The Plug-in Hybrid Chevy Volt for 2010 doesn't look bad. Wonder if you could shoe-horn a 502 into it? Maybe you could soup it up by just plugging it into 240 VAC:noway:

i like it. lets hope the price tag is low for it. carbs are the think of the passed now! lol

I read where the battery pack is designed to last 100K miles, but after that its a $10,000 bill to replace the batteries, Talk about depreciation! Jim

I wish it looked more like the showcar. That was really cool looking. The production version is much more sedate, style-wise.

plug in cars, yeah that's the ticket.....what buffoons.

i don't know what your electric bill is, but i'll never have a plug in car. think about this, there are constant commercials not to run your appliances during the day, and we need to do everything we can to save energy blah..blah..blah.., and g.m. is going to bring another plug car out??? genius, sheer genius... oh and a bank of battries doesn't leave a foot print...while everybody else is working on hydrogen, g.m. decides to go back to battries.....

Hydrogen is a long way from becoming practical if it ever does. Actually a lot of manufacturers are currently working on plug in hybrids. GM is at the forefront. It makes sense because it's a lot more efficient to run the car on electricity than it is to run even the most fuel efficient engine. Regarding the style change from the concept car, it was done to maximize aerodynamics. I've heard that most people don't like the change. Regarding the price, I heard it's going to be expensive. May be a good car for guilty rich people.

Insiders believe the price will be around $40K. A little too rich for my blood!

i heard that it will only use the equivelent amount of electricity that your refriderator does.

oaw

So what happens after 300 mi? You spending the night where ever your at? Or does the gas recharge motor make enough juice to run the car indefinately so long as you keep the filling it up?

I heard a piece on the radio yesterday and they stated the range between recharges is only 40 miles. I hope that info is inaccurate. Needs to be ten times that. Even then what does one do when your battery dies? Is there a crank up handle that after 100 cranks gives you an extra mile? There has to be a reliable backup system.

plug in cars, yeah that's the ticket.....what buffoons.

i don't know what your electric bill is, but i'll never have a plug in car. think about this, there are constant commercials not to run your appliances during the day, and we need to do everything we can to save energy blah..blah..blah.., and g.m. is going to bring another plug car out??? genius, sheer genius... oh and a bank of battries doesn't leave a foot print...while everybody else is working on hydrogen, g.m. decides to go back to battries.....
what do you do for a living? some of the stuff you come up amazes me.

I thought I read recently that GM wanted to get the price down to the $35k MSRP level.

It appears, while the electric batteries will only last for a 40 mile trip, the car will also have E85 capacity to keep you going and recharge the batteries. Hopefully, that is FlexFuel talk with the E85, as here in CA, there's only 11 stations with E85 (http://www.e85refueling.com/locations.php?state=CACalifornia (http://www.e85refueling.com/locations.php?state=CACalifornia)) ) . Plus, if you work within 40 miles of home, where do you charge the batteries to get you home? Seems that this car's market will be where you can get to/from work in under 40 miles or can run a LONG extension cord into your office building to charge the batteries :D

I think a true electric vehicle that's practical and goes for several hundred miles is still a long way off. The infrastruture is just not available for recharging on the fly.

I would love an electric car with a 40 mile range. I live in town, 40 miles would get me by for nearly a week. Run it on lithium ion batteries, make it so it has a smart charger that is very efficient....make the roof and trunk lid have solar panels that would charge the batteries during the daytime, I think it's a great idea. Battery chargers really don't use that much electricity, and to be able to pay a small, one time bill but being able to drive around for free all day long? Perfect. I wouldn't want to pay $40k for it, but get it to me for $15-$20k, and we've got a deal.

Make it look like an Aston Martin DB9 while you're at it. :D

http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/sep2008/bw20080916_356100_page_2.htm

At $40,000 it would take me over 15 years to pay-back that investment with the current gas price of $3.77 vs. our current 30 MPG commuter car and putting on 20,000 a year. Shoot at $10 a gallon that still takes 6 years and we don't even put that much mileage on per year any more.

Then...you think you are saving the planet, but 2/3rds of the US electricity is coal or petroleum generated anyway!! Oh...what about Brown-outs now?

I hear the car has a 40 mi range on pure electric. Perfect for most commutes to work. After 40 mi a gas motor kicks in and works as a generator for the elec motor. The gas engine does not drive the car it's still being driven by the electric motors. It's is supposed to go 300mi on the gas generator. I'm willing to bet the batteries aren't completely drained after 40mi just enough where it can't can run on pure electricity. So my question is, does the gas generator provide enough juice to run the car on ltrips over 300 mi. Or does it need a recharge because the gas generator supplements what the residual charge left over after the inital charge is zapped after the first 40 mi. It would seem prudent that the gas generator supplys enough juice to run the car continuously. But I never found any info on the car that confirms this or not.

i don't know what your electric bill is, but i'll never have a plug in car. think about this, there are constant commercials not to run your appliances during the day, and we need to do everything we can to save energy blah..blah..blah..,

Thats usually for the day during on peak hours. When people are at work and all those businesses are running their AC and puters.

At home I have an off peak plan where between 7pm and 9am weekdays and all weekend, the price for kilowatt/hr is about 40% it is during on peak times. So after 7pm, thats when I run the pool pump, dishwasher washer and dryer or a plug in car if I had one.

