The Chevy Volt actually exists

"60,000 in the second year of production."

That's what enthusiasts have been singing for 3 years now. I'd push asking them to stand behind that claim... for when this very moment arrived. Turns out, today's press conference revealed plans for 2012 to now only be 30,000.

What part of the auto task-force "too little, too slowly" assessment needs to be pointed out again?
.

 

Also, notice how Nissan Leaf now has a count of 15,000 pre-orders from just the US alone?

What the heck is GM thinking by keeping production volume so low?
.

 

^^
That few people will buy them ?
That they have little confidence in the engineering ?
That each car is a money losing proposition ?

All of the above ?

The GM Volt has been a PR stunt from day#1, meant to soak up fed dollars. *Everything* they have done the past 3 years points to that simple conclusion. I so like the recent spin I heard this week though, that the 3 years of marketing and green-washing was all in the interests of 'transparency'.

<guffaw>

F GM. The sooner that abomination dies, the better off my pocket and the environment will be.

 

Not defending GM (that would be a very tough task) and I know GM pushed "flex fuel" because it allowed them to avoid real alternative vehicles. And I understand that using food to make fuel is a net loser, but I disagree that flex fuel vehicles are a "hoax".

For maybe $100 to $150 per vehicle, we now have some of our inventory of vehicles able to switch to bio/petro blends. Since a car might stay on the road for 10-20 years, it is possible in that time we will be using petro better by combining it with bio fuels from switchgrass or hemp. I see E85 priced in Colorado as low as $1.90 and wish my Prius was "flex fuel".

 

By buying flex fuel you are contributing to the idiocity of it. Let it die a painful death and make the corn go back to making plastic bags and feeding chickens.

 

If I remember correctly, Etoh has 2/3rds the energy of petrol. So even after the massive US subsidy, it is no cheaper per Kwh than petrol, and has higher environmental cost.

The US car manufacturers pushed 'flex-fuel' cars to circumvent CAFE. It is just ironic, and typical of Detroit, that they advertised the scam as a 'green' initiative.

 

Forgot about the lower energy density and I agree flex fuel vehicles have been a scam for the Big 3 to avoid real improvements. And I agree corn based ethonal has been a rip off of subsidies and also agree that using food for fuel has bad consequences....but....

Spending $100-$150 per vehicle so IN THE FUTURE we have more options seems to make sense. Ethonol from non food, sustainable crops could save our butts in the next gas shortage. Didn't we very quickly switch to biodiesil during WW II?

 

Alternative crops as Etoh sources have not supplanted corn because they are inferior. A petrol shortage does not change that fact. So unless your argument is "in the event of a petrol shortage, I'm glad I can run my car on corn," I don't follow your argument.

Or perhaps you are saying, lets get the auto fleet ready in case a breakthrough in Etoh happens in the future. I say spend the money on public transport infrastructure. Or battery research. Or improving the electric grid. Or subsidizing charging stations. In short, spend in areas where benefit is likely, and the hedge against petrol shortages you are concerned with, more definite.

 

Hoping to see improvement in Volt gen2. They really need to design it to be a mass produced car instead of a PR halo car.

 

Since the thread seems to have moved into alternative fuels, when my step-father was a boy growing up on the farm, near Sheldon, North Dakota, farmers grew their own fuel. Not corn, but oats. Oats fueled the horses, which provided traction power. At harvest, the steam combine burned straw. Of course, a LOT more of the work was done by people than nowadays. The farm also grew the "fuel" for the workers. Most of the year the family did all the work. But at harvest, the hobos came and were hired on. The farm produced all its own fuel; it was organic, operating without chemical pesticides or fertilizers; and it was carbon neutral.

 

looking at the Volt website from link at the Leaf site, they plan to produce 11,000 in 2011 and 30,000 in 2012? this shows me a lack of confidence on GM's part. if this is the touted product that will lead a new GM, it would appear that they are not very sure of their product.

then we have Nissan who plans on ?? in 2011 (the number seems to change quite a bit) but ramping to 150,000 in 2012. that shows me a company confident in their product. their "all in" approach is the reason i am willing to buy the car pretty much sight unseen. sure, this could be one of the biggest mistakes of my life. and nearly all my friends and family told me the same thing for the 6½ months i waited for my first Prius.

but i dont think the Leaf is a mistake, i do think that the Volt would be. all EV's have drawbacks, trust me i know, i drive one and deal with its limitations daily. but the Leaf greatly reduces the inconvenience of EV's. it is a significant step forward. but only one of many i hope. sure i can wait for the next step and it will again reduce the inconvenience. but it will always be a waiting game for the next best thing.

look at cellphones. they are a perfect example. i am getting a Moto X with 3G technology in few weeks with full knowledge that verizon will have 4 G smartphones out in about 7 months. but the reason i am getting the X now is because the 4G is still 7 months away.

its the same all around. i only choose to get "better". best is not a requirement. the Leaf is a much better option. the Volt? hmmm, not really. its a better option, but only slightly, and before i buy a whole new car, i will just get a battery kit for my current Prius and save about $15,000 on the exchange.

 

Today I "googled" a Toyota web site regarding the RV4-EV. Most interesting. They cancelled the program in 2003, and one of the reasons cited was poor sales.

Here on PC we read a lot of enthusiam for the pre-production Volt .... it will be interesting to see if buyers will step forward with cash for a very expensive, niche vehicle. Toyota's release also mentioned that some buyers were just not technically savy with an all electric vehicle. Here on PC there are many that understand the technical aspects of the car ... but it will require many more buyers than respond to PC to make the Volt a success. I know we all hope it will be a success.

 

Poor sales has been a chicken-and-egg thing with EVs. Manufacturers often had little inventory and no real marketing effort, and then complained that they weren't selling. In truth, generally the auto companies were happy to see the EVs not sell, so they could get out of that market and back into making gas powered cars.

Tom

 

What does "it" actually mean? Notice how much Volt has changed since the original concept.

For Volt to become a mainstream hit, price has to come down significantly. Battery technology alone won't achieve that. Alterations to the design will be required too.

I don't like the one-size-fits-all approach. Why only a single configuration? Why must only a 40-mile capacity be produced, especially if the wanted 50 MPG efficiency in CS mode is actually possible?

Fortunately, there is a 1776 mile publicity event taking place right this very moment. If GM is sincere about intentions, we'll actually get some detail from that. If not, it does make you wonder about purpose.
.