GM's R&D head says Voltec powertrain not suitable for vehicles bigger, smaller than Volt

GM's statement that a car with the Volt's technology cannot be either larger or smaller is a self-serving attempt to justify their true intentions: GM does not want to build cars that burn less gas. GM does not want to see cars on the road that burn less gas. GM merely wants to oppose the electrification of transportation. A decade ago they did this by suing CARB and then crushing the EV1. Now that the Leaf is coming out, they will build ONE model of car that they can promote as an alternative, but will price it out of normal people's price range, and now are making it clear that it is a one-of-a-kind thing. Where Toyota plans to use its HSD technology in every vehicle it builds, GM will use its range-extended EV technology in only one, overpriced, car.

This is all consistent with GM's continued opposition to any form of electric transportation.

 

Yes, and they have a long history of such opposition to electrification, starting with them dismantling public electric bus/trolly lines back in the 1920's

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal]Great American streetcar scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

And then they'll say "See. We told you. People don't want these kind of cars. But look what we have over here...."

What's good for GM is NOT good for the rest of us.

 

Good article!

Do you hate Exxon, Firestone, Mack trucks as much as GM? They seem to have played a similar role in the destruction of the electrified public transportation system.

 

Exxon and Firestone, yes. I was not aware that Mack Trucks was part of it. But if they were a major player like the others, then yes, them too. But until I know more about the part they may have played, I'll reserve judgement on Mack. It's a common tactic to lump in the also-rans with the big players, and I am far less concerned with the hangers-on than with the prime movers.

 

I don't hate anyone, I have owned several GM vehicles in the past, and I still own a 1994 Chevy Suburban I use for plowing the property... I am just pointing out GM, has in the past conspired (with many other companies as well), to dismantle electrified public transportation, so they could replace it with GM buss's/Firestone tires/Gasoline. They fought CARB tooth and nail, dismantling the EV1 project, they agreed to participate in the "SuperCar" project, along with Ford and Chrysler, and all 3 had developed 72 - 80 MPG vehicles (this was accomplished in 2000), and they fought that as well, and killed that project.

GM has a long history of opposing and killing projects and technologies that would have reduced pollution, and lowered our crude oil use, and increased our national security by lowering our dependence on foriegn countries that hate us and use the proceeds to figure out ways to kill us.

You could even say that GM is anti american, when you get right down to it.

but no, I don't hate GM

 

Perhaps because carrying around 20 gallons of petrol, and paying for the extra size tank when they bought the car, is not quite as expensive as the $15,000 the EV owner financed for the privilege ?

Say, about $14,950 less (and counting, as opportunity cost accumulates) ?

Enthusiasts will pay through the nose; rational buyers will realize that the EV capacity has to be used every day, if not multiple times a day, to approach the out of pocket expense of alternatives. This is why I think Toyota is spot-on in producing PHV with lower capacity. It will not appeal to the person who wants EV all the time, but will be the smart money choice for the other 99% of the population as petrol prices increase.