How about putting in an off-peak meter just for recharging? Most of us would be recharging during the off-peak hours anyways. Just plug in with a timer that powers up the charger when off-peak hours start.

One of the benefits of plug-ins is that the electric generation is more centrally located. The energy comes from a few hundred power plants rather than from a few million cars. Easier to clean up a few power plants than a million cars. That is where the emissions benefit comes from. Of course, this assumes that the power companies clean up their acts and quit buying emissions credits or litigating to stall the cleanups.

As for the Volt: Looked cool in concept but we all knew it wouldn't look like that in production. Price gouging will start when pre-orders begin. People will be paying a premium to be the first on their block in some areas. I'll believe it when I see it on dealer lots. Toyota and Honda are going to kill GM in this one too.

K

Insiders believe the price will be around $40K. A little too rich for my blood!
If that car is going to cost that much and after 100K miles you have to buy new batteries that will cost $10,000 and if you finance that car you will never own it the car and GM will own you.

I don't see plug-in cars as attractive to the mainstream market.Battery technology still needs development to get realistic mileage between recharges. I think Toyota is making best use of available technology with their line-up of hybrids. I drove a hybrid Camry at the dealer last year, and was impressed. When you punch the thing, the engine and dc motor together make for some decent acceleration. Downside was reduced trunk space. I haven't heard of any battery failures in the Prius or Camry.

The $10k battery replacement might not be that bad. Compare that to 100k miles of oil and filter changes, exhaust systems and so forth.

Who on this thread has watched the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?"

unfortunately most folks wouldnt save up the 10K even though they new it was coming. So when the battery up and dies, they either throw away the car, or have to finance the battery pack. Would it be worth putting 10K into a 7 or 8 year old car? You could buy a pretty nice crate motor for that kind of money. Jim

The advantage of an all electric plug in car is that most power plants are run on coal, natural gas and nuclear power not oil. The disavantage is the foot print left by making the batteries and the result of those batteries after the fact.
I have studied hydrogen as a solution to gas since I was in high school. Problem is no one is asking the right questions on it. The energy require to split into hydrogen outpaces the gain. Another question I have never seen asked is what happens when you introduce a million cars a day spewing nothing but water vapor into major city such as LA. You think the resulting climate change of that won't influence the weather you better think again. It might make co2 look like a good thing.
the only true source of unlimited cheap energy is compressed air. Problem is no one has figured out how to make a whole bunch of money off of it. But I for one would be real interested in the one car that is supposed to be coming here next year that runs on compressed air. Problem is it still requires a small gas engine to create and restore compressed air to the tanks. But it should get over 100 mpg and be able to travel roughly 800 miles between fill ups.
We could work towards the compressed air engine and in turn till those become viable and reliable convert at least large trucks and other heavy equipment to natual gas immediately, which in turn would take some stress off oil for the near future. As long as that use does not threaten the natural gas supplies/price used for cooking heating etc in households.
There are solutions to extend the lifetime of oil, but the solution to end it is not here, not yet. Which is why not allowing drilling off-shore is a mistake. Even if it takes 10 years for those wells to produce, it still increased the amount available at that point, don't wait 10 years and tell me the same thing.

I just saw a TV special that answered some of these questions.

The 40 mile range is on batteries only. Then, a small gasoline generator takes over and gives the car the full 300 mile range. You can still refill the tank and keep driving as normal. The overnight recharge gives you that 40 miles of range, which for many commuters is sufficient for their needs. So they'd never have to buy gasoline if they plugged in overnight...but the car will still run on gasoline without ever plugging in.

I just saw a TV special that answered some of these questions.

The 40 mile range is on batteries only. Then, a small gasoline generator takes over and gives the car the full 300 mile range. You can still refill the tank and keep driving as normal. The overnight recharge gives you that 40 miles of range, which for many commuters is sufficient for their needs. So they'd never have to buy gasoline if they plugged in overnight...but the car will still run on gasoline without ever plugging in.

At what MPG? so for 40 miles its great, after that it is no better than any other car. Great for small town USA, but worthless in a commuter driven area like Atlanta where the average commute is more than that a day.

The $10k battery replacement might not be that bad. Compare that to 100k miles of oil and filter changes, exhaust systems and so forth.

Who on this thread has watched the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?"
I have to disagree with you on that one, my 1997 F250 7.3 diesel with 240,000 miles on it has had 50 oil changes at a cost of $50 each Total $2500 and even 4 sets of 35" BFG all terrain tires at a cost of $700=#2800
no exhaust repairs just 3 cam shaft sensors $ 30 each total $90.
Total $ 5300 for 240,000 miles on it so far.
Now I have spent to date on diesel to drive it has cost me a total of $38,000 that is just the fuel I have all my records for the truck to date.
BTW I also paid $22,000 for my 97 4x4 4 door F250 7.3 diesel back in 1997.

I would like to know what it would cost to own and drive that Volt car 240,000 miles total?

Brad, I don't doubt you for a minute, but do you think your results are typical?

I think a comparison to a gasoline commuter is the intended target. Also at this stage of the development there won't be a complete financial payback for a cost of ownership unless you apply a value to saving the environment, and likley a big one. The thing with hybrids is you are paying for two drive trains, so the list price will always be high for that reason.

wouldnt a small diesel engine thats turbo'd make more sense? maybe in a car the size of the volt/cavalier? I think the automakers here in the US have it all wrong. Sure a few years ago they got ungodly torque from the cummins turbo deisel for the big trucks. Why not put the same technology in a small 3 cylinder motor? probably get 60-70+ mpg or more. When the price of gas hit 4 dollars a gallon. That did more than all the whining the enviros tried to get the gov't to do to the automakers. Mainly make fuel efficient cars. Get people to use alternative transportation. Drive less. Buy smaller cars. Jim

Here is some info i found to clear up any misconceptions on the car, most of this info is from 2 days ago when they unveiled the production version, with some sources and pics fo the production car.

