The Chevrolet Volt.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Jan 12 2007, 12:45 PM) [snapback]374742[/snapback]</div>

I figured that an FJ was competing with the Jeep Wrangler more than GM products. Let's see, with 4WD and V6s, the Wranger gets 14/18 city/hwy, the FJ gets 17/21. Hey, the FJ really is green. Or 20% greener or something.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 12 2007, 12:19 PM) [snapback]374755[/snapback]</div>

That is great mileage especially when you consider the fact the FJ needs premium gasoline.

 

I see no reason to bait/taunt malorn and vice versa.

For all that saw "Who Killed the Electric Car?" - most major automakers leased EVs, including Ford, Toyota, Honda, Nissian. What hurts GM's PR on all things green is this is just one instance, plus their sales are truck-heavy, the promotion of the Hummer, the dissmissal of hybrids until about two years ago.

I've taken pictures of one-ton pickups with their drivers in that ridiculous "rolex lean", "ghetto lean", whatever. That includes the Toyota Tundra. Saw a picture of the latest Toyota pickup and thought - "the grill looks a lot like the Dodge Ram" For those trucks they might as well paint the P-38 Tiger Shark teeth on them too.

I'd consider buying GM if they had a hybrid Saturn sedan, or a production model like the Volt. I'd like them to beef up the subcompact line as I drive an Insight. Detroit in general neglected the subcompact, compact, and to a lesser extent the sedan market. It can't be that unprofitable since Asian models are doing well.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Delta Flyer @ Jan 12 2007, 01:41 PM) [snapback]374770[/snapback]</div>

You're right. It's very childish and a waste of time, and probably clutters up this place with non-Prius stuff. I'm quitting now, and putting him on ignore.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Delta Flyer @ Jan 12 2007, 01:41 PM) [snapback]374770[/snapback]</div>

I'm with you on that one. I fully expect my next car to be a plug-in of some sort, and who has one out in the next few years when it comes time to part with our Prius will get our business.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Jan 12 2007, 01:52 PM) [snapback]374745[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Jan 12 2007, 01:52 PM) [snapback]374745[/snapback]</div>

What? I put my name on the EV1 list & you're whinning I tried to support GM? Sheesh? You ARE trolling. As for toyota dropping EV's ... at least THEY did it AFTER GM sued CARB. Is that why you IGNORED Darrel's post?

 

Well, we could always look at some data. Presumably, the average environmental impact is roughly proportinal to the average MPGs. The US NHTSA 2004 CAFE report lists these average MPGs, which are MPGs, weighted by sales, rounded to the nearest MPG. No clue where they get their MPGs from. Their MPG number is not the EPA number and looks high, on average, to me. I'm sure they count diesels at face value MPG (which is understandable but moderately ignorant, as it takes 25% more crude to create a gallon of diesel than a gallon of gas). I'm also pretty sure these cars largely predate the push to exploit the E85 loophole for the CAFE mileage calculation. Any alternative fuel vehicles in here, however, get a wildly disporportionate bonus in the Cafe calculation. I hardly think that matters. If I could have found a more recent year, I'd have shown it. Not sure it's been published.

Hope the table is readable. Columns are GM, Toyota, Ford, Honda

GM Toyota Ford Honda
domestic passenger cars 29 34 26 31
imported passenger cars 29 32 28 37
light trucks 21 23 21 25

I find it tough to perceive much difference here, but I'm used to 48 in a Prius.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Jan 12 2007, 01:32 PM) [snapback]374802[/snapback]</div>

So Toyota is ok because they dropped theirs after GM did and they sued CARB after GM did? I did not ingore Darrel's post. I found his post rather objective for the most part. I am glad you put your name on the list. I will deliver a Volt to you when they come out!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chogan @ Jan 12 2007, 03:37 PM) [snapback]374806[/snapback]</div>

Speaking of exploiting the E85 loophole, YES. GM used E85 (corn / grain fuel) to skew their numbers (fraudulently, but legally puffing up their weak mpg numbers). E85 guzzling fleet vehicle's (which actually get even WORSE mileage than regular gas burners) "gallons" only contain a fraction of actual "gasoline" . So even though their gas guzzlers may only get 15mpg, if the gallon is only half gas, it would make it look as though the guzzler gets 30mpg ... because it went 15 miles on only ONE HALF of a gallon of gas ... the other half was corn!

