are for the person who is a very short distance driver with
plenty of money to burn.

I average 200 miles a day, with some days far more.

Think a Volt will be of any use to me...with the 800 lbs of tools and
gear I have to stuff in the truck?

Gunner

--
"President Obama is not going to lose. He will be re-elected. It is those of
you who have these grand fantasies of that pip-squeak Romney actually having
a chance at winning the election that will have to wake up to reality the
day after the election. I hear there is plenty of room in the rest of the
world where you can reside and establish new citizenship.
Kirby Grant,<KGr...@yahoo.com>

[Gunner]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 08:13:02 -0400, Dave Head <rall...@att.net>

wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:31:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:59:50 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I don't understand people unloading
>>>on the Volt, the only problem I know of
>>>is the critical nature of some lithium
>>>batteries.
>>>
>>
>>The other problem(s) is that is it not practical for moderate or
>>longer distance and it costs too much.I'm also curious as to how well
>>the heat works in very cold temperatures. Oh, and the AC in very hot
>>temperatures.
>>
>>It has a very long way to go to appeal to the mass market.
>
>Why is it not practical for moderate or longer distances? It'll go
>from NYC to LA in a the same amount of time as a regular car. Just
>keep filling the tank... like a regular car.

So it takes 2.5-8 hours to fill your gas tank?

>
>Don't know about the heating and cooling. It'd be good to lease it,
>so's you don't have to buy it, and get used to it over 3 years or so.
>Then make a decision about range-enhanced electric cars.

[Harry K]

On Nov 3, 2:11 pm, Ashton Crusher <d...@moore.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 20:49:56 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <turn...@q.com>

It's not practical due to buying the equivalent of 2 cars and winding
up with a car that few people would accept if it were gas only.
Limited cargo/passenger space, limited cruise distance, poor ride,
etc.

Eventually electrics may become practical but so far they are worlds
away from it for the average consumer.
Currently they make sense only for someone with less than 20 mile
commute (one way) and making very few long trips (over about 60
miles).

It's fine to be a supporter of new technology but don't blind yourself
to the shortcomings.

Harry K

[Jimmy B]

In article <880dba7d-59fb-4759-b941-
2fd100...@v9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>, tur...@q.com says...
>
> On Nov 3, 2:11ï¿œpm, Ashton Crusher <d...@moore.net> wrote:
> >
> > Why isn't that practical? ï¿œSo you go one way on all electric and get

> > 100 mpg equivalent, then you come back and have to use the generator

> > and get 32 mpg. ï¿œYour ï¿œtrip averaged 66 mpg. ï¿œI don't think you'll do

> > that good in a VW TDI.
>
> It's not practical due to buying the equivalent of 2 cars and winding
> up with a car that few people would accept if it were gas only.
> Limited cargo/passenger space, limited cruise distance, poor ride,
> etc.
>

How old are you? You sound like you're pretty young.
Get used to something.
Speak for yourself or you come off as a fool.
So say something like "It's not practical FOR ME due to....etc."
See, you don't speak for me and many others, so get used to that too.
You sound like a big dummy, repeating the same personal opinion bullshit
over and over again, like it applies to everybody.
See, most people have better sense than you. If yogurt gives them the
runs, they'll say "Yogurt is no good for me. Gives me the runs."
Or they'll just ignore any discussion of yogurt entirely.
If they can't afford an electric car, or they drive long trips most the
time, or have no place to plug it in, or don't like it on a cost basis,
they say:
"I can't afford it."
"I drive mostly long trips."
"I don't have a place to plug it in."
"Doesn't make financial sense to me at the current price."

But not you. You come in here acting like you speak for everybody.
Won't work, so grow up.

> Eventually electrics may become practical but so far they are worlds
> away from it for the average consumer.
> Currently they make sense only for someone with less than 20 mile
> commute (one way) and making very few long trips (over about 60
> miles).
>
> It's fine to be a supporter of new technology but don't blind yourself
> to the shortcomings.
>

Grow up. Speaking for myself, a Volt would suit 90% my driving needs
well, very well. I have a 30 mile round trip commute and drive more
than 50 miles just a few times a year, outside of vacation trips.
I have a garage with electricity.
For vacation trips I would use a second car, or rent a car.
Or maybe take the Volt.
Why don't I have one? Can't afford it.
So the only "bad" I see is it costs too much for me.
If the car price comes down 10 grand and gas price hits 5-6 bucks the
calculation changes drastically.
Some people have more money than others.
They drive juiced up Ford PU's, Mercedes, Caddys, Lincolns, Buicks,
Lexus, etc. All costing more than a Volt.
Hell, the average 2012 price for a new car is $30,748.
A loaded VW Golf is $36k MSRP. About the same for a Toyota Avalon.
So the Volt isn't even expensive to those who want one.
People know what they want, they don't need you.
Good for those who can afford it. Must be nice driving for months and
months without visiting a gas station, as some of them do.
Now why don't don't you tell everybody a big house is impractical, and a
stainless steel refrigerator is impractical, or a vacation in the
Bahamas is impractical.
Then you can start on how a new car loses a big chunk of its value after
you drive it away from the dealer, so buying a new car is a loser.
Get real.

[Harry K]

On Nov 4, 5:06 am, Jimmy B <jim...@yafoo.com> wrote:
> In article <880dba7d-59fb-4759-b941-
> 2fd100a3b...@v9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>, turn...@q.com says...
>
>
>
> > On Nov 3, 2:11 pm, Ashton Crusher <d...@moore.net> wrote:
>
> > > Why isn't that practical?  So you go one way on all electric and get

> > > 100 mpg equivalent, then you come back and have to use the generator

> > > and get 32 mpg.  Your  trip averaged 66 mpg.  I don't think you'll do

Personal opinion heard frm the peanut gallery.

Sorry I stepped on your oh-so-delicate toes...not.

Harry K

[Ashton Crusher]

On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 22:55:02 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <tur...@q.com>
wrote:

Read Jimmy B's comments to you twice and that will take care of what I
was thinking of as a reply to you, only he said it better then I would
have.

[Ashton Crusher]

On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 06:06:38 -0800 (PST), Harry K <tur...@q.com>
wrote:

You just keep looking more and more like an ass.

[Ashton Crusher]

On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 18:58:11 -0700, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 08:13:02 -0400, Dave Head <rall...@att.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:31:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:59:50 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand people unloading
>>>>on the Volt, the only problem I know of
>>>>is the critical nature of some lithium
>>>>batteries.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The other problem(s) is that is it not practical for moderate or
>>>longer distance and it costs too much.I'm also curious as to how well
>>>the heat works in very cold temperatures. Oh, and the AC in very hot
>>>temperatures.
>>>
>>>It has a very long way to go to appeal to the mass market.
>>
>>Why is it not practical for moderate or longer distances? It'll go
>>from NYC to LA in a the same amount of time as a regular car. Just
>>keep filling the tank... like a regular car.
>
>So it takes 2.5-8 hours to fill your gas tank?
>

Do you even understand how the Volt works???

[Daniel W. Rouse Jr.]

"Ashton Crusher" <de...@moore.net> wrote in message
news:bnhd98poric5grvug...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 18:58:11 -0700, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 08:13:02 -0400, Dave Head <rall...@att.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:31:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:59:50 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand people unloading
>>>>>on the Volt, the only problem I know of
>>>>>is the critical nature of some lithium
>>>>>batteries.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The other problem(s) is that is it not practical for moderate or
>>>>longer distance and it costs too much.I'm also curious as to how well
>>>>the heat works in very cold temperatures. Oh, and the AC in very hot
>>>>temperatures.
>>>>
>>>>It has a very long way to go to appeal to the mass market.
>>>
>>>Why is it not practical for moderate or longer distances? It'll go
>>>from NYC to LA in a the same amount of time as a regular car. Just
>>>keep filling the tank... like a regular car.
>>
>>So it takes 2.5-8 hours to fill your gas tank?
>>
>
> Do you even understand how the Volt works???
>

I do. The electric engine runs until it runs out, then the gas engine kicks
in.

That said, the point is to rarely use the gas engine. Trips of more than 50
or so miles apparently exceed the practicality of the electric part of the
engine. Might as well buy a gas only car and save the higher cost of a
hybrid, the necessary engine switchovers or having to limit to shorter
trips, and in the case of the 2013 Volt, the apparent firmware issue(s)
causing shutdowns.



[snip...]

[Gunner]

On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 07:06:17 -0600, Jimmy B <jim...@yafoo.com> wrote:

>
>Grow up. Speaking for myself, a Volt would suit 90% my driving needs
>well, very well. I have a 30 mile round trip commute and drive more
>than 50 miles just a few times a year, outside of vacation trips.

So you are actually a rarity. Most Americans drive between 13,000 and
17.000 miles per year.

I do 45,000-65,000 per year but then...Im not average with my job and
location.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm


So why would you hold yourself as somehow the Average man?

A sense of false self importance perhaps? Vote Democrat dont you.....


Gunner

[Gunner]

On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 12:50:17 -0700, Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net>
wrote:

>>>
>>>Why is it not practical for moderate or longer distances? It'll go
>>>from NYC to LA in a the same amount of time as a regular car. Just
>>>keep filling the tank... like a regular car.
>>
>>So it takes 2.5-8 hours to fill your gas tank?
>>
>
>Do you even understand how the Volt works???

http://gm-volt.com/chevy-volt-faqs/




Chevy Volt FAQs


[ad#post_ad]Q: What is the Chevy Volt?
A: The Chevy Volt is an extended-range electric car built by General
Motors. It has reached the end of its development cycle and deliveries
commenced in December 2010. Cars can be ordered right now.

