Volt rated at 93 MPGe ... and 37 mpg ... and 60 mpg

[1bad65]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

The US government has to pay people to buy hybrids and electrics because they want to import less oil, but they don't have the will to increase gas taxes (political suicide) or drill for more (a short term solution). This is also why they created the CAFE fuel economy standards.

So my point remains. People do not want these stupid electric/hybrid cars in enough volume for them to survive in the free market, and thus the Gov't has to pay people to buy them.

Really, look at successful products: Do we have to be paid by the Gov't to buy IPods? Playstations? Cell Phones? Flat screen TVs? Camaros?

[mickss]

After reading some of the post I can`t help thinking about the discussions people where having in the late 1890`s when the competing technologies for the horseless carriage of that period were electric, steam and internal combustion engines.
In the end the internal combustion engine was the technology of choice and as the 20th century rolled around Henry Ford introduced the first mass produced automobiles in 1907.
The acceptance of the automobile over the horse and buggy at the time was met was jokes and ridicule. The ability to get gas, lack of roads, noise and fumes, mechanical failures where all used as reason the horseless carriage would never replace the horse. People at the time where not ready to accept this form of transportation, they where familiar with horses but this "new fangeled contraption" was a mystery.
People during that period where also making statements much as they are today with their acceptance of the automobile over the horse as they are with their acceptance of electric motors over internal combustion engines. "I will walk before I...., You would have to kill me before I......, ect.
In the end the internal combustion automobile was King of transportation and the horse was relegated to racing and horseback riding and as a footnote in transportation history.
And just as with all things that are new and in development, the electric car will eventually replace gas powered cars. And the gas powered cars will also join the horse as a footnote in transportation history.

For anyone interested, here is decent history of the automobile.
http://www.ausbcomp.com/~bbott/cars/carhist.htm

[motorhead]

Originally Posted by mickss

After reading some of the post I can`t help thinking about the discussions people where having in the late 1890`s when the competing technologies for the horseless carriage of that period were electric, steam and internal combustion engines.
In the end the internal combustion engine was the technology of choice and as the 20th century rolled around Henry Ford introduced the first mass produced automobiles in 1907.
The acceptance of the automobile over the horse and buggy at the time was met was jokes and ridicule. The ability to get gas, lack of roads, noise and fumes, mechanical failures where all used as reason the horseless carriage would never replace the horse. People at the time where not ready to accept this form of transportation, they where familiar with horses but this "new fangeled contraption" was a mystery.
People during that period where also making statements much as they are today with their acceptance of the automobile over the horse as they are with their acceptance of electric motors over internal combustion engines. "I will walk before I...., You would have to kill me before I......, ect.
In the end the internal combustion automobile was King of transportation and the horse was relegated to racing and horseback riding and as a footnote in transportation history.
And just as with all things that are new and in development, the electric car will eventually replace gas powered cars. And the gas powered cars will also join the horse as a footnote in transportation history.

For anyone interested, here is decent history of the automobile.
http://www.ausbcomp.com/~bbott/cars/carhist.htm

I think part of that statement is true. I do believe the days of gas motors are numbered ,but not for a long time yet. I also believe that electric cars are just a stepping stone to what will replace the gas motor.

[el ess A]

Key words are "eventually". Keep in mind as well, cars weren't fully accepted until they became AFFORDABLE for many to buy. Unlike the Volt at it's current price point. The biggest problem is, this isn't a full-blown transportation breakthrough. It's just a different kind of "fuel" of sorts. Roads and infrastructure need not be affected, so it's still not the same lame discussions people in the 1890's had.

I'm all for giving people choices. Just don't forcefully swap one out completely for another and we can all live happy. Let the market demand decide. If half the cars stop using oil, that's twice as much for me.

[chain777]

Did everyone forget that electric cars were very popular in the days of the "horseless carriage"? So to say they're some kind of new technology, and people don't understand them just isn't accurate.

The problem then, and the problem now, to a lesser degree, is that battery technology just isn't there yet. When batteries have about double the capacity and half the weight than they do today, electric vehicles will make a lot more sense. That, or a huge spike in gasoline prices.

As of today, saving money is no reason to buy any kind of electric or hybrid vehicle.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by chain777

Did everyone forget that electric cars were very popular in the days of the "horseless carriage"? So to say they're some kind of new technology, and people don't understand them just isn't accurate.

The problem then, and the problem now, to a lesser degree, is that battery technology just isn't there yet. When batteries have about double the capacity and half the weight than they do today, electric vehicles will make a lot more sense. That, or a huge spike in gasoline prices.

