[quote=“MKNiner, post:40, topic:23642”]7,671 Chevy Volts were sold. All are being recalled now.
Your tax dollars at work.[/quote]So the car is being recalled because it might catch on fire after a severe impact? I guess they’ll be recalling all petroleum cars soon too.
[quote=“Niner National, post:41, topic:23642”][quote=“MKNiner, post:40, topic:23642”]7,671 Chevy Volts were sold. All are being recalled now.
Your tax dollars at work.[/quote]So the car is being recalled because it might catch on fire after a severe impact? I guess they’ll be recalling all petroleum cars soon too.[/quote]
Well probably something they have to do after the NHTSA possibly glanced over safety issues due to pressure from the admin. Something about the same group operating the company and the organization that is supposed to make sure they are safe just doesn’t seem right.
To your point above though think how often 1 car catches on fire after a wreck and an auto maker has to recall way more than this to retrofit some small piece. The funny thing about all this is that GM’s savior car didn’t break 8k units.
Car recalls happen all the time, so I am not seeing that as an issue.
The Volt pricing is still on the high side. They’ve got to achieve some more production economies/efficiencies to get that price down for mass acceptance.
As far as my tax dollars at work - I’d much rather they be “wasted” developing alternative fuel technology than being funneled to the middle east along with our sons and daughters to be killed along with truckloads of innocent civillians over access to oil.
The other thing about innovation, there are always numerous failures n the road to success. That’s part of the the process. It’s Formula # 409, not Formula #1. There were 408 failures before they hit paydirt. That little sucker has made a few bucks on the backend, I’d dare to guess.
Urban legend has it that the product is named for the birthday of the inventor's wife or daughter, or alternatively after a large, powerful engine found in [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet]Chevrolet[/url] cars at the time (as sung by [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beach_Boys]the Beach Boys[/url] in their hit song, "[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/409_(song)]409[/url]"). [b]However, the product was actually named 409 because it took the inventors 409 tries to get the formula right[/b].[sup][1][/sup]
BTW, I was behind a white one at a stoplight the other day, and one of my biggest gripes about it had been styling. It’s actually pretty good in person. I have definitely seen uglier cars.
Can’t wait to see the Tesla 4D sedan up close though. That thing is pretty sexy.
[quote=“NinerWupAss, post:42, topic:23642”][quote=“Niner National, post:41, topic:23642”][quote=“MKNiner, post:40, topic:23642”]7,671 Chevy Volts were sold. All are being recalled now.
Your tax dollars at work.[/quote]So the car is being recalled because it might catch on fire after a severe impact? I guess they’ll be recalling all petroleum cars soon too.[/quote]
Well probably something they have to do after the NHTSA possibly glanced over safety issues due to pressure from the admin. Something about the same group operating the company and the organization that is supposed to make sure they are safe just doesn’t seem right.
To your point above though think how often 1 car catches on fire after a wreck and an auto maker has to recall way more than this to retrofit some small piece. The funny thing about all this is that GM’s savior car didn’t break 8k units.[/quote]Well their savior car is also only in a handful of markets.
Anyone that expected it to sell well was foolish. It has limited appeal. It’s a car first of all, so that removes interest from a lot of families with more than one kid, remove the far right wing conservatives because they hate anything “green” or new/innovative, and remove the average person because the car costs $41k.
The technology is perfectly suited to what we need to do though IMO. Electric on 90% of daily commutes and gasoline backup for long trips. It solves both the problem of high gas prices and the distance issue that fully electric cars have.
You’re right. Arguably a little before it’s time though… Chevy should have rolled out more affordable vehicles that are comparable to those of Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, etc. similar to what Ford has done. Ford is still competitive in the market and I believe they are helping drive innovation in efficiency. This will ultimately lead to what the Volt brings to the table… the question is…will the volt still exist or will it be shot down in the market?
This. They should have spent their development dollars on technology that has proven to work, and that’s hybrid technology.
They pushed it to market when there wasn’t a demand for it and they couldn’t create demand because of the pricing. And as National pointed out, the appeal of the car itself is limited. You can get a bigger car that gets essentially the same gas mileage in the Camery and for less money.
I sat in a Volt a friend of mine who works for PSNC Energy was driving. They had bought one. Sharp on the inside but far too small for me to be comfortable with. And the backseat has zero leg room. It’s not a car for families at all.
woah woah woah… should have? No. They need to keep pushing this. Just because the initial sales have been sluggish doesn’t mean it is a “failed” tech. Good lord, the fact that it sold at all is a win. Refine it, and put Volt 2.0 on the market, hopefully at a lower price.
