GM Volt in 2013

Oh, I'm sure they can design the car in such a way that you will not be able to drop in a NiMH battery as a replacement. In fact, it would be easy: All cars now are controlled by computer. All they'd have to do is put a proprietary, patented chip in the battery, and program the computer not to start the car unless it detected that chip. They'd say it was to "protect" the driver from "inferior" aftermarket batteries.

You probably have a higher opinion of the car-buying public than I do. While you and I and Darell will cry foul when they announce that they "cannot" build the Volt after all, their "reasons" will convince the people driving SUVs, and those people will continue to buy bigger and more wasteful SUVs, and our legislators and the president (whoever that may be when the announcement comes) will all agree that we can't let such an important employer go under, and they'll bail them out again. 2010 has already become 2013, and then it'll be 2015, and then 1017 and then 2020 and maybe it'll be 2020 or 2030 before they change the "delay" announcements to a cancellation announcement.

Of course, by then gas will cost $25 a gallon and we'll all be driving Chinese-made electric cars, and GM will remain in business only on the basis of money from the government.

Those Chinese cars won't be very well-made, but they'll be the only thing ordinary people can afford to drive. And they'll control the market because they're developing electric now, because China has no petroleum but it has loads of coal. And just as we dumped all our filth into the air and water when we began industrializing, so the Chinese will do the same. Anthropic global warming anyone? There's a lot of Chinese carbon in our atmospheric future.

Yes, I'm a pessimist. I admit it. Always have been and I don't see any reason to change now.

 

There's no number PRODUCED or PURCHASED in that link provided. Any automaker can build a handful of token vehicles, but it takes a much greater committment to deliver a large quantity.

In other words, the count of models designed has absolutely nothing to do with the count actually on the road... a great example of greenwashing.

Please provide a link with count data.

Prius is 1 model, but that doesn't matter. It's the fact that over 170,000 of them were purchased. The same perspective is true for PZEV too. Where's that information?

 

I'm not your research assistant... I can't find things that aren't readily available.

But to lob it back to ya, why doesn't Toyota offer a choice of models in PZEV?

 

Sorry, you missed 2 letters, I asked how many AT-PZEVs GM make?

 

Well, I can admit you got me there... but can you admit GM makes more PZEV vehicles overall than Toyota?

 

This may sound like splitting hairs but are not 4 of those GMs based on the same exact platform and engine family? It's kinda like making 4 different Camry's with different front and rear bumpers. lol

 

Maybe... but if that's the case, why isn't the Scion tC available in PZEV, as that uses the Camry engine? Or the Highlander 4 cylinder, as that also uses the Camry engine and platform? lol.

 

I think the Scion tC is based on a different platform no? The Highlander is a far cry from a Camry as well. If you look at those 4 GM vehicles they are basically the same. lol

I'm not not sure why Toyota didn't make the other vehicles PZEV other than expenses. I just wanted to bring up the fact that those GMs are nearly identical. It's like the Chevy and GMC trucks. If they were PZEV you could claim to have two trucks that were rated as such even though they are basicially the same.

 

Because they are now selling 170,000 Prius here per year. Geez! It's not that complicated. Why bother with updating traditional vehicles when acceptance of the new technology is expanding so quickly.

Makes you wonder how clean the Volt engine/exhaust system will be designed when all of the GM hybrids so far are quite a bit dirtier than PZEV, eh?

As for your weak argument and not bothering to research, I accept your message of defeat. The number of clean vehicles on the road is what makes the difference. After all, that is what Volt is gambling on... since it will be the only "series" hybrid available from GM for a few years following the debut.

 

Yes, I think there is a big difference between Camry and Hylander and Scion. I guess if you count all the different models Prius comes in several, but I don't think there is much point going that road. So if GM make more PZEVs than Toyota how are they doing on volume? Selling plenty? Actually promoting them are they? How is their global distribution of low emission vehicle going? Just curious, I don't know the answers.

 

I got my info from car magazines, like I already mentioned. I don't remember which, it was Automobile or Car and Driver or something like that, a mainstream mag. If they were wrong, well then nuts to me!


As far as big wasteful SUV's go, I hate 'em. I can't see around them, I too often see them being driven by a woman on a cel phone with no one else in the car, and I can't understand the logic of wanting a vehicle like that as a daily commuter. As I've mentioned, I have a motorcycle, and running around on the streets with these behemoths is enough to make me harvest my shorts on a daily basis. Car companies, not just GM(Sequoia? Armada? Expedition? LX470? The list goes on), will continue to build them as long as these dipshits keep buying them. GM knows this, which is why they make the hybrid Tahoe and pickups. It really is the lesser of two evils.

 

Sorry. I missed it when you mentioned it. Nuts to you! But good nuts.

For the record, the EV1 was designed BEFORE the ZEV mandate (called the Impact then). In fact, it was the car responsible for the ZEV mandate - The Impact was what proved that practical EVs could be built. The cars were quite reliable once high-quality Panasonic batteries were used. When the cars were switched to NiMH for the second run, the range was extended to 140 miles on a charge.

Anyway... my EV1 was the only car that the car maker ever made me give back. I offered to extend the lease, and I offered to buy it at residual. Both offers were refused. My beautiful, like-new car with under 30,000 miles on it ended up as scrap. There are all kinds of cars that GM *should* take off the road to protect their customers... and they chose to take the EV1.



I was told that this was done to protect me from high repair bills. Now tell me... when has a car maker ever attempted to protect a buyer from aftermarket high repair bills? Oh, the humanity.

 

And more models (choices) means more clean vehicles. I, too, accept your message of defeat!

 

There is no guarantee that more choices will equate to more sales.

 

"They built it because of the Cali mandate of x number of electric cars sold per year, not because they wanted to. It was the product of over-exuberant legislation."

My recollection from the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car" is that GM first built the EV1, and thereafter the California Air Resources Board implemented the zero emission rule, reasoning that GM had proved by building the EV1 that it was possible to build a zero emission vehicle.

 

But that is EXACTLY what I am looking for.

 

Please see post #52 above for confirmation.

Take my Rav4EV for example. The batteries take up exactly.... NO room in the car. In fact, since there is no exhaust, they even moved the spare wheel/tire assembly from the back door to under the car where the exhaust used to be.

If the Volt is waiting until Li-Ion is cheaper than NiMH, then we're in for a long wait, aren't we? Retail prices of batteries have very little to do with what any car costs to build. If we COULD use that as a yardstick, then the pack in the Volt will be $100k+

Well, that's just because you one of only about 80% of the population who could make great use of a car like this. Come on, man... get with the program!

 

Are you unaware of how a "full" hybrid actually works or just showing your support for Volt?

Either is fine. But more and more I encounter people that are fixated on just electric-only range.
.