"GM said it will cost about 80 cents to fully charge the Volt at 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is about the national average rate"

"GM is testing new lithium-ion battery packs that will enable to Volt to travel 40 miles when fully charged. After that, a small gasoline engine will recharge the batteries to keep the car rolling at an equivalent of 150 miles per gallon."

"The company says it will bring the car to market late in 2010. It’s expected to cost $30,000 to $40,000."

They also noted the price may come down if their is government loans given for the development of electric vehicles as well as government incentives for consumers.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26630087/


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26737673/

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autobloggreen.com/media/2008/09/x11ch_vt002.jpg
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autobloggreen.com/media/2008/09/x11ch_vt003.jpg
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autobloggreen.com/media/2008/09/x11ch_vt013.jpg

I'm willing to bet at time goes on the batteries will get cheaper. Escpecailly with ecomony of scale if enough people buy them.

I saw a show on discovery channel not to long ago about one of the worlds largest battery recycler in Illinos or Indiana (somewhere out there). They just about able to recycle most of the batteries at they come in which is used to make more batteries.

Now you get a million cars with these batteries in them driving around your bound to get more recycling plants popping up which probably specialize in recycling the car batteries. So more economy of scale.

So I'm willing to bet the batteries will be half that cost in 10 years to replace. And if you cannot afford to save $500/annually should you really be out shopping for a $30-40K car? Or for those who really aren't disciplined enough to save any money, roll the cost of replacement into the financing.

Realistically we are probably another 2-3 generations away from having something real good.

Other things that can offset costs, would be to have solar power rechargers. Out here in the blast furnace state premium parking at work is covered parking. Put some solar panels up there and recharge while your car is parked at work. Integrate solar panels in the roof so as the sun beats on your car it gets recharged.

Now for my political dig, you'd hope the big three would get tired of getting squashed by Toyota and at least put their heads together and settle on battery interface that would be interchangeable among all three brands so as to more economy of scale. Plus it would proabbaly help their marketing if you knew that your batteries could work in a chrysler or furd too.

... put their heads together and settle on battery interface that would be interchangeable among all three brands so as to more economy of scale. Plus it would proabbaly help their marketing if you knew that your batteries could work in a chrysler or furd too.

And if you had a motel on the interstate you could open a charge station where, if the batteries were quick change, you could change out batteries just like filling with gas. And the DOT trucks that roll around with a gallon of gas, could have batteries on board to change out for the dufuses that forgot to charge the night before. Can't just dump in a gallon of electrons ya know :)

K

I have to agree with 1BLACKHARLEY in that electric cars aren't the answer. The nations electric grid, especially in certain areas, is already strained to the limit. Then there's the many already high polluting coal fired electric generating plants that will spew out even more pollutants. I could see higher electric rates as an indirect result of mass production of plug-in vehicles. GM says $ .80 worth of electricity at $ .10 kwh to fully recharge it but I'm skeptical of that.

even if the Volt isn't the planet saver it is being made out to be, GM still wins by putting it out due to the PR it generates. it will get the environMENTALists and domestic car haters to mellow out on their GM bashing long enough for them to get back on their feet.
the Volt is sort of a flagship model- it is to the "green" market what the Corvette is for the sports car end of things.

if the batteries were quick change,

According to what I've read they take a 6 hour charge to go 40 miles. Half this if you use 220 volt. Not very good in my opinon.

According to what I've read they take a 6 hour charge to go 40 miles. Half this if you use 220 volt. Not very good in my opinon.
I don't think it's that bad. Plug it in overnight, and most people will get enough juice for electric only driving on a commute to work that's less than 20 miles each way.

The volt is better than an electric only car IMO, because with the generator running it's got a range of 350+ per tank of gas (they say it gets the equivalent of 150mpg....we'll have to see about that) . It will keep going as long as you put gas in it.

So, it's got the range and quick fueling ability of a gas car, and IF charged overnight for about $1, you get 40 gas-free miles. Not a bad start IMO.

If I were looking for a new car payment, I'd consider one. However, my car is paid for, and I'm not buying another one till this one is dead. I'm curious to see what the second generation Volt type car can do..... :thumbsup:

even if the Volt isn't the planet saver it is being made out to be, GM still wins by putting it out due to the PR it generates. it will get the environMENTALists and domestic car haters to mellow out on their GM bashing long enough for them to get back on their feet.
the Volt is sort of a flagship model- it is to the "green" market what the Corvette is for the sports car end of things.

novaderrick, Are you old enough to remember the EV-1? (Not being sarcastic, it is a real possibility so I'm asking).

In the early 90s GM produced a number of All Electric vehicles for the CA market in response to the CARB Zero Emissions mandate. They were well received by the people who leased them, supposedly. The PR potential was HUGE!!!
The EV-1 was all electric, had a ~75 mile range (Later ~120 miles)and seemed to be the darling of environmentalists everywhere until someone figured out that the emissions were just shifted to the power plant. It was called the "Long Tailpipe Theory".
If you believe the docu-movie Who Killed the Electric Car, GM was dragged kicking and screaming into the Zero Emissions field and fought mightily until Zero Emissions was rescinded in CA.