Q: How is the Chevy Volt different than other cars on the road?
A: The car is a plug-in range-extended electric vehicle with an
on-board gasoline generator. It has a large battery that stores power
from your home electric outlet and which is connected to an electric
motor. The electric motor directly propels the car. The battery can
power the car for the first 25 to 50 miles. After that, should one
continue to need to drive, the on-board gasoline generator provide
electricity for the motor and participate in driving the car.

Q: How is the Chevy Volt different than conventional hybrids, like the
Prius?
A: Today’s hybrids are called parallel hybrids. They use a small
electric motor for low speed driving, but switch to a regular gas
engine for acceleration and faster speed driving with the electric
motor providing enhancement, hence both engines work side by side or
in parallel.

The Volt is a series vehicle meaning only the electric motor powers
the car at all times, the gas engine is just a generator for making
electricity once the battery is depleted. A little like the Prius,
the engine does help spin the wheels after the battery is depleted.
GM engineers chose to do this because it improved efficiency by 10 to
15 percent.

Q: What is the driving range of the Chevy Volt?
A: The car has been designed to drive from 25 to 50 miles on pure
electricity stored in the battery from overnight home charging. The
actual range will vary depending on temperature, terrain, and driving
style.

After that the gas engine will kick in and allow the car to be driven
an additional 344 miles on a full tank (9.3 gallons) of gas.

[ad#post_ad-left-1-1]Q: How many miles per gallon will the Chevy Volt
get?
A: A bit of a trick question. For the first 35 miles it will get
infinite mpg, because no gas will be burned. When the generator
starts, the car will get 37 mpg (35 mpg city/40 mpg highway)
thereafter. One can calculate the average mpg per for any length drive
starting with a full battery:

Total MPG = ~37 x miles/(miles-35). The official EPA fuel economy can
be viewed here.

Q: What type of batteries will the Chevy Volt use?
A: The car is has an advanced battery pack which uses lithium-ion
battery cells. This chemistry appears in cell phones and laptops. For
automotive use the packs and cells are more powerful and safe.
***
As for the last line.....

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2012/07/17/media-fail-chevy-volt-makes-gm-no-money-costs-taxpayers-hundreds-thous

Media Fail: Chevy Volt Makes NO Money, Costs Taxpayers Hundreds of
Thousands of Dollars Per Car

By Seton Motley | July 17, 2012 | 08:54

The Jurassic Press is missing much in their reporting on the $50
billion bailout of General Motors (GM). The Press is open channeling
for President Barack Obama - allowing him to frame the bailout exactly
as he wishes in the 2012 Presidential election.

The President is running in large part on the bailout’s $30+ billion
loss, uber-failed “success.” And the Press is acting as his
stenographers. An epitome of this bailout nightmare mess is the
electric absurdity that is the Chevrolet Volt. The Press is at every
turn covering up - rather than covering - the serial failures of
President Obama’s signature vehicle.

The Press has failed to mention at least five Volt fires, myopically
focusing on the one the Obama Administration hand-selected for
attention.

The Press has failed to mention that the Volt fire problem remains
unsolved. Is it the battery? Is it the charging station? Is it the
charging cable? All of the above?

GM and the Administration don’t know. And the Press ain’t breaking
their necks trying to find out.

In more recent news, the Press has almost as one hailed the June Volt
sales increase.

GM's Volt Sales Up in June

Surprising June Sales for Volt

Chevy Volt Leads US Plug-In Car Sales

Chevy Volt Sales Increases

Volt Records Second-Best Sales Month

The Press has for the most part failed to mention how pathetic this
“second-best sales month” actually is. And even when one Dinosaur
does, the unwarranted enthusiasm is palpable.

GM sells 1760 Volts in June, double from 2011

Wow. Huge number.

The Press also fails to put this pathetic tally in perspective.

The Chevy Cruze is basically a Volt without the dead-weight, flammable
400-lb. electric battery. Which makes it $17,000, rather than the
Volt’s $41,000.

Chevy in June sold 18,983 Cruzes - more than ten times the number of
Volts. And that’s down 1/3 from last June’s 24,648.

But that feeble Volt tally has the Press all revved up.

And speaking of the Volt’s ridiculous $41,000 sticker price:

According to multiple GM executives there is little or no profit being
made on each Volt built at a present cost of around $40,000.
Furthermore, the $700 million of development that went into the car
has to be recouped.

Get that? GM makes “little or no profit” on the Volt.

So it makes perfect sense that GM would spend millions of dollars
advertising it, does it not? No ideological or campaign intent there,
eh President Obama?

Look, I get it, it’s fun. I just spent $1 million - of your money -
advertising free air. On which my profit margin is just as good as
GM’s is on the Volt.

Only my ads didn’t have a song, or a dance. We just aren’t as cool as
the Volt.

I mean, it’s so cool - it can travel back in time to inspire the
production of cars before it even existed.

I mean, it’s so cool - it can travel back in time to offer the exact
same technology as a car from 1991. And the exact same electric
battery range as a car from 1897.

We’re talking retro-grade cool.

But wait - there’s so much more.

(A)dd $240 million in Energy Department grants doled out to G.M. last
summer, $150 million in federal money to the Volt’s Korean battery
supplier, up to $1.5 billion in tax breaks for purchasers and other
consumer incentives, and some significant portion of the $14 billion
loan G.M. got in 2008 for “retooling” its plants, and you’ve got some
idea of how much taxpayer cash is built into every Volt.

Speaking of those “tax breaks for purchasers and other consumer
incentives” - as of November of last year that tally all by itself was
$250,000 per Volt sold.

And that excruciating pain is ongoing. Again, a Volt sold makes GM no
money - but costs We the Taxpayers a $7,500 bribe - I mean
“incentive.” Oh - and President Obama wants to jack that bribe to
$10,000 per.

I guess it’s good news after all that Volt sales remain so anemic.

And with GM’s new 60-day return policy, it looks like you can buy a
Volt and cash the $7,500 bribe check. Then return the Volt - and keep
the $7,500 bribe cash. How’s that for Taxpayer coin stewardship?

Keep all of this outrageousness in mind when next the Jurassic Press
joins with the Obama Administration in celebrating the Chevy Volt.

But it (allegedly) helps President Obama get reelected. And nothing
would make the Press happier - and for that there’s (almost?) nothing
they won’t do.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/24/Yet-Another-Obama-Green-Energy-Company-Failing

Another in a long list of Obama-touted and tax-supported "green
energy" companies is on the verge of going out of business, this time
in Michigan.

Two years ago, President Obama visited the LG Chem battery plant in
Holland, Michigan. He then hailed the plant, saying, "You are leading
the way in showing how manufacturing jobs are coming right back here
to the United States of America."

But today, those LG Chem jobs Obama claimed were "coming back" are
seeing intermittent layoffs instead of growth.

In 2010, the plant, which supplies batteries for the Chevy Volt,
received $151 million in tax money from the U.S. Department of Energy,
but it has been good money after bad.

Today, $133 million of that $151 million has been spent, but since
April, the company's 200 workers have been on "rolling furloughs"
because the electric vehicle market has failed to blossom as promised
by many.

In 2010, the plant was projected to create 443 new jobs within
five years. Those projections have been shelved as the company says it
can't predict when the furloughs will stop for its current employees.

A second Chevy Volt battery plant in Michigan has also been forced to
implement layoffs due to the failure of the electric car market in the
U.S.

Lithium-ion battery manufacturer A123 Systems was awarded $249 million
in federal government tax dollars but ended up laying off employees
despite the government's cash infusion. The plant might have closed
entirely if China hadn't invested an additional $465 million in the
plant. Even still, its future is murky.

The Chevy Volt has seen dismal sales in the U.S. and Chevy has even
resorted to offering a 25 percent discount to spur sales. Sales have
been so poor that the car maker has been forced to shut down its Volt
assembly line for weeks at a time over the last several years because
the end product is simply unwanted by customers.

Sales for the Volt have been bad since the vehicle was introduced.
Last year, for instance, the Volt saw a mere 7,671 sales. But in yet
another sort of stealth federal government bailout effot, a large
number of Volts was recently bought by the U.S. government itself in a
move that many analysts say will illegitimately skew the Volt's sales
figures for 2012.

Worse, Reuters has reported that Chevy loses nearly $50,000 on every
Volt sold, so higher Volt sales may not even signal relief for the
struggling car company.

After all this effort by Obama to push green energy projects,
including the Chevy Volt, not to mention his billions in bailouts for
General Motors in general, it seems the company is still headed for
bankruptcy. And as these failures build, we are told that Obama needs
another four years to continue pushing the same programs that have
failed thus far.

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Chevy-Volt-was-Doomed-to-Fail-from-the-Start.html

http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3355873:BlogPost:1967001&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post


Posted by Seton Motley on April 13, 2012 at 8:01am

On Wednesday, a General Motors (GM) lithium-ion battery exploded and
caused a fire at a research facility near its Detroit headquarters.
Most unfortunately, two people were taken to the hospital - one faces
life-threatening injuries.


Lithium-ion batteries like this one are used by GM in the Chevy Volt.
Making this just the latest in a long line of Volt fire problems.


“The headlines are not positive for lithium-ion and General Motors,”
Dennis Virag, president of Automotive Consulting Group in Ann Arbor,
Michigan, said in a telephone interview. “It does bring up the subject
of the dangers associated with batteries.”


Indeed it does. Let us review these Volt dangers, shall we?


-----


The Chevy Volt entered the market in December 2010. There were in
2011 (at least) six Volt fires. GM and the Barack Obama
Administration acknowledged only one - a battery fire after a test
crash.


And only after squelching word of that fire for six months, announcing
it only when Bloomberg News was about to break the story.


