The Chevy Volt - Addressing Your Concerns

I happened to be on Capitol Hill (i.e., attending Congressional Hearings) two weeks ago and there was a Chevy Volt on display outside one of the buildings. I stopped to talk with the GM rep and asked to see the motor. He told me the car was actually just a shell and there was not motor in the car we were looking at. We chatted for a couple of moments, and when I talked positively about the Prius he told me, flat out, "Toyota can't sell them." I told him there was a waiting list. He repeated that Toyota doesn't want to sell them I said, "Do you mean, they're losing money." He said, no, they just didn't want to sell them. I asked him when they planned to kill the Volt.

And last week I bought a Prius.

Marc

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(papamarc @ Feb 18 2007, 09:41 AM) [snapback]392350[/snapback]</div>

That's actually true. But the "THEY" he was speaking of is certain dealerships.

Profit from the sale of a Prius is small. More money can be made from the other vehicles they carry. So naturally there less interest in selling them.

To make matters worse, Prius buyers are usually much better informed compared to that of the typical new vehicle buyer. So their old-school sales tactics aren't as effective.

Toyota empowered the consumer with Prius. Some responsible for sales don't like that. Well, too bad. Bring on the smug by pointing out annual sales here of over 100,000 for the previous two years and the hope of increasing that to 150,000 this year.


.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(papamarc @ Feb 18 2007, 09:41 AM) [snapback]392350[/snapback]</div>

Sweet!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Feb 16 2007, 12:48 PM) [snapback]391543[/snapback]</div>

Yes, exactly. GM has produced concept cars at the auto shows before that were never seen again by the public so until the Volt is on dealer lots and people are driving them, I won't take it seriously. Well, and then I'd have to see that there aren't any serious problems with the Volt based on the experiences of customers brave enough to buy them before reliability data can be amassed and the the wave of recalls that GM is famous for and blah blah blah... :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Feb 20 2007, 10:11 AM) [snapback]393368[/snapback]</div>

In 1996 GM showed a parallel hybrid EV1 with a claimed 80mpg. Basically similar specs to the Volt, but with only two seats... and eleven years ago.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonathan Rohr @ Feb 20 2007, 05:18 PM) [snapback]393491[/snapback]</div>

The list below obviously isn't "complete" but it's not a bad inventory of gm concept cars.
http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/A_1970/article.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Feb 20 2007, 04:53 PM) [snapback]393517[/snapback]</div>

Maybe this one from 1992 or so?



With styling of a futuristic minivan, the HX3 concept featured an experimental electric and gasoline hybrid powertrain. Electric motors in the front wheels received current from 32 lead-acid batteries. A three-cylinder gasoline engine stepped in to supplement the electric motors, and at the same time recharge the batteries.

Or this one from AMT in the 1960's?



The nose section is a complete two-passenger unit powered by a turbine-driven alternator which powers two electric motors, one in each of the drive wheels. The rear cabin is an add-on four-passenger compartment which also contains the main power supply which drives the complete unit traveling from city to city.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonathan Rohr @ Feb 20 2007, 04:18 PM) [snapback]393491[/snapback]</div>

Try searching for "GM Precept". It was the year of 2000 when Ford also unveiled Prodigy and DaimlerChrystler ESX3.

Precept was around 1,000 lighter than Volt, much slower and lower range. I saved the SuperCar: The Tanking of an American Dream article from Chicago Tribune which is no longer available. See attachment.

A great link from Popular Mechanics how it was designed. The operation concept was very similar to Prius.... Use electric motor during initial acceleration and kick in the diesel engine when needed. It even had electric AC with engine off! Way ahead of it's time. I guess the project was too ambitious.

Dennis

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonathan Rohr @ Feb 20 2007, 05:18 PM) [snapback]393491[/snapback]</div>

You say "what a shame". Perhaps, in lignt of G.M.'s ongoing B.S. perhaps you meant, "what a sham?" Still waiting for why you feel you are addressing our concerns . . . other than "hey I know this guy, who knows someone on the inside ... " kind of story. Like I said, that's no better than me claiming that, "I know someone that says it's another G.M. hoax"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Feb 20 2007, 08:40 PM) [snapback]393632[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, it all boils down to the truisms that talk is cheap and that actions speak louder than words. I don't really care what GM says any longer. What matters is what they do and so far, they've done nothing but push ethanol so that they can keep on selling gas guzzlers. The Volt sounds great but then again, talk is cheap.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Feb 21 2007, 08:19 AM) [snapback]393854[/snapback]</div>