The fact is, GM was early (a pioneer ?) into electric vehicles. In about 1986 while a newbie tech at a Buick/Pontiac dealership in Vermilion, Ohio I was sent to New Model Training for the wonderful, redesigned 1986 Fiero at a local GM Tech Center. There was some "buzz" going around the campus about an electric GM car on site. It turned out to be the GM "Impact" protoype (designed/ built by SunRaycer in CA).

According to the "specs" that we were told, the Impact had a ~200 mile range if driven at 45-55 mph(on mid-80s tech batteries), but if needed, it would take on a Corvette of that vintage in a 1/4 mile race. I drove the car and it was awesome! Think of the torque of a golf cart, multiplied by 1000! (Of course, that was hell on the batteries and severely reduced the range). 4-wheel burnouts were easy!! 0-80 was a matter of 5-6 seconds or so thanks to the 2 traction motors on each axle (of course, at the expense of the batteries). The car had NO creature comforts like AC, power windows, locks, etc. Heat was from the residual electric motor heat. It was a great start for a viable electric vehicle. I watched for years to see it come into production.

Being in Northern Ohio, I heard nothing about the Impact or a GM electric car for many years until a small blurb in the local paper said the GM EV-1 electric car was a "real loser", in about 1998 or so.
"Nobody wanted the EV-1 because ...it was slow... the range was only 75 miles...the downtime to recharge was prohibitive...the battery cost after 8 or so years was extravagant... GM was discontinuing the EV-1 ". WTF? That's not the car I drove in 1986?

Fast forward to 2006 while visiting Woodland, Ca on business and looking for some entertainment in my Hotel room , I stumbled upon a docu-movie on PPV called Who Killed The Electric Car?. The "funeral scene" by Ed Begley, Jr is a bit much, but the rest of the film is a real eye opener. It followed the EV-1 from late conception through distribution and then demolition.
Although the film has a very liberal slant to it , even my conservative/republican mind has to wonder why GM pulled all of the EV-1s and crushed them so quickly after spending all of the R&D money to bring them to market. Something really smells funny there. Especially now (10 years later?) that they are coming out with the Volt, a hybrid gas/electric???.

the EV1 was a product of the times- the economy wasn't in such great shape, inflation was pretty bad, and there were banks going under and being bailed out by the federal government (sound familiar?). i think they were even talking about the imminent dangers of global warming at that time, too.
once the winds changed and energy was cheap and seemingly everyone was able to afford to buy new vehicles, they started going towards the bigger cars and trucks and the smaller cars and "alternative fuel" vehicles got pushed aside. this was right as they were starting to roll these things out for public consumtion. GM was just giving the new vehicle buying public what it wanted. this is a trend that lasted right up until a couple of years ago. i think that's right about when Toyota came out with the Prius- which hasn't really changed all that much since then, technologically or stylistically. but Toyota was smart enough to keep it out there and building the eco friendly image they have today.

GM is not leading anything - they are responding to the fact that electric cars are coming big time and in a big way - the only thing GM is leading is working with oil companies to somehow get a gas motor into an electric car, and playing catch-up with the Prius, they even redesigned the volt to look like the Prius. GM are losers, the battery pack can go 40 miles on a charge - embarrassing but whatever - GM says that in order to not drain down the batterys "too" much the gas motor comes on about half way - so you can only drive on electric power for 25 miles

are you kidding me?

Here is a start up car company that makes an ALL electric car TODAY - http://www.teslamotors.com/ - notice the 244 miles per charge - not 25. Oh and now they are making a sedan ready to sell in late 2010 that gets 240 per charge.

so let me get this straight - some start up company run by a guy that never built a car in his life before this has a car on the road TODAY that goes 244 miles per charge priced at 100k, and sedan on the way priced at 60k that goes 240 miles and GM cant do more then 25 miles before that gas engine comes on? For christ sake people are building them in their garages that go 50 miles on LEAD ACID batterys using information they find on youtube! GM must think we are all stupid, or they are stupid, one or the other.

Electric cars are coming big time - but it will not be GM that has anything to do with it.

GM is not leading anything - they are responding to the fact that electric cars are coming big time and in a big way - the only thing GM is leading is working with oil companies to somehow get a gas motor into an electric car, and playing catch-up with the Prius, they even redesigned the volt to look like the Prius. GM are losers, the battery pack can go 40 miles on a charge - embarrassing but whatever - GM says that in order to not drain down the batterys "too" much the gas motor comes on about half way - so you can only drive on electric power for 25 miles

You missed the point of the Volt entirely.It has smaller battery packs than an electric only car, hence the shorter electric range. The generator comes on at about 30% level of battery charge to give you the 40 mile range. The range would be higher if the batteries were discharged further. If you've ever used deep cycle batteries, you'd understand that their life is shortened by deep discharges. A typical rechargable battery will last much longer (more charge/discahrge cycles) when it's not completely discharged. This is why GM charges the batteries when they drop to 30% charge level.

You can't directly compare the Volt to the PRius. The toyota is a hybrid that uses both the gas engine AND electrric motors to drive the wheels. The Volt uses electric motors only. Using the plug in feature of the Volt in addition to thge gas generator will net better mileage than most Prius owners can olny dream about. So yeah, I guess GM is copying them.