The Obama Administration was in full GM damage control mode. Obama’s
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reviewed the
one fire and - shocker - declared GM and the Volt good to go.


But what about the other fires?


NHTSA themselves had two other test fires.


In April, 2011 a Volt burst into flames. Twice.


A $800,000 garage fire in Mooresville, North Carolina led the local
power company to warn its customers to stop using the Volt charging
stations until they knew they were safe.


And there were throughout 2011 multiple overheating Volt power cords,
reaching temperatures upwards of 158* Fahrenheit and causing second
degree burns. Fire hazards - waiting to happen.


GM and the Obama Administration were aware of all of these incidents.
Yet NHTSA investigated none of them.


-----


And because GM and the Obama Administration repeatedly kicked this
dangerous, flaming can down the road, GM has spent most of 2012 in
full-on Volt repair mode.


In January, GM “called back” every single Volt ever sold in the U.S.,
to fix the allegedly already “fixed” battery.


“This is a customer satisfaction program, which is voluntary, that
we’re choosing to do,” explained the automaker’s Mary Barra during a
conference call Thursday morning.


But that didn’t fix the problem either. So in March Chevrolet
announced they were replacing the power cords for nearly every single
Volt ever sold in the U.S.


GM spokesman Randal Fox told Reuters ..."It's just an effort to offer
a more consistent charging experience. It's not a safety recall. It's
more of a customer-satisfaction program," Fox said.


“Customer satisfaction program” must be the GM equivalent of President
Obama’s “Let me be clear.” Only more perilous.


-----


General Motors and the Obama Administration have spent the entire life
of the Chevy Volt minimizing and obfuscating a hazardous Chevy Volt
fire problem.


We still don’t know what that problem is.


What we do know is that two people were just grievously injured by a
Volt battery explosion.


And that GM is still selling the Chevy Volt.

[Jimmy B]

In article <5ood98dedglak3bge...@4ax.com>,
gunne...@gmail.com says...

>
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 07:06:17 -0600, Jimmy B <jim...@yafoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Grow up. Speaking for myself, a Volt would suit 90% my driving needs
> >well, very well. I have a 30 mile round trip commute and drive more
> >than 50 miles just a few times a year, outside of vacation trips.
>
>
> So you are actually a rarity. Most Americans drive between 13,000 and
> 17.000 miles per year.
>
> I do 45,000-65,000 per year but then...Im not average with my job and
> location.
>

You sound like an average dope to me.

> http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm
>
>
> So why would you hold yourself as somehow the Average man?
>

What are you? Stupid?
You think cars are aimed at the "Average man?"
Sounds like commie talk.
Commies always want to take away rights.
What, you want a law to make me buy a Corolla or Camry?
Fuck you and the commie horse you rode in on.
Ain't gonna happen.

[Gunner]

On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 16:33:21 -0600, Jimmy B <jim...@yafoo.com> wrote:

>In article <5ood98dedglak3bge...@4ax.com>,
>gunne...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 07:06:17 -0600, Jimmy B <jim...@yafoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Grow up. Speaking for myself, a Volt would suit 90% my driving needs
>> >well, very well. I have a 30 mile round trip commute and drive more
>> >than 50 miles just a few times a year, outside of vacation trips.
>>
>>
>> So you are actually a rarity. Most Americans drive between 13,000 and
>> 17.000 miles per year.
>>
>> I do 45,000-65,000 per year but then...Im not average with my job and
>> location.
>>
>
>You sound like an average dope to me.

Odd that it was you that was claiming he was the average man..and when
confronted with the facts....acts like a dope head.

But then..you ARE mentally ill..so its not surprising.

>
>
>> http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm
>>
>>
>> So why would you hold yourself as somehow the Average man?
>>
>
>What are you? Stupid?
>You think cars are aimed at the "Average man?"
>Sounds like commie talk.
>Commies always want to take away rights.
>What, you want a law to make me buy a Corolla or Camry?
>Fuck you and the commie horse you rode in on.
>Ain't gonna happen.

So you really arnt the Average Man are you?

Snicker

[Gunner]

And the occasional fires as the battery packs short out and either
explode or burn the car to the ground, leaving nothing but twisted
metal and a huge..fucking huge toxic waste spill.


>
>
>[snip...]

[Harry K]

On Nov 4, 11:49 am, Ashton Crusher <d...@moore.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 06:06:38 -0800 (PST), Harry K <turn...@q.com>

You got sore toes too? Support electrics or even hybrids allyou want
but at the
current level of technology they are only practical in a niche market.

I am all for them _when and if_ they can get some decent range AND the
cost becomes competitive withouth subsidies.

Harry K

[Harry K]

On Nov 4, 11:49 am, Ashton Crusher <d...@moore.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 22:55:02 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <turn...@q.com>

Translation, you are to chicken to say it yourself. Fact - it is good
in a niche market only. Trying to make it a practical car for anyone
who does a lot of miles, Ain't gonnna work until the range improves
at 100%.

Harry K

[emoneyjoe]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:31:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:59:50 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>

>wrote:
>
>> I don't understand people unloading
>>on the Volt, the only problem I know of
>>is the critical nature of some lithium
>>batteries.
>>
>
>The other problem(s) is that is it not practical for moderate or
>longer distance and it costs too much.

It is the "car of the future" type, electric
with an on-board generator, and can be used
on any length trip and gives almost double
the highway mileage of the average car.

It was never meant to be the lowest
price car, and was used to develop and
test the drive train and battery set-up
that is intended to be used in other
models.

>I'm also curious as to how well
>the heat works in very cold temperatures. Oh, and the AC in very hot
>temperatures.

Since it has an IC engine, turning it
on to charge the batteries while driving
should provide the heat or power for
climate control.

The important thing with electric cars
will be the quality of the regenerative
braking system, which can't be fully
implemented now because the capacitors
needed are not fully developed in mass
production at low cost.

It takes zero energy other than just
bearing friction and wind resistance to
drive on level ground, that is one of the
main reasons to go to solid rubber tires.

Once engineers get that solidly in
their head, and the ultra-capacitors
are in production at the right price,
all cars will be electric with on-board
generators.

It only takes about 20 HP to charge
the batteries in normal driving, and
the smaller the IC engine, the more
efficient it can be, always running at
optimum RPM, only when the batteries
are below a given state of charge.

Eventually there will be options,
like one on-board generator for cars
in places where there are few long
hills, and two on-board generators
where there are hills.
The advantages of redundant
power generation, lower cost of
more units produced, and proper
sizing the IC engine to the task
needed will finally dawn on auto
engineers.

>It has a very long way to go to appeal to the mass market.

That model is aimed at a particular
market, there will be more electric car
models by all auto companies, it is
the only way to get maximum MPG,
and with full development of the
regenerative braking systems, all
cars will be electric.

It has been known since the
1950s that a full size car can get
100 MPG, the problem is designing
to provide the rapid acceleration
and high cruising speed the public
wants.

The auto companies know this,
otherwise they would have put up
more resistance to the federal
requirements for mileage mandated.

[emoneyjoe]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 23:32:25 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
<orfai...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>In article <vin398144gn5kfp60...@4ax.com>,

> Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:59:50 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I don't understand people unloading
>> >on the Volt, the only problem I know of
>> >is the critical nature of some lithium
>> >batteries.
>> >
>>
>> The other problem(s) is that is it not practical for moderate or

>> longer distance and it costs too much.I'm also curious as to how well

>> the heat works in very cold temperatures. Oh, and the AC in very hot
>> temperatures.
>>

>> It has a very long way to go to appeal to the mass market.
>

>IOW -- an electric paperweight.

No, the development model for a
drive train intended to be used in a
variety of models, and a very useful
vehicle for people who usually don't
drive over 50 miles a day, but only
want one car, and need to make
longer trips occasionally.

The battery problems exist in
all cars using that type of battery,
all auto companies will be trying
to devise better safety devices to
manage the undesirable features
of the batteries.

Some lithium batteries have a
number of problems, gassing off,
swelling up if charged too fast, or
current drawn too fast, overheating
and starting fires.

But the type has as much as
twice the storage of other types,
so work will continue to solve the
problems.

[Daniel W. Rouse Jr.]

"emoneyjoe" <emon...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:145g981htct24b73j...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:31:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:59:50 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> I don't understand people unloading
>>>on the Volt, the only problem I know of
>>>is the critical nature of some lithium
>>>batteries.
>>>
>>
>>The other problem(s) is that is it not practical for moderate or
>>longer distance and it costs too much.
>
> It is the "car of the future" type, electric
> with an on-board generator, and can be used
> on any length trip and gives almost double
> the highway mileage of the average car.
>

Great, but what if I want to go more than double the highway mileage?

If I have to take someone to one airport, it's a two hour drive at the speed
limit. The electric car only gets me 50 miles on a battery charge, correct?
But 65 miles per hour * 2 hours means it's a 130 mile trip. That's just the
one way mileage. Then I have to go back home. Another two hour drive. The
total trip is 260 miles.

Sorry, the electric car will not be useful. At 50 miles on a charge I don't
get to the airport just on battery power. At 50.1 miles into the trip, I get
stuck using the electric generator engine for the rest of the trip to the
airport. And, unless I want to find a charging station and have to wait 2 to
8 hours to charge the battery, I get to use the electric generator engine
for the entire trip home as well.

If the electric car gave the necessary minimum 300 miles on battery that I
require it to have before I consider one--I would be able to do the entire
trip just on battery power. But it doesn't, it can barely do anything more
than a basic commute to and from work, or a very short trip running errands.
Even a 25 mile commute both ways = 50 miles but then the battery dies at
mile 50, and the electric generator engine has to kick in. So really, the
electric car is only good for a 20 to 24.5 mile one-way trip, because the
other 20 to 24.5 miles is going to be the return trip home--leaving just one
mile in reserve so the gas engine doesn't have to kick in and charge the
battery. Then there's plug in charge time measured in hours, while I can
fill a gas tank in just minutes.