Those numbers are only illustrative. Even so, talk about smoke and mirrors. Whoops! That was malorn's OTHER thread. But HEY! He offered to deliver a new VOLT right TO me ... when ever they actually come out. I better have some grand kids, or no one will be around to pick it up, that far in the future!
:^)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 12 2007, 03:04 PM) [snapback]374780[/snapback]</div>

You're right Beryl, I'm following your lead. And I repent of being willingly trolled upon.

And you're right about the (hopefully next year from Toyota) 1st plug in as well. That'll be our next car too.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Jan 12 2007, 10:25 PM) [snapback]375047[/snapback]</div>

I will deliver you a volt before the end of 2010.

As for E85, it is not the answer but certainly helps reduce the need for imported oil. Actually in your analogy the tank of "gas" is 85% corn and 15% oil.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Jan 13 2007, 05:45 PM) [snapback]375262[/snapback]</div>

Sorry I brought that up, but no, the loophole part is that if you build it E85, the government counts it as if it drove half the time on E85. Only the gasoline counts for the milege calculation, so in effect, the government takes your gas mileage and (nearly) doubles it for an E85 vehicle, for the CAFE calculation. Which, a) as an approximation of reality is silly, because almost none of those vehicles will ever actually see any E85, and b) actually causes them to burn more gas, because the E85 capability typically drops the mileage the cars will actually get on what they'll actually mostly run on, which is gas.

But the entire E85 thing is a joke anyways, at least at present. Go to the www.fueleconomy.gov website, pick a vehicle (Tahoe), and see that milage goes from 17 on gas to 13 on E85 overall. So, for that Tahoe, if gas is $2.50 a gallon, the break-even price on E85 would be $1.90. Don't think that's going to happen, at least any time soon. So, in a nutshell, people aren't going to buy it, afte the first tank anyway, unless its really really cheap. Which means, pretty much, people aren't going to buy it. And it's far from clear that using E85 in fact saves any fossil fuels at all, due to the fossil-fuel-intensive nature of corn agriculture. The two best studies of this issue gave mixed results: one said ethanol fuel was a net negative (took more fossil fuel energy to produce than it gave off when burned), the other said it was a slight positive. Nobody even suggests that it's a gallon-for-gallon savings -- that a gallon of ethanol displaces the oil required for a gallon of gas. At best, it might displace a small part of that. At worst, you might not come ahead at all by making and buring ethanol.

So, with E85, for that to be a net positive, you're betting on something happening down the road so that a) you can make it out of something other than food, which people keep saying is right around the corner but I haven't seen it yet, and b) when you do, it'll be a whole lot cheaper than gasoline.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syclone @ Jan 7 2007, 01:23 AM) [snapback]371969[/snapback]</div>

Actually Cyclone, here's the funniest thing, regarding "no batteries available yet" excuse. The GM exec's say that's their only excuse ... at leaat until 1010.

It's got to be embarrasing when GM's OWN vehicle chief engineer contradicts the GM head honcho by saying that battery technology is ready now (according to an article published in MIT's Technology Review) :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chogan @ Jan 13 2007, 08:19 PM) [snapback]375313[/snapback]</div>

I thought Brazil used a lot of ethanol, so it must be practical for them somehow. Or do they just have a lot of manual labor in their agriculture instead of machinery and fertilizers (both dependent on oil)?

 

Has anybody posted this video yet?
http://www.autospies.com/news/DETROIT-AUTO...n-Action-11478/

From this clip I've learned that electric propulsion is both loud and slow. Oh... And that even women can handle the technology.

What was the part about how with a whopping 40 miles of range that some folks won't be burning any gasoline? That because of this 40 miles of range that we'll have to remind drivers to fire the ICE every six months so the gas doesn't go bad??? Wasn't 100 miles not enough range not too long ago? I think I'm losing my mind.

Watch for Lutz even mentioning that maybe... just maybe... they could make one that is PURE ELECTRIC. do not know. Sounds too sci-fi to me! Who'd want something with 300 miles of EV range when they could have one with 40?

Gets my vote just for the neat interior LED lighting if nothing else!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 13 2007, 11:59 PM) [snapback]375396[/snapback]</div>

I have never looked at the data. Ive been told that Brazil's situation is different for several reasons-- that the input crop is sugarcane, and that they actual have vehicles optimized to run on ethanol (so they get better mileage). That, and that they're already set up to use it, so they don't have to ship it around in trucks.

