Chevy Volt heads into GM's production pipeline
By Donald Melanson 
posted May 7th 2007 5:45PM
posted May 7th 2007 5:45PM
Those of you as taken with GM's Chevy Volt concept vehicle as we are may want to take a minute to reconsider any impending car purchases, as the car is now officially headed into production -- in two different versions no less. According to Autoblog, that could put the car on track for a roll out in 2010, although GM isn't quite ready to get that specific. In addition to the plug-in gasoline model we saw earlier this year, the other version GM is working on is a fuel cell model, although it'll apparently be too expensive for volume production (diesel and ethanol-powered versions could also be headed to select markets). The plug-in gasoline version takes the rather ingenious route of using the gasoline engine to power a generator, which charges the car's batteries, which in turn powers the car itself (you can also simply plug it in overnight to charge the battery). That supposedly translates to a gasoline savings of about 500 gallons per year for the average commuter, not to mention a signification reduction in CO2 emissions. While there's no word yet on what it might cost, GM has reportedly said that it's willing to lose money initially in order to get the car produced and sold, which could certainly be a good sign.
This is an interesting thread. The funniest people are the one's who actually think there's such a thing as an "American Car" .vs. a "Foreign Car". You folks really need to take a good, long look at the bill of materials for your cars and see where the parts come from.
If you don't think a company should take care of it's workers after they retire, buy a Foreign Car. I hope you have your own retirement in order!!
Big Lithium-Ion batteries have a nasty habit of exploding. Nickel Metal Hyrdrides have environmental issues, as do lead acid. We need a new battery technology before hybrids, or plug ins, will replace internal combustion. The Volt is an "awareness" platform and is well executed, and GM/Saab deserve kudo's for doing it, but it's not the end-all answer to the world's long term energy crisis.
I drive a diesel. It gets fantastic fuel mileage, and lasts a very long time with minimal maintenenace....
I haven't bought an American made car in 10 years because of poor design and quality, but this Chevy Volt is peaking my interest.
I live 22 miles from work, and feel the 40 mile electric range is enought to possibly save me a lot of money. With that said, if they decide to charge a premium for this technology, then I will either buy a deisel, or perhaps a normal hybrid.
I agree with other posts before me that "greed" is what is running the decisions that our automakers make.
This is just an observation, but with Chevy, I frankly haven't liked thier "grill" design. For one reason or another the grill has to say "Chevy" even if that means looking ugly! It's not enought that there are Chevy symbols all over the vehicle. They now have grills and tail ends that say Chevy over and over again. Why they want to dig themselves a hole like that is beyond me because only a certain percentage of the population is going to like that design. They need designs that will appeal to a larger audience.
Anyhow, my 2 cents
Why so many negative comments? Will be powered by coal (only for certain parts of country. A large generation plant can much more easily have pollution controls and carbon sequesterization than millions of individual point sources, i.e. cars. Why no solar panels on the roof? Because they are frightfully expensive, and the amount of power such a small surface area could collect would be miniscule. But hey, if they become economically feasible, Volt 2.0 will have them. It is only a "sports car", well GM has said that the architecture will support many other vehicle types. I'm sure that they wanted to come out with a beautiful automobile to contrast to the supremely ugly Prius. Ugghhh! The grid can't support it. Wrong, yest it can. If recharged off peak at night many studies have shown that the grid can support literally millions of vehicles with no new power plants. Finally, the standard refrain, "This is THE answer". Folks, we need many answers to solve the environmental and petroleum dependency of our current transportation system. The Volt is an elegant and practical start. Give it a rest with the negative comments. If Toyota was doing this you negative folks would be swooning.
Who are the dorks that think we want to look at them and not the car. YOU LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT, GET OUT OF THE PICTURE!!!
Why did GM kill their Electric Car (which had a range of 130 miles), saying that they did it because there was 'no demand' ? haha what a joke. now that GM's stock price has plummeted and the Japanese are taking over their market share, they decide to RE-introduce a limited HYBRID version-VOLT.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=who+killed+the+electric+car&emb=0&aq=0&oq=who+killed#
It looks cool now... But by the time it comes out, they will have changed the so much design that it will look like every other car on the planet.
Hahahaha! American Engineering? My dear boy, they're getting worse than China for copy cat designs!
I bet SAAB is super pissed at this duplicate!
http://www.saab.com/microsites/aero_x/GLOBAL/en/index2.shtml
GM owns SAAB
*Pats GM On Back* That's American engineering at its finest.
Yeah until the motor falls out just after 36,000 miles. All American car companies are total crapola. Ever notice that American car companies have to keep turning out these unusual designs and advertise with tons of hoopla while Honda and Toyota keep quiet and continue sell a massive number of cars? Improve the looks and not the quality.....maybe for those car buyers with half a brain that might not be the best thing to do.
Well if you run any car into the ground dont expect it to last long. My fathers 85 ford escort had over 300,000 on the drive train, nothing rebuilt. Around 300,000 1 of the 4 cylinders lost compression but the car still ran fine, did not burn oil or smoke. He followed the manual for maintence. My grand father had a 75 ford f150 and it still runs today, just maintained and no overhaul/rebuild. The thing with american autos is in 50 yrs you can still find oem parts.
"Ingenious?"