That's just one example. Substitute any longer than 50 miles distance trip
either as a necessity or just because someone wants to take a long drive,
and the electric car is useless. Might as well get a gas only vehicle at a
lesser cost. Anything past 50 miles is going to use the gas generator engine
anyway, at least with the current battery technology in today's electric
cars.

> It was never meant to be the lowest
> price car, and was used to develop and
> test the drive train and battery set-up
> that is intended to be used in other
> models.
>

Great, so let someone else beta test these proof of concept cars. When the
electric cars can get 300 miles or more on a battery charge, then I'll
consider them as a serious option.

>
>>I'm also curious as to how well
>>the heat works in very cold temperatures. Oh, and the AC in very hot
>>temperatures.
>
> Since it has an IC engine, turning it
> on to charge the batteries while driving
> should provide the heat or power for
> climate control.
>

The A/C on the volt can run with just the electric engine, IIRC.

> The important thing with electric cars
> will be the quality of the regenerative
> braking system, which can't be fully
> implemented now because the capacitors
> needed are not fully developed in mass
> production at low cost.
>

So why don't they look into magnetic braking? It's already in use on several
of today's roller-coasters and drop towers, very quick and smooth stop. They
could have a hydraulic brake caliper but one that engages permanant magnetic
brakes, rather than friction brake pads. Then when the piston retracts, the
magnetic brakes would also retract. I suppose they'd have to figure out how
to modulate the magnetic braking so it's not full-on braking all the time
when the brake pedal was pressed, but that's what engineers are for, to
figure things out and implement them.

[snip...]

[Sancho Panza]

Don't fret. After the last 10 days in the Northeast and Middle Atlantic,
just about no one who endured this travesty will ever even look at a
Volt (or even want to hear the word).

[emoneyjoe]

The Volt, like most car models, have a
niche market. The MG that I rode to work
in (1952) was 5 feet wide and ten feet long
and had no top.

The only reason an electric car would
have a 300 mile no fuel range would be
for those who travel 300 miles most days.

There is a certain obsession with owning
any car, with an electric car it might be a
person wanting to help reduce oil imports,
or a person who believes in Anthropogenic
Global Warming.


And some people would not want to
drive a Smart Car on a freeway where
most of the traffic is semis.

[Harry K]

On Nov 5, 4:40 pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwrous...@nethere.comNOSPAM>
wrote:
> "emoneyjoe" <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote in message

>
> news:145g981htct24b73j...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:31:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>

> >>On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:59:50 -0500, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com>

And when on the gas engine you are driving a dog of a car that noone
would put
up with if it were a non-electric.

<snip>

Harry K

[emoneyjoe]

On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 16:40:16 -0800, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
<dwro...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:

>"emoneyjoe" <emon...@iglou.com> wrote in message
>news:145g981htct24b73j...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:31:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:59:50 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't understand people unloading
>>>>on the Volt, the only problem I know of
>>>>is the critical nature of some lithium
>>>>batteries.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The other problem(s) is that is it not practical for moderate or
>>>longer distance and it costs too much.
>>
>> It is the "car of the future" type, electric
>> with an on-board generator, and can be used
>> on any length trip and gives almost double
>> the highway mileage of the average car.
>>
>Great, but what if I want to go more than double the highway mileage?

The highway mileage is miles per gallon,
with the IC engine supplying the electricity,
but there is a standard formula for average
use with electric only that gives over 60 miles
per gallon.

>If I have to take someone to one airport, it's a two hour drive at the speed
>limit. The electric car only gets me 50 miles on a battery charge, correct?
>But 65 miles per hour * 2 hours means it's a 130 mile trip. That's just the
>one way mileage. Then I have to go back home. Another two hour drive. The
>total trip is 260 miles.

How often are you going to do that?

>Sorry, the electric car will not be useful. At 50 miles on a charge I don't
>get to the airport just on battery power. At 50.1 miles into the trip, I get
>stuck using the electric generator engine for the rest of the trip to the
>airport. And, unless I want to find a charging station and have to wait 2 to
>8 hours to charge the battery, I get to use the electric generator engine
>for the entire trip home as well.

Nobody ever intended charging stations
to be used like that, they would be at or
near work, with charging while working,
allowing 50 miles each way commuting.

>If the electric car gave the necessary minimum 300 miles on battery that I
>require it to have before I consider one--

It won't, probably not ever, unless you
want to go back to.....

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

>I would be able to do the entire
>trip just on battery power. But it doesn't, it can barely do anything more
>than a basic commute to and from work, or a very short trip running errands.
>Even a 25 mile commute both ways = 50 miles but then the battery dies at
>mile 50, and the electric generator engine has to kick in. So really, the
>electric car is only good for a 20 to 24.5 mile one-way trip, because the
>other 20 to 24.5 miles is going to be the return trip home--leaving just one
>mile in reserve so the gas engine doesn't have to kick in and charge the
>battery. Then there's plug in charge time measured in hours, while I can
>fill a gas tank in just minutes.

There may be new technology appearing
some day to extend range on electric alone,
like a new design flow battery where the
electrolyte is changed using the same
electrodes.
And there has been claims of new types
of batteries being tested in military vehicles
that give much longer range.
But if an electric car can give twice the
miles per gallon of the smallest IC equivalent
car, on average, that is the goal, it means
we don't have to import oil.

>That's just one example. Substitute any longer than 50 miles distance trip
>either as a necessity or just because someone wants to take a long drive,
>and the electric car is useless.

I don't see how you figure useless, as
long as there is enough gas in the tank,
the only way you would notice the IC
engine is running would be the noise.

>Might as well get a gas only vehicle at a
>lesser cost. Anything past 50 miles is going to use the gas generator engine
>anyway, at least with the current battery technology in today's electric
>cars.

So if half the trip is electric, the miles
per gallon on gasoline is doubled.

>> It was never meant to be the lowest
>> price car, and was used to develop and
>> test the drive train and battery set-up
>> that is intended to be used in other
>> models.
>>
>Great, so let someone else beta test these proof of concept cars. When the
>electric cars can get 300 miles or more on a battery charge, then I'll
>consider them as a serious option.

Then you will never need to consider,
although, I hope I am wrong.
You are not being scientific or rational,
the average person drives between 1,000
and 1,500 miles per month, that is 35 to
50 miles per day, and that is the numbers
used to design the range of an electric car.

>>>I'm also curious as to how well
>>>the heat works in very cold temperatures. Oh, and the AC in very hot
>>>temperatures.
>>
>> Since it has an IC engine, turning it
>> on to charge the batteries while driving
>> should provide the heat or power for
>> climate control.
>>
>The A/C on the volt can run with just the electric engine, IIRC.

Of course, but it reduces the range.

>> The important thing with electric cars
>> will be the quality of the regenerative
>> braking system, which can't be fully
>> implemented now because the capacitors
>> needed are not fully developed in mass
>> production at low cost.
>>
>So why don't they look into magnetic braking?

They have, but the problem isn't in the
technology, it is well developed, the problem
is that a battery can not accept the charge
fast enough, that is why ultra-capacitors
are needed, they can handle higher rates
of charge and discharge.

>It's already in use on several
>of today's roller-coasters and drop towers, very quick and smooth stop. They
>could have a hydraulic brake caliper but one that engages permanant magnetic
>brakes, rather than friction brake pads. Then when the piston retracts, the
>magnetic brakes would also retract. I suppose they'd have to figure out how
>to modulate the magnetic braking so it's not full-on braking all the time
>when the brake pedal was pressed, but that's what engineers are for, to
>figure things out and implement them.
>
>[snip...]

Magnetic brakes are old technology, the
PCC streetcars I drove in 1952 only had
dynamic magnetic braking, there was
more than one motor and during braking,
one motor tried to turn the other backwards.

For the final mile per hour or so stopping,
a heavy steel slab was pushed down against
the rail.


In 1945 I worked servicing electric bakery
trucks, they had old type 6 volt batteries in
series, and were ideal for the stop and go
of house to house delivery in the city.

In 1979 I was interested in a battery
that circulated the electrolyte, and checked
that at the library and found that submarines
used something like that.
The flow batteries of today are different
though, and use newer technology, mostly
for power plant load balancing.

http://revmodo.com/2012/10/09/storing-that-power-flow-batteries/

Maybe a small version of this technology
will be developed for mobile use, if storage
per pound of the system can be improved.

[Gunner]

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 05:21:16 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
wrote:

>>If I have to take someone to one airport, it's a two hour drive at the speed
>>limit. The electric car only gets me 50 miles on a battery charge, correct?
>>But 65 miles per hour * 2 hours means it's a 130 mile trip. That's just the
>>one way mileage. Then I have to go back home. Another two hour drive. The
>>total trip is 260 miles.
>
> How often are you going to do that?

For me to simply go to walmart..is a 80 mile round trip.

Gunner

[Gunner]

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 05:21:16 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
wrote:

> But if an electric car can give twice the
>miles per gallon of the smallest IC equivalent
>car, on average, that is the goal, it means
>we don't have to import oil.

Only if its charged from a power station fed with coal or nuke
generators.

That power has to come from somewhere. Its not pixy dust.

[Gunner]

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 05:21:16 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
wrote:

> You are not being scientific or rational,
>the average person drives between 1,000
>and 1,500 miles per month, that is 35 to
>50 miles per day, and that is the numbers
>used to design the range of an electric car.

