Volt Sleeps With the Fishes

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Stew
Just to point or ounterpoint a few things under 2.

a: this is a good thing as i believe hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are the true future.

Maybe THE future, just not ours. It's far too expensive for the Fuel Cells and getting the hydrogen. You'll see some more in the next 10 years, but they'll make the Volt look cheap.

Imagine an EV but now add a $100,000 or more device that uses hydrogen to power the car and charge the battery rather than simply plugging in an using coal.

This is true, not only will the technology need to come down pricewise, be perfected, and the puclic convinced it is safe and viable, but the whole infrastructure will have to be changed, a very lengthy process for sure, but it has the best chance at being the overall solution as a true renewable resource that doesn't require a major change to status quo' (IE stop, fill er up, good to go).

b: E85 is a good stopgap, but as far as energy production is really not that great and unfortunatly E85 stations are few and far between, still it is a nice capability to have if you access.

E85 was fine as long as it was subsidized. That just ended. Now let's see what happens.

Agreed

c: I would say GM is doing well with active fuel management, but calling them the leader may be a bit of a stretch. Chrysler has been using it in their Hemis since 06, and as far I know Honda is the only one using it with their V6 offerings.

Leader means leader, not ONLY. GM's volume in FST and SUVs alone is wayyyy above Chrysler Hemis or Honda V6s.

Isn't the FST, SUVs, Caprice, and Camaro basically the only ones that currently use it in GMs stable? i would say the Hemis which are offered across a huge range of vehicles (Charger, Challenger, 300, Grand Cherokee, Durango, and Ram), would be very similar to GMs numbers for for active fuel management vehicles.

d. THe hybrid large trucks and SUVs were an interesting idea, but while city mileage was good and a huge boon in the city there was basically little or no real advantage in the hwy MPG.

Which was what GM's point was and all hybrids for that matter. Going slow you can use battery power. Going faster you need regular power. It was, like the Volt, expensive and it took a bad mileage vehicle and made it.................less bad.

Good way to put it lol.

e: Yes, the volt started it, but there are other plug in hybrids here or on the way. There is already a Prius plug in which starts at 32k before tax breaks, mind you the range 15 electric only miles is a lot shorter, but the price is a lot lower. by the ender of the year we will also have others including the 13 Fusion Plug in hybrid.

Plug in Hybrids can not act as an EV. A Prius Hybrid or PHEV can not acclerate hard or go on the highway or climb grades without the engine. The Volt CAN

While this is true, the Prius as an example can go all electric, but for only 15 miles, and only speeds up to 62 MPH, so I do see where the restrictions come in compared to the Volt, on the other hand the roughly 8k pricing difference still hampers the Volts case against it and possibly others. The generally public isn't going to know or really care about the specifics and technology (heck, most don't even know what wheels drive their car LOL) but rather 2 vehicles listed as plug in hybrids and a cheaper and more expensive price. Hopefully rumors of a cheaper Volt coming this summer are true.

f. Eassist really needs to be improved from it's current form. It performs like a 4 cyclinder, not a v6 sorry. Acceleration is smashed by any competing mid size V6 cars. Fuel mileage isn't that great either. While the 13 Malibu Eco can get 37 on the highway, a stock basic 4 cylinder Camry will get 35 and the Camry hybrid and Fusion are into the 40s.....

Now compare the cost of the mild eassist hybrid and those Camry and Fusion Hybrids. Just sayin'. Also check the fuel milage of the 2.5L Malibu when it comes out.

The way it sits now the Eassist Malibu will be 25.995, (price is in the latest Motor Trend with their latest test) with mpg ratings of 25/37, 12 Camry hybrid is 25,900 39/43, kia Optima Hybrid is 35/40 and 25700, Sonata is of course the same and 25850, now the current Fusion is more expensive at 28900, 36/43 mpg, but of course an all new one will be out this fall which is supposed to offer a good bump in mpg, though I wouldn't hold my breath for a price decrease. I hate to say it, but my easy choice right now would be the Camry Hybrid, same price bracket, better MPG, and they are decently quick (7.2 0-60 compared to 8.5 or worse for the rest).