The whole point of the Volt, is it's NOT an electric car. It's an infinite range gas car, that can run up to 40 miles on electricity only. If you choose to take advantage of that , you can plug it in and enjoy a nearly free 40 miles. If not, you don't ever have to plug it in, and you'll still get better mileage than most all other gas or hybrid cars on the road today.

If you think electrtric only cars are the wave of the future, buy some stock in Tesla motors. Personally, I don't want an electric only car. But I'd be interested in a Volt. (not at $40k though....)

I don't think electric cars will ever be the big hit that you think. The regharge time will continue to be the big killer. So GM tried to find the benefits of both cars (electric and gas) and combine them in the most effiecient way they can. They also cut out some of the bad stuff, like long mandatory recharge times. (charging a volt is optional, remember?) When your Tesla runs out of juice, enjoy the walk home.

What on earth did GM do to you that caused you so much anger to write your post?? :confused: Do a little more reading, and maybe you'll see that they really aren't just an evil company colluding with the oil companies to screw you.

http://saveourwetlands.org/streetcar.htm

novaderrick and bulb22,
I'm not the conspiracy theory type, nor do I believe that GM, Ford, or Chrysler is in bed with "Big Oil". Having said that, knowing what I know about the fate of the EV-1 and the reluctance of the Big 3 to explore other designs until recently, I have to wonder "Why?" I've been asking that question for years while watching fuel prices climb slowly but surely. masterxmac does raise some valid points, if you sift through the anger.

The Truck and SUV craze always made me just scratch my head. It seemed as if those vehicles were heavily marketed by all 3 companies toward totally off-the-wall market segments. They were certainly offering what "many" of their buyers wanted, but they were very persuasive in moving many others in that direction. They seemed to really downplay the rest of their offerings and perpetuate the perceived "need" of those vehicles. (In my time as a dealership Tech I was really dismayed at the "yuppification" of trucks, that's what initially made me start paying attention to that trend). The more they sold, the the harder they marketed, the "cushier" they made them.

Maybe it was just good business practice to promote and refine your biggest money makers? While I agree with that, it seems that the US manufacturers had blinders on and weren't seeing things coming down the road that a Joe Shmoe like myself could see 10-15 years ago. It surely seems like they got caught with their pants down, along with many of their buyers. Now, yes, they are playing catch up IMHO. The imports certainly got on the bandwagon, but they kept on selling the dickens out of Civics, Corollas etc, and handed them their butts with cars like the Prius.
It seems to me that if GM had kept the line of development with the EV-1 and beyond open, they could have been a leader today, not a follower. As it happened, they cut it off like like an angry ex-wife and kept promoting bigger and better trucks.

I'm not sure if an all-electric car, hybrid or gas-electric is going to be the wave of the future or if it will be some other technology. I'm just watching and hoping that one of our manufacturers takes the lead in "other than gasoline alone" development.The cars that we will drive 10 years from now are going pretty interesting, I just hope mine comes from GM or Ford.

Yes, I'm also watching Tesla Motors.
D**n! If I could afford it, I'd buy that roadster right now just for the midlife crisis factor (I'm 46). To heck with a Vette and a 25 year old blonde! With that car, I wouldn't even need the chippie. Hmm, might be cheaper in the long run. :D
Tesla's an interesting company and I really hope they make it.

http://saveourwetlands.org/streetcar.htm

Yep. Those were a great means of transport. The very best available at the time.

Wooderson, I'm a big fan of Passenger rail, Interurbans, streetcars and (I hate that moniker) trolleys. I belong to a group that is rehabilitating a 25 mile rail line in hopes of being part of a larger "intermodal" plan that includes passenger rail and streetcar service here in Ohio.

While it's very possible that GM made a concerted effort to "kill the trolley", don't you think that the automobile and Bus were naturally perceived as "better" back then? You could go where you wanted to "door to door" in a car, and busses could be routed to where the "trolleys" could not go without a large expense. To the commuting public, that was the next best thing to being able to fly from one spot to another.

( I'd really like to believe that GM killed the Trolley , it sounds despicable and that's what I'd like to believe from a corporation that big, but...) Most "trolleys" were operated by local electric companies. GM didn't buy them up, they just leveraged them out of the business by offering something better and cheaper.
GM did "buy into" both the Southwestern (CCC&S) and the Lakeshore Electric Interurban lines heavily in 1936-37...hmmm...then they folded.
Uhhhmm, can I change my position on all the above?? Should I? I really don't know.
According to records, lack of ridership killed the CCC&S (Southwestern). The demise of the Lakeshore is a bit more ambiguous, but boils down to lack of ridership as far as I can tell.

In case you haven't heard, there is a big push to get "High Speed Rail" service between Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnatti, Ohio along the I-71 corridor. The plan has been "floating" out there for many years, but is getting some very serious consideration these days.

I find it ironic that we had this exact system in place 100 years ago following almost the same route via the CCC&S (Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnatti, and Southwestern) Interurban line. ;)
What goes around, comes around. ??

The "trolleys" aren't dead, they've only been resting, thinking up ways to become faster and more efficient once that $.02/gallon gas becomes unaffordable.:yes:

Treehuggers rejoice!!


Oh wait a minute, how are we going to dispose of all those dead batteries?

Oopsie:sad:
Hmm....