This is a seemingly well-developed report -- no idea who the authors are.
http://www.sei.se/red/redjan2004.doc

They say:
Sugarcane has higher photosynthetic efficiency than corn, so you get more fermentable material per unit of inputs.
Brazil runs alcohol thorugh its pipelines, so you don't have to transport it by truck and train as we do here.
In Brazil, they power the extraction and distilling by burning the leftover wasted from the sugarcane, so you don't consume fossil fuel there.

They don't mention the issue of vehicles being optimized for alcohol, but I know I've heard that elsewhere. They definitely say (but do not quantify) that Brazil's alcohol took results in let total carbon release than US alcohol.

Even then, other sources mention a few drawbacks. Apparently (not sure of the source), there are still massive government subsidies involved. So, it's not clear that it's a stand-alone-profitable thing to do. And apparently getting rid of that much distillery waste is a pretty significant problem as well.

But I think the answer to you question is that their advantages are: they grow sugarcane , the use the cane waste to fuel the processing, and they have infrastructure in place to move it around cheaply.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chogan @ Jan 14 2007, 05:35 AM) [snapback]375459[/snapback]</div>

The key is to use waste buyproducts of existing crops that are already using petroleum in their production, rather that use something that is grown only for ethanol production.

Use waste, such as husks, stalks, etc. of corn being used for other purposes, or straw from wheat or other grains. Those "waste" products are either burned or tilled back into the soil now. I doubt the advisability of stopping the tilling under, but if it's burned, it should be converted to ethanol instead.

OTOH, I don't know how much waste exists and how much of a dent it can make in our petroleum needs.

Dave M.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jan 13 2007, 09:38 PM) [snapback]375412[/snapback]</div>

Watching the first part of this video, I couldn't help but think of the video Darell has on his web site of his EV-1 burning rubber down the street. The Volt shown in the video could be 'smoked' by a golf cart.

If I ever thought GM was serious about the Volt this video changes my mind. It looks like they're already starting EV-1 style negative marketing. Too bad. Like a previous poster suggests, most people buy based on a car and its technology and not a brand. I would be delighted to buy American but it looks like that's not going to happen.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dmckinstry @ Jan 14 2007, 09:02 AM) [snapback]375464[/snapback]</div>

Yes, that's "celluosic ethanol", made from material containg cellulose rather than sugar and starch. If it can be made cost-effectively, that would let you make ethanol from sawdust, grass clippings, staw, just about any fibrous plant material. You have extract enzymes from genetically-engineered critters to use to break down the cellulose into sugar, then ferment it, or attack it chemically, then ferment it.

I checked Wikipedia and a few other sources, and this looks closer to reality than I had thought. But it's one of those processes where I'll believe it when I see it. The wholesale price of gas is about $1.50 a gallon now. Given the difference in energy content, ethanol would have to sell for about $1.10/gallon to give equivalent energy per dollar. Right now, the cost of a gallon of cellulosic ethanol is quoted in the range of $2.50 to $3.50. US DOE projects $1.10/gallon in 2012, others give an absolute best-case floor cost of $1.30 gallon. So, DOE says it looks to be marginally profitable in five years, others say it'll never be profitable at current gas prices. Who can say. At least some informed professionals are hopeful this can be done cost-effectively. Logen corp (largest producer, in CA) claims its cost-competitive now but does not give details on the website.

There's a separate environmental issue involved in removing all of the plant material from fields, but that's a separate issue. I'd have to think that, as you say, merely the leftovers from what's current stripped off the fields ought to be enough to get this started.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jacaufie @ Jan 14 2007, 08:31 AM) [snapback]375488[/snapback]</div>

I'm not really sure why this video was made, or what it was meant to convey, actually.

Regardless of what it looks like (did you see the difficulty that the "model" had when exiting the car?) I'll buy it if they can make what they say they'll make - at the price point they're discussing. Really a bummer that we have to wait around for the battery technology so we can gat that 40 miles of EV range. :sigh:

 

Regardless of mpg and pretty bells and whistles, the Volt will be a GM. As soon as driving the Volt off the dealer's lot it will begin its self-destruct sequence and will terminate in about 36 months. History has documented that GM is incapable of building anything of quality. Volt will not be the exception.