I would guess the 2.5 should at least be within a MPG of the Camry, Sonata, and Optimas 35 MPG rating and probably match it. I do worry about the performance though as the 12 Toyotas went on a diet and the weightloss helps with acceleration, and the Sonatas and Optimas with the base 4 cylinders come with around 200 HP. We will see though.

f. Love the cruze Eco, IMHO cars like the Cruze eco, Elantra, Focus SFE and even the upcoming 40 MPG dart and the biggest detracters from all hybrids. you don't lose much in the way of mileage and save thousands.

Not meaning to argue, just putting some counter points out there for you as someone outside looking in.

Good comments.................and my counters were to your counters.

Good counters to counters are always good. As kind of a side and alternate to what we were talking about, what do you think about the upcoming Cruze diesel? I am looking forward to it and have read that it may be able to get as much as 50 MPG combined! That would sureley be a game changer, even with diesel being more expnsive than regular gasoline.

[BowtieBelle]

Hi, Scott! Hope you're feeling better after adding the new stint to your collection.

*heads back behind the couch to hide and watch again*

[Lou_Dorchen]

Originally Posted by Number 3

1) Industry fact, Prius was not always profitable but it is now generally (yes, only generally) accepted that it is.

2) Where do you get the idea that the Cruze Eco is profitable? Simply selling a lot of something doesn't make it profitable.

The Prius sold very well the moment it his the US market. So even if it initially lost money it had good enough sales to show Toyota it would be profitable. You didn't see Toyota shuttering Prius plants due to low demand. If a car doesn't sell, it wont ever make a profit.


The Cruze is selling so well GM was able to increase prices on the vehicle, thus increasing it's profit margins on the Cruze.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/in..._prices_f.html

[Lou_Dorchen]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Never has doesn't mean never will.

Correct. But the free market will be the one to decide if this ever happens, not Gov't.

Cars replaced horses and buggies. Airplanes replaced ocean liners. Jet engines replaced props. The TV replaced the radio. DVDs replaced VHS tapes. The CD replaced cassettes, and now e-music is replacing CDs. Light bulbs replaced candles. And on and on. And those were all free market driven. And if the electric car ever replaces gas-powered cars it will be for the same reason.

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen

Correct. But the free market will be the one to decide if this ever happens, not Gov't.

Cars replaced horses and buggies. Airplanes replaced ocean liners. Jet engines replaced props. The TV replaced the radio. DVDs replaced VHS tapes. The CD replaced cassettes, and now e-music is replacing CDs. Light bulbs replaced candles. And on and on. And those were all free market driven. And if the electric car ever replaces gas-powered cars it will be for the same reason.

And exactly HOW do you think the airline industry came to be in the first place? Or the interstate highway system?

[Lou_Dorchen]

Originally Posted by Brokinarrow

And exactly HOW do you think the airline industry came to be in the first place? Or the interstate highway system

Pan Am, Delta Air Lines, Trans World Airlines (TWA), and American Airlines all formed in the 1920s-30s and were private ventures. Some early airlines did get Gov't contracts via the Post Office, but I'm not against that at all. One of my earlier posts even said how I believe the Gov't should work with the car makers in terms of purchasing EVs for fleet operations (if they reduce costs, of course) as a way to introduce Americans to the benefits of electric cars.

I was pointing out how airplanes replaced ocean liners as the preferred route for trans Atlantic crossings. Free market forces were the reason, as it became more profitable for companies to fly people and it became cheaper for passengers to fly rather than take an ocean liner. I do know it didn't happen because the Gov't "nudged" people into airplanes.

As to the interstate highway system, it was implemented long after the car had replaced the horse and buggy.

[Unobtainium]

I think the volt is fantastic compared to the Prius. I just don't get the thinking behind electric vehicles. Electricity is not being made from fairy dust folks. Coal-burning plants are rampant. Fossil fuels are used in most cases. Until Nuclear energy is embraced by a very concerned population, the cost is too high to really make it a money-saver too. I think the research is important, but so far the execution is just an exercise in my opinion.