Average Americans drive between 13k and 17k a year

[Dave Head]

On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 21:35:56 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
wrote:

It might also be the person that wants to pay a small fraction of what
it costs to fuel a gasoline engine to do the same thing. Electricity
as a fuel is _much_ cheaper.

[emoneyjoe]

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 05:16:12 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 05:21:16 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>If I have to take someone to one airport, it's a two hour drive at the speed
>>>limit. The electric car only gets me 50 miles on a battery charge, correct?
>>>But 65 miles per hour * 2 hours means it's a 130 mile trip. That's just the
>>>one way mileage. Then I have to go back home. Another two hour drive. The
>>>total trip is 260 miles.
>>
>> How often are you going to do that?
>
>
>For me to simply go to walmart..is a 80 mile round trip.
>
>Gunner

You have the vehicle you need, if
you can afford the gas.

A multi-fuel adapter for cng or propane
might help on fuel costs, but apparently
some states make the installation too
expensive so they don't lose the gasoline
tax.

[emoneyjoe]

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 05:17:33 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 05:21:16 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:
>
>> But if an electric car can give twice the
>>miles per gallon of the smallest IC equivalent
>>car, on average, that is the goal, it means
>>we don't have to import oil.
>
>Only if its charged from a power station fed with coal or nuke
>generators.

Or hydro.

>That power has to come from somewhere. Its not pixy dust.
>
>Gunner

At night, there is more than 50%
capacity available, and while coal may
release about the same CO2 as gasoline
or diesel, at least less oil has to be imported.

The v/8 engine is a dog at low RPM,
and figure the BTU per hour at 60 MPH,
it is enough to heat 8 or 10 houses in
winter.

Most drivers that spend a lot of time
in the car sit in traffic a lot, and that is
where electrics do best, the Prius ads
claim higher MPG in city than highway
driving.

440 volt 3-phase is bound to become
the most used auto motor soon, my
model flying car has two ducted fans
rated 22 volts, 50 amps, and are 3-phase
brushless motors giving a max 1800 RPM
per volt (with variable frequency speed
controllers).

Solid State motor controllers for 3-phase
can vary frequency and provide the optimum
torque and speed, resulting in a much more
efficient drive train.
Anybody that knows 3-phase AC should
study interlocks and other safety devices
for high voltage DC before attempting any
installation or servicing electric cars, the
danger of shock and arcing is considerable.

[emoneyjoe]

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 05:18:21 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 05:21:16 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:
>
>> You are not being scientific or rational,
>>the average person drives between 1,000
>>and 1,500 miles per month, that is 35 to
>>50 miles per day, and that is the numbers
>>used to design the range of an electric car.
>
>
>Average Americans drive between 13k and 17k a year

That's what I said. :-)


1,000 x 12 = 12000
1,500 x 12 = 18000


My average is about 600 a month,
that brings the average down. :-)

I don't drive on major freeways any
more, the average driver needs to take
a physics course to learn what the limits
are to keep from losing control.

[Gunner]

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 14:57:39 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>

wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 05:17:33 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 05:21:16 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> But if an electric car can give twice the
>>>miles per gallon of the smallest IC equivalent
>>>car, on average, that is the goal, it means
>>>we don't have to import oil.
>>
>>Only if its charged from a power station fed with coal or nuke
>>generators.
>
> Or hydro.

We are currently at the limit for the hydro we can get, unless we
start another CCC program and put up a bunch more dams. Seriously.

Considerable would be an understatement.

DC is a true killer, even under 90 volts.

[Gunner]

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 15:02:31 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>

Oddly enough, here in California..we have something like 3 million
people on the roadway at the same time. And very very few wrecks of
any type.

Folks who grow up behind the wheel tend to be satisfactory drivers.

I shudder when I have to leave California for other states. Some of
those have left me in cold sweat for days.

Gunner

[emoneyjoe]

Most hybrids have the IC running all
the time. It wouldn't make sense to
try to design a car with 5 times as much
battery capacity, any hills at all would
mean each extra 60 miles would need
more than the base battery unit.

The Volt actually can be viable with
80% of US drivers if they can charge at
work, without ever buying gasoline.
And can travel coast to coast on
gasoline. Not running the battery
below 50% greatly extends battery life.

[Daniel W. Rouse Jr.]

"Dave Head" <rall...@att.net> wrote in message

news:ngli98t6m6h8iqbr4...@4ax.com...
[snip...]

> It might also be the person that wants to pay a small fraction of what
> it costs to fuel a gasoline engine to do the same thing. Electricity
> as a fuel is _much_ cheaper.
>

It is now, but you haven't even considered the possibility of Shell
Electricity, Chevron/Texaco Electricity, ARCO (BP) Electricity, etc. if
electric cars actually went mainstream? One of the first E85 gas stations
that opened was a Shell and that was when E85 wasn't even proven yet, just
the first FlexFuel vehicles were becoming available.

Furthermore, you don't think the power companies (e.g., Sempra, Edison)
aren't going to raise rates more than they already do if *everyone* is
charging their electric car.

Look towards the future--the electric car is a big opportunity cost no
matter how its analyzed.

[pyotr filipivich]

Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com> on Tue, 06 Nov 2012 12:45:06 -0800 typed
in misc.survivalism the following:

>On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 14:57:39 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 05:17:33 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 05:21:16 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> But if an electric car can give twice the
>>>>miles per gallon of the smallest IC equivalent
>>>>car, on average, that is the goal, it means
>>>>we don't have to import oil.
>>>
>>>Only if its charged from a power station fed with coal or nuke
>>>generators.
>>
>> Or hydro.
>
>We are currently at the limit for the hydro we can get, unless we
>start another CCC program and put up a bunch more dams. Seriously.

If we decided to add another dam, right now, it would be at least
a decade before all the environmental "studies" had paid off the
Greenies to get permission to actually start make electricity.

>>
>>>That power has to come from somewhere. Its not pixy dust.

But greenies seem to believe that it does. Or maybe it comes from
unicorn farts.
--
pyotr filipivich
Most journalists these days couldn't investigate a missing chocolate cake
at a pre-school without a Democrat office holder telling them what to look for,
where, and why it is Geroge Bush's fault.

[emoneyjoe]

I have been shocked by 110 AC many times,
but I don't like the idea of DC.

I don't know what kind of interlocks the
cars have, I would prefer a battery box cover
disconnect every battery when opened.

The high voltage is needed to allow
using smaller wire for windings even though
it increases the danger. I don't know what
the motor voltage was on the electric bakery
trucks I worked on in 1945.

[emoneyjoe]

Come to think of it, I don't remember
seeing a single accident in the two years
I lived in Pasadena in 1964-65.


But cars running into buildings is
a common thing now.

[emoneyjoe]

Electric use at night is a winner for power
plants, they will encourage it and give price
breaks.

But even if 20% of production becomes
electric, it will take 20 or 30 years to make
a big difference.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <q1qi98l2n7a6br50v...@4ax.com>,

If you are running 3-phase, you are running AC, not DC, which batteries
furnish. If running off batteries, you have to provide a DC/3phAC
converter of significant amperage -- not cheap.

[Harry K]

On Nov 6, 10:27 am, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 21:35:56 -0500, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 22:47:48 -0700, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."

> ><dwrous...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>
> >>"Dave Head" <rally...@att.net> wrote in message

> >>news:rmp498t5b70qrb7ks...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:31:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>

> >>>>On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:59:50 -0500, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com>

Youwould have to put on an amazing amount of miles to pay back for the
high
cost to buy one not to speak of battery replacements.

Harry K

[Harry K]

On Nov 6, 11:58 am, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 05:17:33 -0800, Gunner <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 05:21:16 -0500, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com>

> >wrote:
>
> >>      But if an electric car can give twice the
> >>miles per gallon of the smallest IC equivalent
> >>car, on average, that is the goal, it means
> >>we don't have to import oil.
>
> >Only if its charged from a power station fed with coal or nuke
> >generators.
>
>       Or hydro.
>
> >That power has to come from somewhere. Its not pixy dust.
>
> >Gunner
>
>       At night, there is more than 50%
> capacity available, and while coal may
> release about the same CO2 as gasoline
> or diesel, at least less oil has to be imported.

??? We are currently an oil _exporter_.

<snip>
Harry K

[emoneyjoe]

The model runs on batteries, I haven't
bought the flight batteries yet, I have been
using a 12 volt car battery while building.

The Electronic Speed Controllers cost
less than $100 each, I bought the motors
and speed controllers from the same
source for about $200.

The speed controllers for model
aircraft are a little different than the
ones for model cars because of the
lack of need for brakes, and RPM
differences.

>If running off batteries, you have to provide a DC/3phAC
>converter of significant amperage -- not cheap.

About 50 or 60 amps for the model,
for electric cars it might be 2 or 3 thousand,
maybe less as more are sold.
If I was younger, I would have converted
one of my cars to electric.


I am not sure I would call the model
controller output as AC, it is more like
pulsating DC, switched to the three
windings to mimmick AC, others might
call it AC.

But the motors are AC 3-phase,
and rotation direction is changed just
like industrial AC 3-phase motors,
switching any two wires.


The Volt has been under test
for a long time, I thought the drive
train design was supposed to be
used on a number of models, but
I haven't kept up with developments.

I do expect to see new battery
technology greatly improved, but
so far there have been a couple
of disappointments.

I bought a couple of 7.4 volt
lithium polymer batteries to get
used to handling and charging
them, and found they have more
problems than I expected, the
swelling of the case if abused is
a real problem, the sample ones
I bought seem to vent a gas, at
least I think I smell something
when I try to use them, but maybe
that is why they were on sale cheap.

