Chevy Volt

[Wilber]

How can you call it car of the year when no one wants to buy it? They'll be lucky to get a few hollywood millionaire tree huggers to buy it. Pretty elitiest attitude of Motor Trend picking a car the rich and middle class have no desire for.

I guess the fact this car is totally uncompetitive with other hybrid cars and pure electric cars was not used in the determination of this award, I wonder what was used...maybe who was going to give Motor Trend the most advertising dollars next year perhaps?

This was car of the year 25 years ago when GM built the first mass produced electric car.

Interesting comment seeing as it isn't on sale yet. The market will decide if it is a success or not. It is the first plug in hybrid and the first hybrid that has a usable range on electric power only. If you have a 50K commute and a place to plug it in at work, you will use no gas at all for your daily commute but will still have a car you can use for long distance trips. That is a first. I don't know how it will sell but it is the next step in the evolution of hybrids and a pretty important one. It is the first of many more to come.

Getting back to Limbaugh, regardless of the success of the Volt, all he did was demonstrate how ignorant he is when it comes to vehicles and how they work.

[Guest TrueMetis]

How can you call it car of the year when no one wants to buy it? They'll be lucky to get a few hollywood millionaire tree huggers to buy it. Pretty elitiest attitude of Motor Trend picking a car the rich and middle class have no desire for.

I guess the fact this car is totally uncompetitive with other hybrid cars and pure electric cars was not used in the determination of this award, I wonder what was used...maybe who was going to give Motor Trend the most advertising dollars next year perhaps?

This was car of the year 25 years ago when GM built the first mass produced electric car.

... How can you say it's not competitive? It's not even on the market yet.

[TimG]

How can you call it car of the year when no one wants to buy it?

Many of the MotorTrend finalists are high end cars (i.e. Jaguar). This is not competition for "biggest seller" or "best value for money". It is "best car" based on MotorTrend's criteria. Many of MotorTrend's criteria based on the how a car "feels" when you drive it. Such things are not important if you just need transportation from A to B. Edited November 25, 2010 by TimG

[Bonam]

I have a feeling the Volt will be pummeled before it gets off the ground by Honda's and Toyota's new hybrid offerings in the 2012 and 2013 model years.

[Wilber]

I have a feeling the Volt will be pummeled before it gets off the ground by Honda's and Toyota's new hybrid offerings in the 2012 and 2013 model years.

GM has a two year jump on those vehicles which won't hurt them at all. The Volt itself isn't that important, its drive system is. Now that the Volt is up and running it isn't much of a step to put the same type of system into a Malibu, Equinox or other GM products. It's the future of the propulsion system that is important, not the car.

[TimG]

GM has a two year jump on those vehicles which won't hurt them at all.

Here is a good summary of the technical differences between GM and Toyota.

http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1040214_faceoff-2011-chevrolet-volt-vs-2012-toyota-prius-plug-in-hybrid

It appears that Toyota is betting that batteries are too unreliable to provide the kind of experience that consumers expect.

[Wilber]

Here is a good summary of the technical differences between GM and Toyota.

http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1040214_faceoff-2011-chevrolet-volt-vs-2012-toyota-prius-plug-in-hybrid

It appears that Toyota is betting that batteries are too unreliable to provide the kind of experience that consumers expect.

Then I guess Toyota doesn't believe electric vehicles are feasible. I think a lot of people will disagree with that. TESLA for one. Advances in battery technology are the only thing that will make electric vehicles more viable. Hyundai's new Sonata hybrid is the first to use lithium polymer batteries which are supposed to be quite a bit lighter. It also uses a six speed transmission instead of a CVT. Combined electric and engine put out 209 HP. Sounds like it could be a real car to me.

[TimG]

Then I guess Toyota doesn't believe electric vehicles are feasible.

There are more issues at stake. Who has the patents on what. Plus there is the rare earth issue. Japanese companies are getting increasingly worried about requiring too much of the stuff in their products. Toyota has also partnered with Telsa so it may be a case they simply don't have the required battery technology. Of maybe Toyota is less willing to take risks with the battery technology that does exist - risks that GM had to take because it was going down the tubes. Being the dominant company in the field can lead to risk adversion. Edited November 25, 2010 by TimG

[Wilber]

There are more issues at stake. Who has the patents on what. Plus there is the rare earth issue. Japanese companies are getting increasingly worried about requiring too much of the stuff in their products. Toyota has also partnered with Telsa so it may be a case they simply don't have the required battery technology. Of maybe Toyota is less willing to take risks with the battery technology that does exist - risks that GM had to take because it was going down the tubes. Being the dominant company in the field can lead to risk adversion.

