Chevy Volt could get 230mpg

[Rey C.]

With or without the credit, this car shouldn't top $40 grand. One fellow I spoke with today believed that they would get it into the high 20's (with the credit) before the end of the first model year. That's not really the realm of the rich and elite. At $40K, it's near the line between the middle class and upper middle class for auto purchases.

What's it worth? Will it be overpriced? That's what the market will determine.

 

[arianajoladdict]

No, it is (or will be) a production car. The preproduction models are already underway.

As to whether or not it will be "affordable", I guess we will see once it goes on sale.

yeah your right, ive seen it on the commercial that its comming out in 2012 i believe.

but do you really think that it will be a fun car to drive?

 

[Rey C.]

Last I heard, it would be out late next year as a 2011.

Fun? I guess it depends on your definition of "fun". Fun like a BMW M3, a WRX/STI or a Corvette? I really doubt it - but I haven't read anything about its handling or performance characteristics. But maybe some people consider it fun to get high mpg. I :dunno: To me, it's a grocery getter/commuter car. It's not a car I would buy.

But not everyone sees cars the way I do. Some people see cars as nothing more than utilitarian transportation tools. They just want to get from point A to point B as cheaply as possible. Whether on a race track or on a winding mountain road, I love to drive. I really do. When I hear the tires begin to squeal and I can feel the G's building, it's almost like a sexual feeling to me. I doubt this car would do anything for me. But I think it serves a different purpose.

 

[Rey C.]

Re: Here's my problem ...

Actually, it's not uncommon to get 30mpg in a Corvette.

OK. I'm going to help you out here. Let's say that we're at the race track. Do not say that. Those exact words will have the men moving away from you and their wives & girlfriends asking you to go shopping with them on race day. Don't do it!

 

[Facetious]

Caveat Emptor ! Electric vehicles are only practical when coupled with nuclear generated energy resources.

 

[Hot Mega]

They recorded both! And the increase in record revenue was more then the increase in record profits. Again, they ate more in margin. They could have easily milked "a few more bucks" to maintain the same profit margins.

This is elementary, microeconomics 101 here. If people would stop and actually read financial statements and notice trends -- from the OMB to the oil companies -- they'd see these things coming.

Then I just another stupid engineer. I hear it regularly from people on everything from the moon shot to power generation to even microeconomics.

California did not increase enough production to meet increased demand. The '90s were a boon for energy consumption across the US.

What people don't like to talk about with California is how the fixed pricing led to the selling to neighboring states. Once Californians had to pay "fair market value" for the actual cost of generation, everything changed.

People blamed the governor and others for what was a systematic failure. And they realized it when they started getting their "real bills."

I don't deny it was criminal. But sometimes corporations that are losing money tend to go that direction when the state doesn't work with them.

Also, I want to remind people when these things happened. I know a lot of people like to blame one party, but a lot of these things happened at the hands of both (and well before a common scapegoat President, despite what people tell themselves).

And yet, there were still the capacity and pricing issues! That's my continued point. Californians were unwilling to pay for electricity, unwilling to pay and build newer, cleaner production, and still aren't.

And they can't even handle the power generation required for plug-in vehicles today.

I would argue you will use an extremely simplistic argument to assert a very broad fact. Every time we dive into the details, you fixate and focus on one thing, and try your damnest to argue that one thing as if it's the whole argument.

That's always the problem.

It's a major problem with the consumer in general as well. Blame instead of recognize the systematic issues. GM is stupid. Engineers are stupid. Corporations are always evil. Government knows best. Fixed prices and social programs know better than microeconomic (let alone the resulting macroeconomic) realities.

Not true! The operational pricing is fixed, so if anything, if they raised their prices, they should have made proportionally more profit margins than the rate of increased revenue. But because they didn't try to gouge consumers, they actually had less profit margin, because they did not correspondingly increase prices with increased resource costs.

And yet people think they were taking advantage of the situation?

But only if they increase the end product cost proportionally. They actually did not.

Correct. But they didn't do a 1:1 price increase. Their profit margins didn't increase percentage-wise with increased resource costs, even though they could have justified it. Instead, they saw let margins actually decrease. They were already making an increased, total profit as a result of resource increases, but they didn't milk it.

That has been my absolute and continued point. They didn't milk it.

I'm talking the petroleum companies, not the gas stations. I wasn't even hitting on the gas stations and the distribution providers, etc...

Several reasons.

One, consumers are now paying the fair market value for power, not the low-cost. That was one of the reasons for selling to other states, because most providers were operating at a loss. Again, because California still operates in the '50-'70s technology wise, it's one of the most expensive places to generate power (along with the environmental embarrassment).

Two, capacity has increased while usage has dropped. The recession has hit operations hard, and has for the second half of this decade. Don't you read the trade journals? They are lucky they did, because the rolling blackouts were still on-going until this happened.

Again, cost is still horrendous and environmental impact is still one of the worst among states, largely because they just increase capacity at existing plants as much as they can (regardless of efficiency). That's a direct result of being a half-century behind everyone else.

It is the overwhelming case that vehicles which decrease direct usage of non "renewable" resources are net positives.

California's "rolling blackouts" were the results of mismanagement and fraud....not lack of new power plants per se. I say "per se" because the case would be akin to a person mismanaging their money and going broke. While more money would certainly help their circumstance..they're not broke because they never had enough money.

 

[Kingfisher]

And when will they be releaseing it? Probably never. They'll talk endlessly about it hype the company. And if it has a gastank, it probably only holds a max of 2 gallons.
If you look at the cars and trucks out there, the gas tanks vs. fuel mileage and the all come out around 300ish miles. the car makers are still in bed with the oil companies, and despite what they say about "improving mileage" they will limit your range so you're still dependent on oil.
If they really wanted to make a change, electric cars would go 300 miles on a charge, not 100ish miles. When was the last time you thought, hmm, I'll take the electric car up the coast for a drive, opps, can only go 100 miles, that car is useless, let's jump in the SUV.