Maybe it was just good business practice to promote and refine your biggest money makers? While I agree with that, it seems that the US manufacturers had blinders on and weren't seeing things coming down the road that a Joe Shmoe like myself could see 10-15 years ago.

Personally, I believe GM's push for SUVs was the money to be made. They made more money on each SUV than they could make on a dozen smaller cars. I can't blame GM for marketing and making/selling the trucks.

Now, the lack of forsight, is definately a problem. When the SUV craze came to a halt, they were caught with their pants down. I'm sure they realize that now. So now they are trying something different, and the Volt is a huge step. I hope it pans out for them - I think it's a great attempt to come back. I just don't understand some people's anger towards GM. I really don't think they did what they did, to purposly screw people over. They were shortsighted, and have or will pay the price.

So..... GM made money when it was there to be made. Now they need something different, and they came up with the "new" type of hybrid that OTHERS are trying to copy. I wish GM the best, and I hope they can stay in business. Even if they don't, I believe the Volt was a good honest effort. One that may even push the hybrid/alternative fuel vehicle market in a different direction. Best of luck to them :thumbsup:

I think the reason people got into the SUV craze, is because they simply saw others driving them and wanted to belong. Most people want to fit in, and just blindly follow the herd. I cannot stand SUVs. They are ugly, and most will never see an road trail. Urban cowboys all the way. I've got respect for true truck enthusiasts, but these SUV types aren't it. I'm amazed with high fuel prices, people are still buying these things.

notice the 244 miles per charge - not 25

So does it have enough room in the trunk for a portable honda generator in case you want to drive somewhere thats 245 miles away?

What on earth did GM do to you that caused you so much anger to write your post?? :confused: Do a little more reading, and maybe you'll see that they really aren't just an evil company colluding with the oil companies to screw you.

To me? Nothing, to California? and by extension the U.S. You can be the judge.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4695/is_200103/ai_n17398981

Basically California has a pollution problem cause by cars with tail pipes, so they created a mandate to make 3% of cars sold in its state to be zero emissions. Seems reasonable to me. Not to GM, who sued California and won. Then they stopped making electric cars, sold the battery technology to Chevron, and Chevron sued Toyota to stop using the batteries it was leasing from GM to make its electric cars. Does that about cover it?

Call me a tree hugger....I would buy one.

Already drive a Honda Civic Hybrid 45 mpg 40% city 60% highway. Yup got my diamond lane sticker...thank you Arnold. Got my fed tax credit...thank you Mr. Bush. Saved 45 minutes commuting each day with that commuter lane pass. ROI in time saved earned back in 3 months. It was a no brainer.

Wife has a Toyota Camry Hybrid 39 mpg 50% city 50% highway. 100% highway with car full loaded with family at 70mph....47 MPG. Several trips along I5 from Bay Area to San Diego.

We don't even think about gas bills in our household. It is a non event.

Blown BBC Elky very fun, but not my daily driver. 7 to 10 Smiles Per Gallon hauling stuff from Loews.

I love trying new technologies for fun and exploration.

I think the reason people got into the SUV craze, is because they simply saw others driving them and wanted to belong. Most people want to fit in, and just blindly follow the herd. .

You mean exactly like this global warming, go green, reduce your carbon footprint, buy a hybrid thats boring, looks like crap and has very little use / purpose outside of transporting bodies?

That there is a two way street but I do agree with you to an extent. SOME did, for sure. Others, even though they dont 4x4 every weekend need trucks and SUV's for things like hauling, towing, camping....which, per my eyes, would surely SUCK in one of these hybrids if it could be done at all. Might be able to tow a shopping cart of groceries home and with distance limitations could probably camp in the city park with the homeless since you'd probably run out of juice before you could get to a campground.

For me - I just cannot and will not be able to afford ANY kind of new car and honestly, with quality issues among all manufacturers I will never make an effort. I'll cut holes in the floorpan of a mid 60's chevy II and use my feet first. And yes, thats probably because I like the flintstones and want to belong and follow the caveman heard. :D

Most people who drive SUVs and trucks haul one thing: themself. They must have plenty of dough to toss away.

Most people who drive SUVs and trucks haul one thing: themself. They must have plenty of dough to toss away.

mmmmmkay....most of the people in hybrids and priuses look like they are on the way to a cult meeting.

"Prius - getting you to your scientology meeting as cheaply as possible so that you have more money to give to your leader"

Im going to start taking pictures of this phenom. Hybrid drivers are always those people that look confused for no reason, wear huge frumpy glasses, women always have short manlilke haircuts and whether man or woman they seem to all wear the same khaki like pants.

I'd rather drive an empty truck than be one of those folks on my way to a cult meeting in a hybrid. :D

See how this game works? I enjoy it but I must proclaim - I have a LOT more up my sleeve on these cult hybrid drivers than everyone put together here combined can come up with about trucks and SUV's. They're the easiest group to hound and irritate because there is literally no cool factor to fall back on. And I can always - ALWAYS - end the argument with a hybrid driver with a simple truthful / factual statement - "You're ugly and there aint a thing in the WORLD that you can buy to fix that"

:p:D

I don't drive a hybrid, but I respect the people who do, even if my old VW diesel gets better mileage.

Making a personal attack on these people is a red herring. The fact is, if you drive an SUV or truck just to haul yourself to work, you are throwing money away, but then isn't that what America is all about: being arrogant and doing whatever you please, no matter what the consequences.

I don't drive a hybrid, but I respect the people who do, even if my old VW diesel gets better mileage.