As of today, saving money is no reason to buy any kind of electric or hybrid vehicle.

The market killed the electric engine in the early 1900s.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

GM's increased the planned production volume of the Volt and has been putting $3000 on the hood Corvettes for quite some time. And the production volume for the Corvette has been slashed.

The government has not reason to encourage the sale of Corvettes. While they're among the most efficient sports cars out there, in the grand scheme of things they're not all that efficient.

The US government has to pay people to buy hybrids and electrics because they want to import less oil, but they don't have the will to increase gas taxes (political suicide) or drill for more (a short term solution). This is also why they created the CAFE fuel economy standards.

"Pay" is incorrectly used here. That implies they own the money in question, whereas in reality the credit means they do not take $7500 in taxes.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by motorhead

Look this is fifth grade math we're talking about here. The answer is right on the window sticker of the volt and the fiesta. No matter how people try to work numbers in the volts favor it's not a good purchase. I hate to tell you but electric is going up also and who knows what kind of upkeep this car will require. I based my figures on current data right from the window stickers of both cars, and I did use the volt's the maximum rating by figuring it at full electric which for me and most other folks across the land would never be able to do with it's very limited range on electric only. Look I know we need to come up with other ways of getting around ,but I don't think this is anyway the answer.

The main point isn't that it saves you money. Using alternative sources of energy cost more today than gasoline. I've always said we aren't addicted to energy...............we're addicted to cheap energy.

And although it is 5th grade math you do have to keep reminding people that the Volt has a payback and it's about 8 years, if you are one of the large percentage of people that drive 40 miles or less per day. The window sitcker you refer to is another set of driving conditions. You can elect to NOT use gasoline and for some people today that is worth something. And that is less than 5th grade math.

[King Sun]

Originally Posted by Number 3

The main point isn't that it saves you money. Using alternative sources of energy cost more today than gasoline. I've always said we aren't addicted to energy...............we're addicted to cheap energy.

And although it is 5th grade math you do have to keep reminding people that the Volt has a payback and it's about 8 years, if you are one of the large percentage of people that drive 40 miles or less per day. The window sitcker you refer to is another set of driving conditions. You can elect to NOT use gasoline and for some people today that is worth something. And that is less than 5th grade math.

cold

[DeathChill]

Originally Posted by 1bad65

So my point remains. People do not want these stupid electric/hybrid cars in enough volume for them to survive in the free market, and thus the Gov't has to pay people to buy them.

Really, look at successful products: Do we have to be paid by the Gov't to buy IPods? Playstations? Cell Phones? Flat screen TVs? Camaros?

Playstations were subsidized by Sony because they were too expensive abs almost all cell phones that are bought are subsidized.

[1bad65]

[

Originally Posted by DeathChill

Playstations were subsidized by Sony because they were too expensive abs almost all cell phones that are bought are subsidized.

My question was did the Gov't have to pay people to buy cell phones and Playstations. And Sony makes the Playstations. So how would the manufacturer subsidize their own product?

I'm not sure what you mean by cell phones being subsidized, but if you're referring to them being given away free or at reduced prices for signing long-term provider coverage, that's not being subsidized.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by 1bad65

[

My question was did the Gov't have to pay people to buy cell phones and Playstations. And Sony makes the Playstations. So how would the manufacturer subsidize their own product?

I'm not sure what you mean by cell phones being subsidized, but if you're referring to them being given away free or at reduced prices for signing long-term provider coverage, that's not being subsidized.

Reducing foreign oil consumption is a very big issue that the US government has to address, for security and economic reasons. Increasing personal entertainment or communication isn't.

[1bad65]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Reducing foreign oil consumption is a very big issue that the US government has to address, for security and economic reasons. Increasing personal entertainment or communication isn't.

Well yes, that's an obvious observation.

I still am waiting for someone to answer my question: if people really want these cars, why does the Gov't have to pay people to buy them?

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by 1bad65

Well yes, that's an obvious observation.

I still am waiting for someone to answer my question: if people really want these cars, why does the Gov't have to pay people to buy them?

haven't we already had this debate.... We can't answer your question...

obvioulsy the Prius is a hit... Hybrids are a hit. the green movement is going strong.... Hell you can get a hybrid tahoe...

So there are indicators, but the volt and the leaf require a completely different mind set... we don't know if they will be successful. and the politicians have to look like they care so they offer incentives to buy cars like the leaf and volt becasue it currently aligns with their political position....

other than that I don't know why they have to incentivise a car that should be in demand....

you've made it pretty clear that you think these cars a gonna flop. Time will tell.