 

[Fonzarelli]

And when will they be releaseing it? Probably never. They'll talk endlessly about it hype the company. And if it has a gastank, it probably only holds a max of 2 gallons.
If you look at the cars and trucks out there, the gas tanks vs. fuel mileage and the all come out around 300ish miles. the car makers are still in bed with the oil companies, and despite what they say about "improving mileage" they will limit your range so you're still dependent on oil.
If they really wanted to make a change, electric cars would go 300 miles on a charge, not 100ish miles. When was the last time you thought, hmm, I'll take the electric car up the coast for a drive, opps, can only go 100 miles, that car is useless, let's jump in the SUV.

I can`t believe you people actually take seriously these fairy tales of car companies and oil industry representing the devil himself on earth.
You just better accept the reality that the oil companies will have absolutely no trouble at all selling all the oil they`ve got. They don`t need this kind of conspiracies. Their problem is what to do after there is no more oil to drill.

 

[Wainkerr99]

Better than buying petrol from Mother Russia, which is where we might be headed if we continue to shamelessly consume oil.

Not to mention plastic is made from oil.:eek: Scary thought.

Buy now, save later. The initial car price will be more than compensated for by spending less on fuel and its related expenses, like the occasional fuel tank or fuel pipe damage. Oh what a joy not to have one's hands covered in grease, or battle to remove stains from the steering wheel, car interior, etc almost every time it comes back from the garage.

Then, one needs to prevent petrol station employees from losing their job. If a car ran too long on its battery, one huge amount of people would be out of work.

More than there already are.

There are political ramifications, too. America has to reduce its carbon footprint in accordance with signed treaty law.


And maybe Exxon won't get another 66 mil in profit in one year like they did on 2008.

 

[Member2019]

Better than buying petrol from Mother Russia, which is where we might be headed if we continue to shamelessly consume oil.

Actually, the US has all the oil it needs in the Americas, and gets the overwhelming majority of it from the Americas. The EU gets the overwhelming majority of if its needs from the Middle East, and is more likely to tap Russia increasingly.

Again, this all goes back to the Suez Incident of 1956, the reduction of Anglo and Franco militaries and the increased US presence outside of the Americas as a direct result (now securing resources for Anglo-Franco citizens), etc...

Not to mention plastic is made from oil.:eek: Scary thought.

Actually not. Numerous materials are made from oils, but they don't necessarily need to be petroleum. Many, including some plastics and other, non-combustibles, can be made from organics.

Buy now, save later. The initial car price will be more than compensated for by spending less on fuel and its related expenses, like the occasional fuel tank or fuel pipe damage.

It's comments like this that really make engineers roll their eyes ...

1. You still have to pay for electricity, and it's not cheap at the rate this thing "guzzles" it. The same is true for home electrolysis generation for fuel cell cars, it costs more.

2. Batteries don't last, much less Lithium-Ion cells that will be used. Li-Ion is lightweight, high current and stores a lot of energy, but they not nearly as reliable long-term as Nickle and other metals. They also combust and require regulation.

3. The maintenance of hybrids is actually more an ICE-only car. If you remove the ICE component, then it balances more out, because an electric-only motor component. But there is still an ICE and fuel and all the same systems.

Again, gross ignorance of #1 and #2 are my favorites. Regarding #1, people think they will be saving money, when they'll only be spending more. Regarding #2, energy is energy, and when you have a technology that stores a great amount of energy, it also has a very disasterous result when its containment is breached.

Let me say that again ... Energy will always cost money, regardless of where it comes from. Petroleum (or food stuff-based) like prices are hardly going to "go away" with any vehicle shift, especially electricity. However, if the energy generation and consumption is "clean," such as with the use of electrical or hybrid vehicles where the electricity is cleanly generated, that will help the environment. That's the one and only, positive thing. But today, that is not the case anywhere outside of maybe France. It will still cost you similar (or more) money!

Oh what a joy not to have one's hands covered in grease, or battle to remove stains from the steering wheel, car interior, etc almost every time it comes back from the garage.

Ummm, things are still very much mechanical in this car. It's a hybrid. Did you stop to understand that?

But even in an electrical car, the reason why you have grease after an oil change is lube. Even electrical cars still need lube. Same thing.

Then, one needs to prevent petrol station employees from losing their job. If a car ran too long on its battery, one huge amount of people would be out of work.

There will be an increased need of battery technicians and disposal units, along with retraining for new electrical systems, etc... I don't see a change here at all. Electronics aren't "0 maintenance" and there are still plenty of mechanical details in a vehicle. It's hardly "solid state."

More than there already are.

The problem is that people focus on, "do you have a job?" instead of "is your job justified?" I want the latter, not the former. The latter is one of the reasons I left NASA at one point, because I saw no purpose to the team I was switched to. I have to have purpose.

There are political ramifications, too. America has to reduce its carbon footprint in accordance with signed treaty law.

Unfortunately that can't happen until we renovate our power grid. It's very, very expensive to implement nuclear and wind in the US because of the politics.

Unlike the UK, let alone France that has already done so years ago (and are almost the sole experts on nuclear power today), etc...

And maybe Exxon won't get another 66 mil in profit in one year like they did on 2008.

$66M? That's it? That's nothing!

Seriously now, people should read financial statements and compare actual revenues v. profits and how the profit margins actually decreased during the increased prices. It was bad enough that most shareholders were complaining why margins didn't increase proportionally.