And yet Renault, Nissan is fully committed to electric cars and not even bothering with hybrids. Their only hybrid uses licensed Toyota technology. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out. I'm thinking the days of one way to kill a cat (gasoline internal combustion) are approaching an end. There will be several options in future motor vehicles. A car like the Volt will be great for someone who doesn't have long commutes but does like to take the occasional long trip. A person who does only town driving might opt for a pure electric whereas someone who does primarily highway driving might be better off with a diesel. Who knows, VW Audi who is a big proponent of clean diesel also has plans for several hybrid versions of their vehicles.

[Guest TrueMetis]

And yet Renault, Nissan is fully committed to electric cars and not even bothering with hybrids. Their only hybrid uses licensed Toyota technology. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out. I'm thinking the days of one way to kill a cat (gasoline internal combustion) are approaching an end. There will be several options in future motor vehicles. A car like the Volt will be great for someone who doesn't have long commutes but does like to take the occasional long trip. A person who does only town driving might opt for a pure electric whereas someone who does primarily highway driving might be better off with a diesel. Who knows, VW Audi who is a big proponent of clean diesel also has plans for several hybrid versions of their vehicles.

It's interesting all the people on the American right that are deriding these cars when they are the same people whining about losing choices.

Edited November 26, 2010 by TrueMetis

[TimG]

It's interesting all the people on the American right that are deriding these cars when they are the same people whining about losing choices.

It is the subsidies that people complain about. Take those away and you won't hear a peep.

[Guest TrueMetis]

It is the subsidies that people complain about. Take those away and you won't hear a peep.

I didn't hear any complaints about them when it was bush's policy.

[bush_cheney2004]

I didn't hear any complaints about them when it was bush's policy.

Then you were not listening.....rebates were capped at 60,000 units sold.

[August1991]

You didn't even read the bloody article did you?

Yes, I read the article and I saw that it states the Volt consumes 127 mpg. But who measured or verified that statistic? Heck, is it a US gallon or an Imperial gallon? TrueMetis, do you believe everything you read on the Internet?

Oh I'm sorry I didn't realize that Motor Trend was owned by GM.

GM doesn't have to own MotorTrend to get good press.

Ontario seems to disagree...for obvious GM reasons. Looks like a new Chevrolet Volt will earn a handsome rebate of $10,000 CAD in that province.

Ugh. I hope this subsidy comes solely from Ontario taxpayers.

The market will decide if it is a success or not.

The market, and a large subsidy from taxpayers who don't buy it, will decide.

Wilber, my basic response to the OP was that the Volt will cost $41,000. Would you pay $41,000 for a Toyota Corolla that consumes (a claimed) 2 litres/100 km? You'll save $4 per 100 km or about $4000 for 100,000 km compared to a real Toyota Corolla that gets 6 litres/100 km. And I haven't factored in the cost of the electricity, or the hassle of recharging.

Do the math. (I did recently because I'm in the market for a new car. I looked at the Prius, did the numbers and walked away with the conclusion that only someone in PR would buy one. Let me be partisan and say that I think Ignatieff drives a Prius.)

Advances in battery technology are the only thing that will make electric vehicles more viable.

What advances in battery technology? There have been few or none in the past 50 years or so. At most, computers allow better control over discharge/recharge rates but the basic principle of batteries remains the same. Cars still use lead-acid batteries to power their starters. And the batteries in your TV remote control are no different from 50 years ago.

Battery technology is like controlled nuclear fusion. Engineers keep saying that success is around the corner.

----

And let me add this last little rant.

When Kennedy said in 1961 that America would put a man on the moon, it was von Braun who already had the idea of the Saturn rocket.

From Edison to Jobs, or Marconi to von Braun, it is an individual who imagines the new.

Politicians cannot subsidize originality and bureaucrats cannot pick winners. Why? They are politicians and bureaucrats. Wise politicians and bureaucrats should know their limits and stay as far as possible from innovation.

Edited November 26, 2010 by August1991

[Guest TrueMetis]

Yes I read the article and I saw that it states the Volt consumes 127 mpg. But who measured or verified that statistic? TrueMetis, do you believe everything you read on the Internet?