And selective timing analysis on the “technology no one wanted” comment. At the height of the development of this product we had the gas crisis, starting with Katrina, and continuing through the $4+ gas prices. There’s been some relief in recent pricing, but let’s not be foolish - over the long term, gas is going to get more and more expensive.
Also, that Volt would rock for me. I rarely drive out of its electric range, so most of the time I’d be using zero gas. I probably should buy one, but I have some other priorities right now, and yeah the price is still a bit prohibitive.
We have to continue investing in electric and other fuel based technology. It makes so much sense for us on so many different fronts. In this era, energy indepdence is damn near approaching equivalency to sovereignity. Let that sink in.
I don’t know the exact specs on the vehicles. But GM does have hybrid Malibus and Cruzes, to compete with the more “typical” hybrids. I thought both models mpg tested well for it’s class?
And I thought the Equinox was the top in it’s class for mpg.
I really don’t care about the Volt. I just think it is funny that the government touted the car as part of the reason they HAD to save GM and that the VOLT would be something GM could build their return to the market on.
As for the car itself - as most of you pointed out - costs too much and is too small.
I am all for electric vehicles - I just don’t see myself buying one for quite awhile. My motorcycles get 50-60 mpg which works just fine for me 9 months out of the year. I can deal with the 3 months in the explorer.
[quote=“Normmm, post:48, topic:23642”]I don’t know the exact specs on the vehicles. But GM does have hybrid Malibus and Cruzes, to compete with the more “typical” hybrids. I thought both models mpg tested well for it’s class?
And I thought the Equinox was the top in it’s class for mpg.[/quote]
You have a great point, but here’s the catch… these vehicles you speak of are hybrids. Ford, along with other manufacturers, are getting hybrid gas mileage from 5 years ago out of a standard combustion engine. The beauty of this for the consumer? You don’t have to pay extra for the hybrid technology, which they also offer in many cases.
You’re right. Arguably a little before it’s time though… Chevy should have rolled out more affordable vehicles that are comparable to those of Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, etc. similar to what Ford has done. Ford is still competitive in the market and I believe they are helping drive innovation in efficiency. This will ultimately lead to what the Volt brings to the table… the question is…will the volt still exist or will it be shot down in the market?[/quote]New things are always “before their time.” When you produce an unfinished product and sell it to the masses, you help pump more money into your R&D. You get valuable real world data and you are getting revenue from the sales to help fund more research. The 7000ish sales are bad compared to a normal car, but that is $300 million additional dollars to the company and 7000 test subjects that help you refine and improve the product.
$300 million back I’m betting didn’t recoup the dollars they invested in R&D, development, manufacturing and marketing of it. Probably didn’t even come close.
Never said it was a failed tech, more that it’s not ready for mass market yet. I’d say the extremely poor sales show that to be the case.
I agree with NA that energy independence is on par with sovereignty in this day and age. Which is why it baffles me so many people oppose developing our own energy resources here. And what’s sometimes overlooked is that even if everyone is driving an electric car, you still have to generate the energy to power them. Solar, wind, hydro can’t do it alone. You have to have oil and natural gas. There is simply no way around it. Problem is people approach it as an either or. It’s either no oil at all, only alternative energy, or drill baby drill with nothing else. There has to be a mix.
Until someone can create a reliable electric car that can be bought for what a low end Camery can and isn’t the size of a crackerjack box it’s not going to be viable in the marketplace.
[quote=“MKNiner, post:52, topic:23642”]$300 million back I’m betting didn’t recoup the dollars they invested in R&D, development, manufacturing and marketing of it. Probably didn’t even come close.
Never said it was a failed tech, more that it’s not ready for mass market yet. I’d say the extremely poor sales show that to be the case.
I agree with NA that energy independence is on par with sovereignty in this day and age. Which is why it baffles me so many people oppose developing our own energy resources here. And what’s sometimes overlooked is that even if everyone is driving an electric car, you still have to generate the energy to power them. Solar, wind, hydro can’t do it alone. You have to have oil and natural gas. There is simply no way around it. Problem is people approach it as an either or. It’s either no oil at all, only alternative energy, or drill baby drill with nothing else. There has to be a mix.
Until someone can create a reliable electric car that can be bought for what a low end Camery can and isn’t the size of a crackerjack box it’s not going to be viable in the marketplace.[/quote]It isn’t meant to recoup it. It’s to keep cash flowing. If they’ve set aside x dollars for R&D, now they have X + 300 million. You can accomplish more by taking advantage of early adopters.