Lithium Polymer batteries have
3.7 volts per cell, I need 6 cell
batteries for the model to get
22 volts, and each motor needs
about 50 or 60 amps.

[Ashton Crusher]

For some reason you seem to think the design goal for electric cars
ought to be for the small minority of people who don't drive a typical
commute. You're position makes no sense. You may as well argue the
volt is no good because it won't replace the 1% of the Van market that
drives between major cities as bus service.

[Daniel W. Rouse Jr.]

"Ashton Crusher" <de...@moore.net> wrote in message
news:0l0k98dtc67ru9ehq...@4ax.com...

[snip...]

> For some reason you seem to think the design goal for electric cars
> ought to be for the small minority of people who don't drive a typical
> commute. You're position makes no sense. You may as well argue the
> volt is no good because it won't replace the 1% of the Van market that
> drives between major cities as bus service.

Clearly, you do not understand, like I do, that the goal of the electric car
is to be someone's secondary vehicle as it is unsuitable for even the
occasional long commute with its limited battery life. Not to mention, the
locations of charging stations are few and far between, also limited in
number. In some cases, the charger plugs are of an older design and not even
compatible with the Volt.

[Gunner]

So a Mini Cooper would be a much better thing to buy then?

[Jmmy B]

In article <C5mdnesA6ulXmQfN...@nethere.com>,
dwro...@nethere.comNOSPAM says...

Understand like you do?
What in the name of God are you talking about?
The Volt is a plug-in hybrid, not an "electric car."
It includes an ICE.
You don't even know the basics.
The Volt is intended primarily for short commuting if you want to drive
on electricity only, but can be driven on long commutes or even cross-
country, without the fear of getting stranded that real "electric cars"
suffer from.
Because it includes an ICE.
From what you said it's clear as day you don't understand this.
Some Volt owners do daily commutes past the battery range.
That's why it leaves the Nissan Leaf in the dust for sales.
The Nissan Leaf is a real "electric car."
No ICE.
If you had a garage with electricity, and did a little reading, maybe
you could figure out how it all works.
Stop listening to dummies like Harry K and gonner or you'll just catch
dumb from them. Bad stuff, dumb. Makes you twitch a lot and soil your
pantaloonies. Harry K and gonner can fill you in on that, but otherwise
don't pay any attention to them.

[Gunner]

On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 03:23:39 -0600, Jmmy B <jim...@yafoo.com> wrote:

>Some Volt owners do daily commutes past the battery range.
>That's why it leaves the Nissan Leaf in the dust for sales.

So the Volt is a real seller eh?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2012/09/19/notwithstanding-gms-protests-no-one-wants-the-chevy-volt/

9/19/2012 @ 10:59AM |7,353 views
Notwithstanding GM's Protests, No One Wants The Chevy Volt
+ Comment now
DETROIT- NOVEMBER 30: A General Motors Chevrol...

DETROIT: A General Motors Chevrolet Volt goes through assembly line.
(Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

After Reuters’ claim that GM was losing $49,000 per vehicle on the
Chevy Volt, former GM CEO (and Volt developer) Bob Lutz came to its
spirited defense at Forbes.com with an article titled “The Real Story
on GM’s Volt Costs”. One of the things he didn’t specifically address
was sales.

Not to put too fine a point on it, for the umpteenth time concerning
the Volt, GM is playing fast and lose with the facts.

GM is giving away rent-a-Volts. While the claim of 2800+ sales in
August is certainly enough to still the Volt’s critics, at least until
Election Day (which is all that really matters to the current
management), that number is an automotive Potemkin Village, concealing
enough rot to make any czar, car or otherwise, proud.

With additional subsidies from GM (that would be you and me),
Chevrolet dealers in August were offering two-year Volt leases for as
little as $250 down and $199/month. Fully 2/3s of the “sales” were
leases, leaving around 925 cars that were truly sold. Prior to the
giveaway leases, GM says that 40% of 2012 sales were also leases. The
number remains the same—an average of about 925 cars really sold each
month for this year.

Automotive News recently reported that the feds have purchased 182
Volts so far in 2012. Now we’re down to 900 real sales per month..
Corporate (fleet) sales are conservatively estimated at 5% of the
total, putting the consumer number closer to 850.

Don’t forget that the Department of Defense has committed to buying
1,500 of these wallet-hogs. These aren’t combat vehicles and will no
doubt largely wind up in some Colonel’s driveway.

There are enough scams here to satisfy a Chicago politician. The
giveaway lease cars are initially bought by dealerships at cost, which
Bob Lutz says is $37,000. Then they pocket an additional $7,500—the
Volt subsidy that Obama proposes raising to $10,000—paid by you and
me.

Two years later they get the car back. Given the ridiculous lease
terms, there’s probably a pretty low limit on the free mileage, say,
around 20,000. Now there’s a low-mileage used Volt out there that
they can probably sell for $34,000 (a price lower than the average new
one minus the subsidy) So each dealer makes a hefty $5,000 in lease
fees, $7,500 in our money, and an unknown (lowball: $3,000)
“incentive” from GM for the giveaway lease that’s matched by the lower
price for the resale car. That’s $12,500 per car. Not a bad margin,
and with good PR to boot.

Because the leased vehicles are counted as “sales”, that’s pretty
much like stating that every vehicle in a dealer’s inventory—which
they have paid for—is “sold”, or that people who rent property
actually own it.

The military sales are particularly galling. If they want a small car
that doesn’t use much gas, they could buy two Cheverolet Cruzes (same
frame as the Volt, seats one more) per Volt. In a remarkable slap at
fiscal conservatives, Andrews Air Force Base just purchased 18,
probably to be parked somewhere near Air Force-1.

The good news is that there is no chance that the military can ever
claim that there’s no fat in their budget when they are about to plunk
down—estimate—about six million dollars for cars that no one else
really wants.

Here’s the sorry bottom line. Volt sales to individuals are really
running around 10,000 per year. Given a smaller number of leases and
fleet sales last year, this is pretty much what GM should have gotten
if there weren’t supply problems in the first half of 2011.

The fact is that no one wants this car and the government is goosing
sales by giving them away as short-term leases and purchasing them for
officers to tool around in. Meanwhile, the dealers make a
killing—largely on the taxpayer’s dime.

[Jimmy B]

In article <pkck989recppvhtul...@4ax.com>,
gunne...@gmail.com says...

>
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 03:23:39 -0600, Jmmy B <jim...@yafoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Some Volt owners do daily commutes past the battery range.
> >That's why it leaves the Nissan Leaf in the dust for sales.
>
>
> So the Volt is a real seller eh?
>

Volt sales leaves Leaf sales in the dust. No way around it.
That old September link you posted was probably an old anti-Obama ad.
Don't believe a word of it is my advice. Just politics. Mentioned the
election, not normal for car business writers.
Looks like it didn't work. I heard Obama won.
Your sniveling will go on, so get yourself some tissues for your schnoz.

Here's the real current sales skinny showing how Volt and Leaf compare.
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/11/06/chevy-volt-broke-its-own-sales-
record-and-leaf-sales-soared-in-october/

This shows how Ford, Honda, and Toyota are jumping aboard the Volt plug-
in hybrid bandwagon. Also other info for dummies like you.
Explains "range-anxiety."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-57527745/chevy-volt-sales-race-
ahead-of-nissan-leaf/

BTW, none of these car companies care much about getting your business.
But they'll take your money - if you got some.
Doubtful for a Usenet bum like you.
Done with you now - because you're creepy. So I'm ignoring you from
here on out.

[emoneyjoe]

I don't agree with the "Volt plug-in hybrid"
term, the Volt is an electric car with an option
to use gasoline on long trips, this is the best
type of vehicle, not as complex as some of
the hybrids.

People without a driveway can't use
an electric car, and most apartment
dwellers can't either, so that reduces
the number of possible buyers.

The price is a big problem, the
number of people that buy a new
car at all is very limited.
But people who live in upscale
apartments with big garages will
appreciate not having exhaust
fumes, and a lot of people like
a quiet car.

I don't understand anybody
not liking a car enough to even
bother saying so, it is not a van,
it is not a truck, and it gets good
gas mileage. Some people do
buy vehicles in that price range
even if not electric or hybrid.

I would prefer the batteries
to be in the front or back, easy
to get at, and I would prefer
two smaller generators at the
back, but the sales department
is thinking more for the average
public, not the mechanics or
after-warranty servicing.

Having an electric car after
an event with long term power
outages has to be an advantage,
and if the gas savings is 20 cents
per mile, after 100,000 miles,
that helps.

All of the electric cars are
designed with the idea that
batteries will become better
and cheaper, which is taking
longer than anticipated.

A lot of cars do not sell
more than 10,000 units a
year, and federal regulations
do cause some costly attempts
at fuel savings, but the idea
of an electric with an on-board
generator is the best possible.

[Sancho Panza]

That can't be net.

[Ashton Crusher]

No, you do not understand, it is in no way unsuitable for the
occasional long commute, that's why it's NOT pure electric, it HAS an
engine. You people seem determined to remain stupid on this issue.

[Ashton Crusher]

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 09:05:15 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
wrote:

As the railroads figured out back in the 40's.

[emoneyjoe]

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 10:42:10 -0700, Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net>
wrote:

I wanted to check to see how the
drive train works, and while it has a
pure electric mode, it may be a hybrid,
a lot of mis-information to check though.

[emoneyjoe]

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 10:44:58 -0700, Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net>
wrote:

I think the trains are simple
motor generator sets with the
diesel turning the generator,
with no batteries.

For a car, that would be ok
too except for acceleration,
which happens way too often
in city driving, making batteries
and regenerative braking very
necessary to get efficiency.