Making a personal attack on these people is a red herring. The fact is, if you drive an SUV or truck just to haul yourself to work, you are throwing money away, but then isn't that what America is all about: being arrogant and doing whatever you please, no matter what the consequences.

"throwing money away" would be to buy a second car when you need your SUV, even if only on the weekends or even 1 weekend a month. The rest of the time, you drive it because it's the car you own.

I can't see me saving any money by buying another car, as I need my SUV regularly. I spend $5 a day on gas to drive to/from work in my SUV. If I buy a car that gets 40mpg, I'll spend $2.50 per day, for a whopping savings of around $650 a year. Oh dang, I still have to pay for that 2nd car, and the insurance for that 2nd car, and the maintenance for that 2nd car..... Somehow I think driving my SUV is BY FAR the financially responsible thing to do in my case, and typically in most people's cases.

Just because "they" (me) are "throwing money away" at the gas pump, it's offset elsewhere - insurance, maintenance, or taking a hit (HUGE hit) if you sell your current SUV. Most people (you included IMO) don't seem to get that you're not saving anything if you buy a 2nd car just to use less gas.

My two daily drivers cost $80 and $150, and I fixed them up. Who says you have to buy a new car to drive? My gasser VW gets 37 mpg, and my diesel VW gets 51mpg.

I know what you're saying re: gas savings, but I think you missed my point. My point was, it's still an additional car (I still need the room of my SUV) - even FREE, that 2nd car is not worth it IMO.

Insurance alone will eat half my MPG savings. In my case, that assumes a pretty low $300 per year insurance, and that leaves $300 for gas, oil, "fixing it up", etc. I'm not $$ ahead, despite getting much better gas mileage in my daily driver. It typically does NOT make financial sense to own a 2nd car in an attempt at saving some gas.

I really like the idea behind an electric car, but I was genuinely surprised when I saw the published performance figures of the Volt. I incorrectly assumed that it would be more like the EV-1, only better as technology has had 20 years or so to improve. I was looking at a range of maybe 150-175 miles per charge with no internal combustion involvement.

When I was in the market for a new car a couple of months ago I visited the Volt portion of Chevy's Web site. I guess they knew a lot of folks would be surprised to see them working on a car like the Volt because they had a paragraph or two devoted to the "Hey, aren't you guys the ones who killed the electric car?" crowd. I read the explanation given as to why GM did what it did to the EV-1, and it seemed sort of vague- the EV-1 served its purpose, it helped them learn a lot, the time wasn't right to keep the car around, new technologies will make their next offering better, etc.

GM should have kept the EV-1 around (or some sort of derivative) for R & D purposes, maybe even selling a few hundred a year in select areas of large population centers where they could have more cost effective service facilites. They could have done this and learned from the real-world experiences of their customers. Yeah, I know, woulda', shoulda' coulda'.

I'd buy an EV-1 type vehicle, but I'd want it to have a 150 mile or so range and be rechargeable over night from a standard 110 outlet. Moreover, it wouldn't be my only vehicle. I'd still have my truck, my Chevelles, and probably some sort of SUV. 4X4s aren't optional where I live- they are required.

Would my owning an EV-1 or a Volt make a big difference in the world? No it wouldn't, but it would be or could be a small part of a larger picture. I'd guess that the days of fossil fuel burning power plants are numbered, and that wind, solar, and nuclear are more likely candidates. Polution free or as close to polution free as we can get is the way of the future.

i confess. i'm ugly, my family is ugly, and the final knot is i have an obnoxious elky that brings down my neighborhood home values. let me tell you about this cult i belong to over some coors light... ;)

The Volt is a PR campaign for GM more than anything. They want to better their perception in the public's minds and look environmentally responsible. It's already been said the Volt won't make money for GM and may very well lose money due to high development costs and low production volume. It will be what's known as a "halo" car. Now what makes more sense to me is the Cobalt XFE. 37 mpg for a lot less than $20k in a car that actually looks good (IMO), doesn't need to be recharged, and has a "normal" drivetrain. And when it's out of warranty you could probably find someone who could work on it outside the dealer network. Then the Cobalt's replacement, the "Cruze" (not as good looking as the Cobalt IMO), when it gets here in 2009 or 2010 will probably get even better mileage.

I really like the idea behind an electric car, but I was genuinely surprised when I saw the published performance figures of the Volt. I incorrectly assumed that it would be more like the EV-1, only better as technology has had 20 years or so to improve. I was looking at a range of maybe 150-175 miles per charge with no internal combustion involvement.


The Volt would probably do this, or at least get close, if you disconnected the gas engine. Problem is, people don't want a car that only goes 150 miles and then leaves them "stranded" when the battery dies. So GM is attempting to deal in a production mode where you can't please everyone's individual wants for the car, but can get most of them reasonably close.

I think it was something like 90% of people drive less than 40 miles a day during their normal commute, one of the reasons for the 40 mile electric-only goal. If you want to go somewhere on the weekend, it will still get you there and back, but use a little gas in the process.

I'd bet once it comes out there will be people that figure out how to disconnect the gas engine completely.

The fact is, if you drive an SUV or truck just to haul yourself to work, you are throwing money away, but then isn't that what America is all about: being arrogant and doing whatever you please, no matter what the consequences.

If that means that America is all about having choices and freedom to drive what you want, spend what you want on what you want....and general overall freedom of choice then I can say I agree with you.