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen

Pan Am, Delta Air Lines, Trans World Airlines (TWA), and American Airlines all formed in the 1920s-30s and were private ventures. Some early airlines did get Gov't contracts via the Post Office, but I'm not against that at all. One of my earlier posts even said how I believe the Gov't should work with the car makers in terms of purchasing EVs for fleet operations (if they reduce costs, of course) as a way to introduce Americans to the benefits of electric cars.

I was pointing out how airplanes replaced ocean liners as the preferred route for trans Atlantic crossings. Free market forces were the reason, as it became more profitable for companies to fly people and it became cheaper for passengers to fly rather than take an ocean liner. I do know it didn't happen because the Gov't "nudged" people into airplanes.

As to the interstate highway system, it was implemented long after the car had replaced the horse and buggy.

The U.S. Post Office established an air mail service in 1919 and played an important role in developing air travel by setting up a nationwide system of airports. In 1925 the U.S. government began paying generous subsidies to private carriers to deliver the mail, and some companies began hauling passengers as well. Many well-known U.S. carriers were established during this period, including Pan Am (founded in 1928; now defunct), United Airlines (created in 1931 by a merger between several older mail carrying operations), American Airlines (created in 1930 out of several mail carriers), TWA (1928; now merged with American), and Delta (1929).

In other words, government funded. The government got the ball rolling, and once it became profitable to do so, private industry took things over. I'm not seeing how this is all that different from what's being done to spur development of electrical vehicles and the tech needed to make them reliable and affordable.

[Lou_Dorchen]

That's not an example of something being Gov't funded, that's an example of Gov't paying private companies to perform a service. That's actually pretty close to what me and Awesome suggested about the Gov't helping get EVs accepted, offering the car companies a carrot if they meet a goal. And that goal is to lower Gov't fleet costs. The Gov't paid the airlines money to perform a service, delivering mail. While delivering the mail they also flew passengers on the same flights, further increasing their profits. Not only did those companies deliver the mail and make profits while doing so, they got Americans used to air travel which opened up an enormous revenue stream for those companies. It was a win-win for both the Gov't and the private sector airlines. EVs have so far been a money loser for car companies despite Gov't incentives, and the Gov't isn't even buying EVs themselves. See the difference?

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen

That's not an example of something being Gov't funded, that's an example of Gov't paying private companies to perform a service. That's actually pretty close to what me and Awesome suggested about the Gov't helping get EVs accepted, offering the car companies a carrot if they meet a goal. And that goal is to lower Gov't fleet costs. The Gov't paid the airlines money to perform a service, delivering mail. While delivering the mail they also flew passengers on the same flights, further increasing their profits. Not only did those companies deliver the mail and make profits while doing so, they got Americans used to air travel which opened up an enormous revenue stream for those companies. It was a win-win for both the Gov't and the private sector airlines. EVs have so far been a money loser for car companies despite Gov't incentives, and the Gov't isn't even buying EVs themselves. See the difference?

You forgot to mention that the Government spun off the airlines to the private sector and it grew and flourished. Airlines compete and some fail and go bankrupt and somehow they are still around and never got a bailout.

The portion of the enterprise (mail) that the government kept control of is a complete disaster.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen

Correct. But the free market will be the one to decide if this ever happens, not Gov't.

Cars replaced horses and buggies. Airplanes replaced ocean liners. Jet engines replaced props. The TV replaced the radio. DVDs replaced VHS tapes. The CD replaced cassettes, and now e-music is replacing CDs. Light bulbs replaced candles. And on and on. And those were all free market driven. And if the electric car ever replaces gas-powered cars it will be for the same reason.

Your comment made me reconsider my position on the government offering prizes... I just heard that the government offered a million dollar prize to the first company to build an affordable "energy efficient" light bulb.

They just awarded the prize to some company who is making an LED light bulb that costs $50. EACH!