I am beginning to think
that no car is designed as
I would like, with _NO_
mechanical connection
between the drive train
and the ICE, but with a
small ICE generator set
and a larger ICE generator
set, the IC engines only
running to keep the
batteries above 50% charge.

[Gunner]

Yes it was.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-29/u-s-was-net-oil-product-exporter-in-2011.html



Gunner

[Gunner]

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 10:42:10 -0700, Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net>
wrote:

No..you are in denial. Its a gasoline powered motor vehicle except for
very short trips.

It costs a shitload of money, uses toxic technologies and is a net
loser.

While it is interesting technology..its no where near ready for prime
time..and will not likely be for decades. The Stanley Steamer would
have been a far better direction to go.

The Volt is like Photovoltaic power. Expensive as hell, has a payback
in generations and of little use to anyone but a very small number of
people.

[emoneyjoe]

Compared to what........

http://autos.aol.com/used-list/make1-Nissan/model1-Leaf/

[Gunner]

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 16:14:33 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>

Ah...no. Compared to a non electric vehicle

http://autos.aol.com/mini-cooper+clubman/

Gunner

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
""The Democratic constituency is just like a herd of cows. All you have
to do is lay out enough silage and they come running. That’s why I
became an operative working with Democrats. With Democrats all you
have to do is make a lot of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to
use the ole cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd.

Eighty percent of the people who call themselves Democrats don’t have
a clue as to political reality.
What amazes me is that you could take a group of people who are hard
workers and convince them that they should support social programs
that were the exact opposite of their own personal convictions. Put a
little fear here and there and you can get people to vote any way you
want.

The voter is basically dumb and lazy. The reason I became a Democratic
operative instead of a Republican was because there were more
Democrats that didn’t have a clue than there were Republicans."
James Carvell, DNC operative

[emoneyjoe]

Sorry, I was thinking of automobiles. :-)

[Sancho Panza]

Oh, an aberrational one-year spike. Tks.

[Gunner]

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 17:56:48 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>

Then you werent thinking of the Volt. Perhaps a wind up car or
something fits your definition?

btw...ever drive a mini cooper? Fun as hell. Fast and a little drag
racer.

[emoneyjoe]

Right, "Slotcar".

>btw...ever drive a mini cooper? Fun as hell. Fast and a little drag
>racer.
>
>Gunner

No, but I think my 1949 Roadmaster
convertible would have outrun it.

I drove an MG in 1952 once, that
was enough for me, and I made the
mistake of buying a 1979 Alfa Romeo
4-door rally car in 2007, and got rid
of that as quick as I could.

My idea of a car is 4500 pounds +.

[Gunner]

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 21:36:19 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>

Seriously..the mini Cooper is a kickass little car with balls and its
virtually impossible to flip over. Driving one is like being on teflon
velcro....chuckle

Women here in So Cal love em. Go really fast and are glued to the
road.

[Harry K]

On Nov 7, 6:36 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 17:02:08 -0800, Gunner <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 17:56:48 -0500, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 13:50:07 -0800, Gunner <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 16:14:33 -0500, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com>
> >>>wrote:

<snip>

>
> >>>>         Compared to what........
>
> >>>>http://autos.aol.com/used-list/make1-Nissan/model1-Leaf/
>
> >>>Ah...no. Compared to a non electric vehicle
>
> >>>http://autos.aol.com/mini-cooper+clubman/
>
> >>>Gunner
>
> >>        Sorry, I was thinking of automobiles.   :-)
>
> >Then you werent thinking of the Volt. Perhaps a wind up car or
> >something fits your definition?
>
>       Right, "Slotcar".
>
> >btw...ever drive a mini cooper?  Fun as hell. Fast and a little drag
> >racer.
>
> >Gunner
>
>        No, but I think my 1949 Roadmaster
> convertible would have outrun it.
>

Possibly as long as the track was in a straight line and give you 2
miles to get it up to the speed the mini would be at in a 1/4 mile.

Two different experiences, one fun to drive, the other boring to drive
but comfortable to cruise in.

>         I drove an MG in 1952 once, that
> was enough for me, and I made the
> mistake of buying a 1979 Alfa Romeo
> 4-door rally car in 2007, and got rid
> of that as quick as I could.
>
>       My idea of a car is 4500 pounds +.

So why are you pushign a dog of a hybrid?

Harry K

[emoneyjoe]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 22:50:19 -0800, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
<dwro...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:

>"Ashton Crusher" <de...@moore.net> wrote in message
>news:0l0k98dtc67ru9ehq...@4ax.com...
>
>[snip...]
>
>> For some reason you seem to think the design goal for electric cars
>> ought to be for the small minority of people who don't drive a typical
>> commute. You're position makes no sense. You may as well argue the
>> volt is no good because it won't replace the 1% of the Van market that
>> drives between major cities as bus service.
>
>Clearly, you do not understand, like I do, that the goal of the electric car
>is to be someone's secondary vehicle as it is unsuitable for even the
>occasional long commute with its limited battery life.

Do you own oil stock? :-)

>Not to mention, the
>locations of charging stations are few and far between, also limited in
>number. In some cases, the charger plugs are of an older design and not even
>compatible with the Volt.

No electric car was ever intended to use
electric on long(er) trips.

The Volt was designed to be useful
for 90 percent of driver/owners, the IC
engine is plenty big enough so that a
long trip would be no different than in
a gasoline car.


I don't know a lot about the Volt,
but I like it better than a Prius or the
Prius plug-in, both of which have a
very complex drive train.

I actually think the IC engine on
the Volt is too large, but to be useful
all across the US, it probably is needed.

I would prefer multiple motors that
drive separate wheels, with at least
two on-board generators.
It is not that electricity is cheaper
or more efficient than gasoline, the
issue is that to have a single IC
engine that can provide desired
acceleration, it has to be sized
ten times the size needed for
highway driving.

There are a couple of types
of mobile power that haven't
been talked about much, like
multiple IC engines, a smaller
one for highway, and a larger
one for acceleration and hills.
Or for buses and trucks,
a small steam engine burning
any fuel, running a generator
to charge batteries and supply
power while driving.
It is the application of the
energy without waste that can
make a vehicle efficient, and
that is essentially all hybrids
try to do.


So your apparent classification
of electric mobile power seems to
assume something different than
what I wrote above.

[Harry K]

On Nov 8, 1:32 am, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 22:50:19 -0800, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
>

> <dwrous...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> >"Ashton Crusher" <d...@moore.net> wrote in message

> >news:0l0k98dtc67ru9ehq...@4ax.com...
>
> >[snip...]
>
> >> For some reason you seem to think the design goal for electric cars
> >> ought to be for the small minority of people who don't drive a typical
> >> commute.  You're position makes no sense.  You may as well argue the
> >> volt is no good because it won't replace the 1% of the Van market that
> >> drives between major cities as bus service.
>
> >Clearly, you do not understand, like I do, that the goal of the electric car
> >is to be someone's secondary vehicle as it is unsuitable for even the
> >occasional long commute with its limited battery life.
>
>        Do you own oil stock?   :-)
>
> >Not to mention, the
> >locations of charging stations are few and far between, also limited in
> >number. In some cases, the charger plugs are of an older design and not even
> >compatible with the Volt.
>
>       No electric car was ever intended to use
> electric on long(er) trips.
>
>       The Volt was designed to be useful
> for 90 percent of driver/owners, the IC
> engine is plenty big enough so that a
> long trip would be no different than in
> a gasoline car.
>

Really? Take a hundred mile trip in a volt or a chev malibu. Which
would you choose?
Someone up thread posted that as far as the cost to buy goes, people
spend that much money buying regular cars - true, the difference being
that the regular car it will be a full size loaded with creature
comforts while the volt has almost no "goodies" and is about half the
size.

Volt is useful for _some_ poeple as an only car and for some people as
a 2nd car. It is not even close o being useful for, what was it?, 90%
of poeple.

Harry K

<snip>

[Gene]

"Harry K" <tur...@q.com> wrote in message
news:ae006fad-80b5-448b...@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

********************************

Pulled straight out of the ass of the Bureau of Madeup Statistics.

[Ashton Crusher]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 13:07:10 -0600, "Gene" <gene....@home.com>
wrote:

>"Harry K" <tur...@q.com> wrote in message
>news:ae006fad-80b5-448b...@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>On Nov 8, 1:32 am, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
>Volt is useful for _some_ poeple as an only car and for some people as
>a 2nd car. It is not even close o being useful for, what was it?, 90%
>of poeple.
>
>Harry K
>********************************
>

Really? So if the only car people could buy was a Volt, tell us how
that 90% of the people would somehow not be able to do the same thing
in a volt?

[Gunner]

On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 14:04:38 -0700, Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net>
wrote:

You must be an urban dweller..arent you.?

[Harry K]

On Nov 8, 11:07 am, "Gene" <gene.e.y...@home.com> wrote:
> "Harry K" <turn...@q.com> wrote in message

The only statistic in that post wasn't even mine, it is a quote from
someone elses post. But then I don't expect you to be able to read for
comprehkension.

Harry K

[Harry K]

On Nov 8, 1:04 pm, Ashton Crusher <d...@moore.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 13:07:10 -0600, "Gene" <gene.e.y...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Harry K" <turn...@q.com> wrote in message

> >news:ae006fad-80b5-448b...@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> >On Nov 8, 1:32 am, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
> >Volt is useful for _some_ poeple as an only car and for some people as
> >a 2nd car.  It is not even close o being useful for, what was it?, 90%
> >of poeple.
>
> >Harry K
> >********************************
>
> Really?  So if the only car people could buy was a Volt, tell us how
> that  90% of the people would somehow not be able to do the same thing
> in a volt?