I just hate that the hybrid / prius folks dont think this is a two way street. Give me enough time with a hybrid driver thumbing their nose at people that drive trucks and I could make them cry like a little girl.....maybe all it takes is the showing that the land outside the prius battery plant has been so contaminated and destroyed that it was picked up by nasa for rover testing and other stuff.

My point is drive what you want but dont preach to me or tell me how I am wasting money, killing the planet and blah, blah, blah.....I've been conserving, recycling, picking up trash, and taking care of mother earth as best I can since I could walk - LONG before this Al Gore, the sky is falling, cult of global warming crap so I got plenty of credits to burn and just because I drive a truck or others drive a truck (gonna throw out an annoying buzz word here that drives me NUTS) doesnt mean our "carbon footprint" is larger, doesnt mean we arent "green", doesnt mean we hate the planet and support terrorism and it doesnt necessarily mean we are throwing money away (any idea on the actual spending and recycling, clean up volunteer work, forest volunteer work, etc of those hybrid drivers? - right....they could be shooting off cans pr paint into the atmosphere for fun while burning tons of wood and leaving their AC on all day long).....it just means we CHOOSE to drive a truck or SUV just as you choose to drive a hybrid.

The next time a hybrid / prius driver gives me the stink eye maybe thats what I should do - get out and confront them. "Hi there, show me your home power bills, how much you have recycled and all of the volunteer work you have done over the years to make this place better, safer and cleaner. We can compare, winner takes the others car"

I'd drive the prius into the wall and load the mess into the bed of my truck.

Think of all the car parts you could buy for your old Chevy, instead of feeding the oil companies. It is wasting money if you drive a guzzler for daily transportation. I'm sure people laugh at me for driving a "clown car" but actually I'm the one having the last laugh.

The Volt would probably do this, or at least get close, if you disconnected the gas engine. Problem is, people don't want a car that only goes 150 miles and then leaves them "stranded" when the battery dies.

Yeah I get that, but that is also one reason why I'd have more than one vehicle.

For instance, if I'm taking a long trip I drive my F-250, not the Chevelle or the Blazer. The truck gets about 20mpg on the highway, its roomy, comfortable and with a 29 gallon tank it has an average combined range of well over 400 miles. My Blazer will only go about 300 miles on a tank. The Chevelle? I don't even want to think about it.

So, if I had an electric car with a 150-175 mile range, I wouldn't plan on driving it on a long trip. I'd drive it to work- 26 mile round trip (40 miles or so total per day with lunch break, running errands, etc.) and charge it up every 3 days or so. I think all it takes is a little planning ahead.

As you can see from my earlier post I am not a fan of GM or this car. I think the volt is lacking in many keys areas.

I also see people in here saying that it is there right drive a big truck if they wish and I agree they do.

My opinion on this whole thing from a bigger prospective is pretty simple I think.

1) Electric cars are much simpler then gas cars, that would invite more people to try to start car companies, like the Tesla people did. Simple is always better if you ask me. When you rip that gas motor out - cars make more sense, things get simpler (And don't say I don't understand cars, My dad built 2 street rods from the ground up and on one of which I was there every step of the way.)

2) (Tree hugger alert) I am not sure if people really understand how much gas cars pollute. Where I live you can see the dirt in the air driving to work in the morning - once I drove across the country and the air quality around any city was bad, you just don't notice it if you are living there. I for one would love to see the air around populated area return to normal, not for the health of babies or freaks that think they are sucking in cancer but just because clean fresh air is nice to live in, it looks better, I think it makes life better, why else do people want to go to the country to get away from it all.

3) To me, electric and tech is more fun to play with then say a 69 camero (and I love 69 camero's) because in a camero you can only drive it, but in a tech'ed out car you can mess with the computer play with the voltage to the moter, put in a bigger motor, email other cars whatever - that is the future of cars if you ask me. THAT makes cars fun again. I cant stop playing with my iphone.

Anyway - I think the volt is lame and gets us nowhere near the wants - I HAVE - maybe GM is right and nobody wants electric cars, but I think they are wrong. That's like people saying they did not need the internet when it first came out, and they were right, they did not need it, but everyone of those people that said that back then - now - use the internet more then I do and I am a computer programmer!

Anyway - that's all I got, peace out chevelle boys, I must leave you now.

Yeah I get that, but that is also one reason why I'd have more than one vehicle.

For instance, if I'm taking a long trip I drive my F-250, not the Chevelle or the Blazer. The truck gets about 20mpg on the highway, its roomy, comfortable and with a 29 gallon tank it has an average combined range of well over 400 miles. My Blazer will only go about 300 miles on a tank. The Chevelle? I don't even want to think about it.

So, if I had an electric car with a 150-175 mile range, I wouldn't plan on driving it on a long trip. I'd drive it to work- 26 mile round trip (40 miles or so total per day with lunch break, running errands, etc.) and charge it up every 3 days or so. I think all it takes is a little planning ahead.

I'm with you on the train of thought here - I'll bet someone will do just this once they have enough general interest in electrics (if ever), or someone will figure out how to remove the software "links" to the gas engine in the Volt.

I'm in the same position as you, I could have a car just electic and be fine with it for my needs. If I get a Volt, my concern would actually be kind of unusual - I'd have a gas tank I'd have to worry about the gas going bad in.

I wonder what would happen if you never filled it up? Would the car realize this and not even try to start the motor, then continue on electric only? Interesting thought....