You don't understand how links work do you? The part that says 127 mpg is a link, click it and it describes how they got it in some detail, and within that article is another link that give the full story. Here I'll even cut out the middlemen for you. My link

Never mind the yellow journalistic brouhaha taking place on these here fine internets in regards to the 2011 Chevy Volt. Here’s why I’m so geeked on the Chevy Volt and why you should be, too. In normal, everyday driving we got 127 miles per gallon (fine, 126.7 mpg). Which is pretty amazing. Broken down, over the course of 299 miles on Los Angeles highways, byways and freeways, the Volt burned 2.36 gallons of gasoline (fine, 2.359 gallons — we rounded up). Most other cars use up a tank of gas going 299 miles. The Volt, to reiterate, used 2.36 gallons over 299 miles. That’s freaking amazing!

Edited November 26, 2010 by TrueMetis

[TimG]

Most other cars use up a tank of gas going 299 miles. The Volt, to reiterate, used 2.36 gallons over 299 miles

Most other cars do not consume electricity. Quoting MPG without include an MPG equivalent for the electricity consumed is dishonest marketing.

In fact, the EPA has defined a standard way to do this calculation:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=00-14446-filed.pdf

If you apply those calculations to the numbers provided by motor trend you end up with an efficiency of 33 MPG - a number that good but nothing to rave about. It is also less than many gas powered vehicles.

For my calculations I assumed 40mpg on 2.3 gal of gas and then 40 miles per 16KWh (the capacity of the Volt battery). The conversion factor is 12.3 KWh/gal.

299 - 2.4*40 = 203 miles

(203/40)*16 = 81 KWh

81/12.3 = 6.5 gals

299/(6.5 + 2.4) = 33.2 mpg

BTW - at $3/gal gas per 0.10/KWh the cost for the 299 miles is $15.20

A 33 mpg gas car would cost $27.0 so there is a benefit to be had until the enviros succeed is making our electricity supply much more costly.

Edited November 26, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

Most other cars do not consume electricity. Quoting MPG without include an MPG equivalent for the electricity consumed is dishonest marketing.

In fact, the EPA has defined a standard way to do this calculation:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=00-14446-filed.pdf

If you apply those calculations to the numbers provided by motor trend you end up with an efficiency of 33 MPG - a number that good but nothing to rave about. It is also less than many gas powered vehicles.

The official EPA MPG is 93 MPG equivalent for all electric and 37 mpg gas only.

My link

ETA 60 MPG is the official overall combined number.

Edited November 26, 2010 by TrueMetis

[TimG]

ETA 60 MPG is the official overall combined number.

I was using the real example of MotorTrend. They claimed 127MPG when they really only got 33MPG. A bit of sloppy journalism on their part.

There is also some political manipulation going on at the EPA. The "offical" numbers do not use the standard I provided and instead use the a direct conversion from KWh to gasoline that does not take into account the energy consumed creating and transmitting the electricity.

The DOE standard I linked does take this into account which is why it is more credible than the 'offical' numbers. It also takes into account the energy used refining and transporting gasoline to be fair. This means the EPA pure electric MPGe overstates reality by about 3x. The true MPGe is around 33 for all electric. Ironically, using the gas likely brings the MPGe efficiency up a bit.

That said, the DOE estimates are estimates that depend on how the electricity is produced. The number would look a lot better if a Volt was used in a grid with all Hydro electric. The assumption is that any incremental demand created by electric cars will have to be met with natural gas powered generators.

Edited November 26, 2010 by TimG

[Wilber]

Wilber, my basic response to the OP was that the Volt will cost $41,000. Would you pay $41,000 for a Toyota Corolla that consumes (a claimed) 2 litres/100 km? You'll save $4 per 100 km or about $4000 for 100,000 km compared to a real Toyota Corolla that gets 6 litres/100 km. And I haven't factored in the cost of the electricity, or the hassle of recharging.

Do the math. (I did recently because I'm in the market for a new car. I looked at the Prius, did the numbers and walked away with the conclusion that only someone in PR would buy one. Let me be partisan and say that I think Ignatieff drives a Prius.)

What advances in battery technology? There have been few or none in the past 50 years or so. At most, computers allow better control over discharge/recharge rates but the basic principle of batteries remains the same. Cars still use lead-acid batteries to power their starters. And the batteries in your TV remote control are no different from 50 years ago.

Battery technology is like controlled nuclear fusion. Engineers keep saying that success is around the corner.

People are always ready to line up and pay too much for the latest technology. Anything with an I in front of it or the latest Wii or X Box are good examples. You know that the computer or any other electronic gizmo you buy today will be obsolete and there will be a better one for half as much in a year. It happens all the time. Lots of folks must have the latest and greatest. The price of a Prius isn't justified on an economic basis compared to conventional cars its size but that hasn't stopped them from selling lots of them. The technology will continue to get better and more cost effective. I can't imagine what we would be driving today if car makers had your attitude fifty years ago. Wait minute, I have a 44 year old full size American convertible sitting in my garage. It gets about the same mileage as my diesel pickup towing a 10,000 lb trailer.