Well, they did build a concept car. Of course, for GM, the money spent there is probably not even pocket change. I agree though, I want to see the for-sale-to-the-public production car before I believe anything.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Feb 21 2007, 08:33 AM) [snapback]393860[/snapback]</div>

concept cars are still just talk, as far as I'm concerned.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Feb 21 2007, 10:17 AM) [snapback]393902[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, and I'm sure they spent more on E85 CAFE loophoole lobbying than building that concept Volt.

Under the cover of promoting "renewable" energy, the federal government has put into place a loophole in its Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements -- which require the automakers to achieve a "fleet average" of 27.5 mpg for cars and 21.5 mpg for trucks or face so-called "gas-guzzler" taxes that are passed on to the consumer. This loophole distorts the truth about a vehicle's actual mileage capability -- but only if it's a vehicle made to run on either gasoline or a gasoline-ethanol blend known as E85.

Such "flex fuel" vehicles are credited with much higher miles-per-gallon capability than they actually get -- on the theory that when they burn E85 (which contains 85 percent corn alcohol and 15 percent gasoline) they are using less gas. Thus, a full-size, V-8 powered SUV like the GMC Yukon is rated at 33 mpg for CAFE purposes -- higher than the current passenger car CAFE minimum of 27.5 mpg -- when in fact it only gets 15 mpg in city driving and 20 mpg on the highway, according to the EPA (which is just below the 21.5 mpg minimum mileage for trucks and SUVS under current CAFE rules).

The E85 Yukon and vehicles like it get even lower mileage when running on fuels containing large concentrations of ethanol -- since alcohol-based fuels contain less energy per gallon equivalent than straight gasoline.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Feb 21 2007, 10:28 AM) [snapback]393906[/snapback]</div>

Yep, same old GM, same old BS. The only reason ethanol is deemed cost effective is due to the taxpayer-provided subsidies. They get us to pay for producing it and then they get is to pay for it at the pump where we're taxed even more. The government just loves it when they can get us coming and going.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Feb 20 2007, 04:53 PM) [snapback]393517[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for a great link. The concept that strikes me the most is the 1982 Aero 2000. Back in the 80's when all cars were boxes on wheels, GM brings out a concept that actually uses aerodynamic principals. If we would have adopted aerodynamics cars back then just thing of the gasoline savings.



I've also noticed that wheel skirts aren't nearly as ugly if you have them both front and back. I like the symmetry.

 

I want an EV. It's got to be freeway-capable and safe, and it's got to have a 100-mile range or more.

If the Volt is the first one that meets these criteria to arrive at the dealerships, I will buy one. I do not trust GM quality. But I will still buy a Volt if it's the first EV to market.

I will be very surprised if the Volt ever reaches production. I think it's just GM saying they're working on it, for spin and publicity. I don't believe they have any intention of ever selling it. GM is so big and has so many resources, that if they had really intended to bring the Volt to market, they could easily have done so by now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Feb 21 2007, 11:09 AM) [snapback]393978[/snapback]</div>

I agree the symmetry does look better. But it's a tricky proposition having skirts on the fronts. I vaguely remember this concept car and IIRC they said the material on the front skirts was flexible so it would push out when the wheels turned left or right.

 

Any new comments here after the GM backpedal on the Volt?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Mar 23 2007, 10:20 PM) [snapback]411368[/snapback]</div>

Well, we can start calling it "ReVolt" now.... :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Mar 23 2007, 10:20 PM) [snapback]411368[/snapback]</div>

How about "I told you so."? (That's a general, collective "you," not you, Darell.)

But here's the proof that the whole thing was a scam in the first place: The Chevy Volt was never supposed to be an EV. It was a plug-in hybrid. Supposedly with a 40-mile EV range, and then the gas engine provides the juice for the electric motors as a serial hybrid.

So, if they really need better battery technology to get 40% of the EV range that the EV-1 got a decade ago, or to get less than a third of the range that the AC Propulsion eBox gets now, they could build the car with a 20-mile EV range now, and then move to better batteries when they become available.

GM Never intended to put the Volt into production, any more than they ever intended to put a fuel-cell vehicle into production.