Being able to do something and doing it _willingly_ are two different
things. Most dthings couild probably done by horse and buggy but I'll
bet you won't try it.

Harry K

[Harry K]

On Nov 8, 1:31 pm, Gunner <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 14:04:38 -0700, Ashton Crusher <d...@moore.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 13:07:10 -0600, "Gene" <gene.e.y...@home.com>
> >wrote:
>

> >>"Harry K" <turn...@q.com> wrote in message

Probably lives within bicycle distance of 90% of his trips but doesn't
use one.

Odd how people on hobby horses can't see the forest for the trees. He
reminds me of the infamous "News" and his amazing air car.

Harry K

[Gene]

"Harry K" <tur...@q.com> wrote in message

news:cbf086b6-9a16-40ed...@b9g2000pba.googlegroups.com...

***********************

Let's see, you didn't reference your above "quoted percentage"
to anyone, nor did I attribute my remarks to you and yet it's
somehow MY error? You're clearly a certifiable mental case.

[Gene]

"Harry K" <tur...@q.com> wrote in message

news:cbf086b6-9a16-40ed...@b9g2000pba.googlegroups.com...

[Gunner]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 05:21:10 -0600, "Gene" <gene....@home.com>
wrote:

Say..speaking of percentage....


Turns out that a flip of 179,000 votes in four states, and Romney
would have won.

"AP�s exit poll data showing 42% of those polled reported being
positively influenced to vote for Obama based on his purported stellar
handling of the emergency response to the storm,... "

"Because this U.S. presidential election was a two person race, a
takeaway by one candidate from another represents a two vote swing.
Accordingly, if somewhere in the order of 26,000 Floridians, out of
8.3 million, decided that they were changing their vote from Romney to
Obama based on his supposed �heckuva job� in relation to the storm
response, those voters alone decided Florida�s 29 electoral votes.
Given the AP exit poll and its 42% figure for those who claimed the
storm influenced their decision to vote for Obama, it�s safe to say
that Superstorm Sandy threw far more than 26,000 voters into Obama�s
column and out of Romney�s.

The same argument can be made in Ohio. 5.3 million votes cast, margin
of victory: 103,000. If the storm flipped about 52,000 votes or more
from Romney to Obama, then no storm meant Ohio would have been a
Romney win on election day.

In Virginia, 3.7 million votes cast, margin of victory: 107,000. If
the storm influenced 54,000 voters or more to abandon Romney for
Obama, the storm was decisive in converting a Romney win in Virginia
to an Obama win.

In Colorado, nearly 2.4 million votes cast, margin of victory:
113,000. If 57,000 voters or more moved from the Romney camp to the
Obama camp based on the storm, then Obama doesn�t win the state if the
storm never happens."

State total Margin Margin percent
Florida 8,300,000 52,000 0.63%
Ohio 5,300,000 103,000 1.94%
Virginia 3,700,000 107,000 2.89%
Colorado 2,400,000 113,000 4.71%
totals 19,700,000 375,000 1.90%

It was a squeaker, and Barry should be thanking Sandy and Chris
Christie for the photo-op.

And Christie can kiss his chances at higher office goodbye. At least
from the Republican side of the house."

Now...once the voter fraud has been addressed...it may leave the
Nation with some serious issues to resolve. If discovered voter fraud
overturns the election...whatever will we do?

<VBG>

[Gene]

"Gunner" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:sksp98120gkj7eaqs...@4ax.com...
> Say..speaking of percentage....

Speaking of things that have nothing whatsoever to do
with one another ...

> Turns out that a flip of 179,000 votes in four states, and Romney
> would have won.

And IF my Aunt had balls she'd be my Uncle.

> "AP's exit poll data showing 42% of those polled reported being
> positively influenced to vote for Obama based on his purported stellar
> handling of the emergency response to the storm,... "

Purported? By whom? Oh, now I remember, Christie,
the guy who endorsed Romney

We elect Presidents in this country by state representation
via the Electoral College. Obama 332, Romney 206, doesn't
sound remotely close to anyone possessing assessment skills.

> And Christie can kiss his chances at higher office goodbye. At least
> from the Republican side of the house."

Hope so.

> Now...once the voter fraud has been addressed...it may leave the
> Nation with some serious issues to resolve. If discovered voter fraud
> overturns the election...whatever will we do?
>
> <VBG>
> --
> ""The Democratic constituency is just like a herd of cows. All you have
> to do is lay out enough silage and they come running. That's why I
> became an operative working with Democrats. With Democrats all you
> have to do is make a lot of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to
> use the ole cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd.
>
> Eighty percent of the people who call themselves Democrats don't have
> a clue as to political reality.
> What amazes me is that you could take a group of people who are hard
> workers and convince them that they should support social programs
> that were the exact opposite of their own personal convictions. Put a
> little fear here and there and you can get people to vote any way you
> want.
>
> The voter is basically dumb and lazy. The reason I became a Democratic
> operative instead of a Republican was because there were more
> Democrats that didn't have a clue than there were Republicans."
> James Carvell, DNC operative

That you haplessly and hopelessly continue to reference
a non-existent "quote", discredited by your own brethren,
speaks volumes about your character, veractity, credibility ...

[Gene]

"Gunner" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:sksp98120gkj7eaqs...@4ax.com...
> Say..speaking of percentage....

Speaking of things that have nothing whatsoever to do
with one another ...

> Turns out that a flip of 179,000 votes in four states, and Romney
> would have won.

And IF my Aunt had balls she'd be my Uncle.

> "AP's exit poll data showing 42% of those polled reported being
> positively influenced to vote for Obama based on his purported stellar
> handling of the emergency response to the storm,... "

Purported? By whom? Oh, now I remember, Christie,
the guy who endorsed Romney

We elect Presidents in this country by state representation
via the Electoral College. Obama 332, Romney 206, doesn't
sound remotely close to anyone possessing assessment skills.

> And Christie can kiss his chances at higher office goodbye. At least
> from the Republican side of the house."

Hope so.

> Now...once the voter fraud has been addressed...it may leave the
> Nation with some serious issues to resolve. If discovered voter fraud
> overturns the election...whatever will we do?
>
> <VBG>
> --
> ""The Democratic constituency is just like a herd of cows. All you have
> to do is lay out enough silage and they come running. That's why I
> became an operative working with Democrats. With Democrats all you
> have to do is make a lot of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to
> use the ole cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd.
>
> Eighty percent of the people who call themselves Democrats don't have
> a clue as to political reality.
> What amazes me is that you could take a group of people who are hard
> workers and convince them that they should support social programs
> that were the exact opposite of their own personal convictions. Put a
> little fear here and there and you can get people to vote any way you
> want.
>
> The voter is basically dumb and lazy. The reason I became a Democratic
> operative instead of a Republican was because there were more
> Democrats that didn't have a clue than there were Republicans."
> James Carvell, DNC operative

[Harry K]

On Nov 9, 3:22 am, "Gene" <gene.e.y...@home.com> wrote:
> "Harry K" <turn...@q.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cbf086b6-9a16-40ed...@b9g2000pba.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 8, 11:07 am, "Gene" <gene.e.y...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > "Harry K" <turn...@q.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:ae006fad-80b5-448b...@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 8, 1:32 am, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
> > Volt is useful for _some_ poeple as an only car and for some people as
> > a 2nd car. It is not even close o being useful for, what was it?, 90%
> > of poeple.
>
> > Harry K
> > ********************************
>
> > Pulled straight out of the ass of the Bureau of Madeup Statistics.
>
> The only statistic in that post wasn't even mine, it is a quote from
> someone elses post. But then I don't expect you to be able to read for
> comprehkension.
>
> Harry K
>
> ***********************
>
> Let's see, you didn't reference your above "quoted percentage"
> to anyone, nor did I attribute my remarks to you and yet it's
> somehow MY error? You're clearly a certifiable mental case.

So your "pulled out of ass" comment was not meant for me. Thank you
for correcting my misunderstanding.

BTW: Just who _did_ you "attribute my remarks to" then?

Not very good at this are you?

Harry K

[Harry K]

On Nov 9, 3:23 am, "Gene" <gene.e.y...@home.com> wrote:
> "Harry K" <turn...@q.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cbf086b6-9a16-40ed...@b9g2000pba.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 8, 11:07 am, "Gene" <gene.e.y...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > "Harry K" <turn...@q.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:ae006fad-80b5-448b...@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 8, 1:32 am, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
> > Volt is useful for _some_ poeple as an only car and for some people as
> > a 2nd car. It is not even close o being useful for, what was it?, 90%
> > of poeple.
>
> > Harry K
> > ********************************
>
> > Pulled straight out of the ass of the Bureau of Madeup Statistics.
>
> The only statistic in that post wasn't even mine, it is a quote from
> someone elses post. But then I don't expect you to be able to read for
> comprehkension.
>
> Harry K
>
> ***********************
>
> Let's see, you didn't reference your above "quoted percentage"
> to anyone, nor did I attribute my remarks to you and yet it's
> somehow MY error? You're clearly a certifiable mental case.

You have a short memory? Have to post it twice? seems you have a
memory
problem as well as a comprehension problem.

Harry K

[Gene]

"Harry K" <tur...@q.com> wrote in message

news:707de536-ad3f-4fa7...@uk1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

$ Clearly it must have been directed at the originator of the comment.

BTW: Just who _did_ you "attribute my remarks to" then?

$ See above for an obvious explanation for that which wouldn't
begin to flummox a retarded ten yearr old in a hurry.

Not very good at this are you?

$ Irrespective of the truth of that charge, I've proven quite
conspicuously to be far superior to your feeble attempts.

Harry K