As far as batteries go, vehicles use lead acid for starting because they are cheap and more expensive technologies aren't necessary to perform their function. To date, their weight isn't considered a big enough factor to require anything more expensive. The reason not to use anything more exotic is the same as the one you are using not to buy one of these vehicles.

I guess you are too young to remember when ni cad represented the pinnacle of commercially used battery technology. It was just over 20 years ago. How well do you think your cell phone or lap top would work without lithium ion batteries.

Edited November 26, 2010 by Wilber

[August1991]

People are always ready to line up and pay too much for the latest technology. Anything with an I in front of it or the latest Wii or X Box are good examples. You know that the computer or any other electronic gizmo you buy today will be obsolete and there will be a better one for half as much in a year. It happens all the time. Lots of folks must have the latest and greatest.

There's a difference between the latest PS3 at $400 and the latest Volt at $40,000.

The technology will continue to get better and more cost effective.

Has the Prius become cheaper?

I can't imagine what we would be driving today if car makers had your attitude fifty years ago. Wait minute, I have a 44 year old full size American convertible sitting in my garage. It gets about the same mileage as my diesel pickup towing a 10,000 lb trailer.

Cars still have the same power plants.

As faras batteries go, vehicles use lead acid for starting because they are cheap and more expensive technologies aren't necessary to perform their function.

QED. Edited November 26, 2010 by August1991

[Bonam]

What advances in battery technology? There have been few or none in the past 50 years or so. At most, computers allow better control over discharge/recharge rates but the basic principle of batteries remains the same. Cars still use lead-acid batteries to power their starters. And the batteries in your TV remote control are no different from 50 years ago.

Battery technology is like controlled nuclear fusion. Engineers keep saying that success is around the corner.

What? You clearly have not been following this field even slightly. Battery technology has advanced immensely in the last 50 years. For one, lithium ion and lithium polymer batteries did not exist 50 years ago, and they have much higher energy densities, power densities, and recharge speeds than others. And, the technology continues to advance. Batteries are a technology that still has huge room for improvement. And, beyond conventional batteries, advances in nanotechnology and quantum features present huge further potential for improved energy density in batteries.

All that of course also ignores the fuel cell, which is just another type of battery, where the reactants are stored outside the battery in separate tanks instead of being integrated into the battery. There are already production fuel cells used for a variety of applications with the needed energy densities for automotive applications, the downside for now is cost, but that too is rapidly decreasing. Forgetting cost for a mount, having driven an FCX Clarity around, I can say the technology itself is definitely there.

Edited November 26, 2010 by Bonam

[dre]

Ill probably buy a bybrid or electric in about 5 years. I just bought a new car for my wife and I seriously considered it... but I bought a diesel VW Jetta instead. I think it gets around 50 mpg. I bought it mostly because other friends has bought them and liked them.

[Pliny]

Politicians cannot subsidize originality and bureaucrats cannot pick winners. Why? They are politicians and bureaucrats. Wise politicians and bureaucrats should know their limits and stay as far as possible from innovation.

Absolutely!

Including providing subsidies, which is the means they use to pick winners. Their picks have to help them get votes mostly.

Edited November 26, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Ill probably buy a bybrid or electric in about 5 years. I just bought a new car for my wife and I seriously considered it... but I bought a diesel VW Jetta instead. I think it gets around 50 mpg. I bought it mostly because other friends has bought them and liked them.

Good choice. Voted "Green car of the year" in 2008. A quick search tells me it gets 30 mpg in the city and 41 mpg on the highway. Price is about $23,000.

The cost of the current production of electricity tells me that rechargeable batteries are not the technology of the future for transportation. I'm betting hydrogen has a better future technologically. Millions of cars plugging into the grid is a little taxing. The biggest drawback to hydrogen is how to tax it - revenue opportunities and losses are even more important considerations than votes. Economics trumps virtue. If necessary a little propaganda can get votes - Like a documentary on inconvenient truths or something.

Edited November 26, 2010 by Pliny

[TimG]

I'm betting hydrogen has a better future technologically.

Hydrogen has extremely low energy density which makes it an extremely impractical fuel. The cost of creating and transporting the stuff to places where they can be used by cars is huge. It will take some significant technological breakthoughs to deal with this issue.