Computers, televisions, cell phones, and just about everything else was ‘ahead of its time’ and ‘way too expensive’ and ‘not practical’ and ‘dreams’ when they first came out. Those early adopters pump millions (and sometimes billions) into product development. Improvements are made, production becomes more efficient, supply chains become established, and prices plummet.
Virtually all technology follows the same price curve.
This is very true, but you have to consider the psychology of the market you’re dealing with. For example, in my research [engineering based] I know what my ultimate goal is - however I also know that I need to develop in certain stages to get contractor buy in. I would reason that the best approach is to develop things in stages, lowering variation from what contractors are used to, as to promote their buy in and get them to hear me out. This generates more dollars when they are pleased with my product. I then use those dollars for my R&D and continue to the next stage. Eventually I reach my goal of generating the product I want, while having everyone else familiar enough with my product to buy in to it, thus generating more funding to the next R&D project.
I think that this is a similar situation. In this case, the contractor is the consumer. The consumer is weary of this new technology, what the pay off is, and the up front investment. If no one is buying then there is little reason for R&D contract renewal. However, working toward this idea at a proper pace like other auto-makers are doing could generate more dollars while moving the people toward a more efficient means of transportation. That’s just my opinion.
And for the record - I’m all for the VOLT. I think its awesome and I’m glad to see that kind of product being rolled out. I DO think it’s the future. But I question its timing in our market… I don’t feel our market has developed enough and the payoff for the R&D may be way out. I feel that Chevy put all their stock in this one product.
The consumer is weary of this new technology, what the pay off is, and the up front investment.[/quote]I’ve never understood why people are so concerned with ‘payoff’ for hybrids. No cars have a payback period. They’re a depreciating asset.
Nobody ever questioned Hummer owners about what their payback was because there was none.
Some people are willing to pay thousands more for different rims or different trim but nobody gives them hell over it, but anyone that spends a few thousand more on the hybrid package gets the “payback” rundown.
Hybrids may never recoup their actual costs through gas savings (unless you own the car for 10+ years) but they depreciate in value more slowly so they have higher resale values.
I’m not calling you out for that or anything zero, it is just something that has never made sense to me.
Oh I know man - no worries. I think its an interesting conversation and I’ve had it with others before.
You’re right about Hybrids. 10+ years even with oil price inflation. Thats what makes the Ford focus [hatch namely] all the more interesting to me. 40+ mpg, not a hybrid.
One interesting stat: Hybrids fair better in crashes than their non-hybrid counter parts. The fatality rate for hybrid cars is lower than for regular cars. The additional weight of the hybrid components was cited as a reason, although I think it’s likely because hybrid drivers seem to drive more cautiously.
Agreed - the hybrid demographic is certainly not a representation of the mass population.
I am all for the Volt succeeding and honestly I don’t have a problem with electric cars as long as our electrical grid is prepared to deal with the demand and we have established enough resources to power those plants. Considering the price of them I am perfectly happy sticking with 2 wheels on gas. Not to mention 2 wheels is easier on a road surface than cars and the added weight you reference - if we all had them - would mean roads being resurfaced more often which OMG uses oil.
I am with MK on this - there isn’t a magic bullet - at least not one that I have seen yet. It is going to be a bit of everything.
My crack on the Volt was solely based on the government touting it as a reason for bailing out the automaker.
[quote=“zerogeneticsdc, post:50, topic:23642”][quote=“Normmm, post:48, topic:23642”]I don’t know the exact specs on the vehicles. But GM does have hybrid Malibus and Cruzes, to compete with the more “typical” hybrids. I thought both models mpg tested well for it’s class?
And I thought the Equinox was the top in it’s class for mpg.[/quote]
You have a great point, but here’s the catch… these vehicles you speak of are hybrids. Ford, along with other manufacturers, are getting hybrid gas mileage from 5 years ago out of a standard combustion engine. The beauty of this for the consumer? You don’t have to pay extra for the hybrid technology, which they also offer in many cases.[/quote]
The Cruze offers both, I believe. Check it out. It’s mpg is right in line with the Focus and Civic.
http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/cruze/2012/
The Equinox is the top in it’s class, Escape and CRV, of non-hybrids for hwy mpg.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=31468&id=31480&id=32128&id=30764
Volt production temporarily halted, 1300 people laid off