If you're describing it correctly, that power train (internal-combustion engine - generator - batteries - electric motor) dates back at least to WW2, and Ferdinand Porsche's tanks. I think it may even have been used on an electric car before then, but I might be misremembering. And anyway, that's just land vehicles. Submarines have been powered that way for just about ever -- that's why they called the company in Groton "The Electric Boat Company."
The article didn't state that GM invented that power train.It just stated that the power train was ingenious.
Kudos to GM for putting money into reducing emissions,and reducing fuel consumption.
"Ingenious?"
Hardly. It is generally accepted that the serial hybrid drivetrain (which is what the Volt will use) is, ceteris paribus, vastly inferior to the parallel drivetrain (in which engine, motor, or both may power the wheels at any given time). I don't feel like citing references... suffice it to say that I've helped build hybrids in college; by the time I joined the team, the serial concept had been dropped like a bad habit.
Brad, I have no idea why you would consider the simple and elegant serial hybrid drive train so inferior to the overly complicated parallel hybrid drive train. The serial drive train actually eliminates a lot of complexity, namely the entire complicated, inefficient transmission, while the parallel approach adds a lot of complexity for not much gain, imho. Just about every locomotive made nowadays are serial hybrids.
This baffles me. Have you guys seen the documentary " Who Killed the Electric Car". It's available on Netflix.
I wander if the auto industry is having a sudden change of heart towards plug in electric vehicles. This technology was ready for prime time 10 years ago and the auto industry squandered it.
I was thinking about the documentary as well. The only complaint about the electric car was its range (200 miles). Rather than focusing on ways to line the pockets of oil/energy companies with alternative fuels, why not work on new batteries or solar cells to perfect the electric car?
Only years after the Auto industry pulled the rug out from under the electric car...new NiMH batteries where developed that would allow for almost 400 miles on a single charge. I think it was Exxon or one of the major oil companies that then bought out that company that made those batteries.
I totally agree with you about alternative fuels that are an expensive and complicated alternative to Electric vehicles. Hydrogen for example...requires thousands upon thousands of Hydrogen fueling stations to be built or current gas stations to be retrofitted. The electric car can be recharged at anyones residence without the need for gas stations. I sure as hell would love never having to go to a gas station again.
And it would be allot easier to regulate the increased pollution from electric plants at the plant then the current way of regulating emissions from every single individual vehicle out on the road.
The documentary Who Killed the Electric Car states that the cost of electricity would equal the equivalent of about $.70 per gallon.
Sounds like a winner to me.
Umm...I think your refering to "An Inconvenient Truth" which is not at all "Who Killed the Electric Car". Nothing about Gore or 911 conspiracies found in Who Killed The Electric Car and nothing at all to do with Michael Moore either.
Props to GM for this move. I really like this car, I just hope they don't botch the design in the process.
I saw this at the auto show in Chicago a couple months ago... I think it looks even cooler in person. Unfortunately you KNOW its going to be expensive. You are going to pay a premium for the technology... just like the jacked up prices on hybrids. But if you have the coin to drop on something like this... it'll be worth it.
Also... what the heck is a "signification reduction?" ;)
They are trying to hit the magic $30,000 price point, or somewhere close to that.
GM has claimed that it could cost them as much as $40,000 per car to produce initially. I'm wondering how much they are willing to loose to earn market share.
Don't fall all over yourselves trying to pat GM on the back for doing something they could have/should have done years ago.
We didn't have these types of cars years ago because they wanted to keep making profits for their shareholders while staying in bed with big oil.
Now it has become more fashionable to be seen as environmentaly friendly but really, somebody from marketing must have finally convinced them they can make boatloads of money with this type of car.
Still, I guess, better way late than never....
Right on! GM and Ford and Chrysler in Bed with big oil... How do you think they sustain their profits when Oil Prices are up?! Thats right! OIL REVS!!
I'll be buying a hybrid as soon as it has a Chevy Badge on it, simply because I like the style at Chevrolet/Pontiac/Buick.
Better do it soon, Otherwise I will a Toyota.
Its the cost of fuel thats driving the move to electric cars. Car makers just follow the market. 10 years ago this car would probably not have been succesful. Now it probably will be.
The issue with plug-in anything--be it hybrids or full EV--is not the gas savings. It is all the extra strain that they will put on to the power grid.
Power plants will have to run 24/7 now, instead of reducing power output at night, so they can perform mantiance or to let the turbines/whatever cool down.
The other issue is that the lines are not designed to have that much amps put down the line. So we could see failure at local distribution stations as well.
Not to mention that the Nickel mining is destroying countryside, and is so horribly bad to manufacture--it's amazing that it's still legal. And Lithium-Ion would be so expensive, that the car would cost 100k and we see how well that's working out for the current batch of cars.
The solution is not more efficient cars. the solution is more efficient people. We need more mass-transportation, not massive amounts of single-person transportation.
Thanks for the FUD. Either you're some right wing wacko who stands up for oil profits, or you're an angry liberal who can't admit that GM did something good for a change.
When you generate power at the source (power plant) you can control it and change the fuel source easily. In order to take advantage of 0 emission energy like solar, nuclear, and possibly geothermal power, you must first have a vehicle fleet that can take advantage of this (EVs and/or hydrogen powered).
So no matter how much of a temporary short-term strain it puts on power grids, this is the first step toward cheap & clean power that can be produced domestically.
Someone who tries to sound smart like you should already know this.
Nickel-cadmium batteries can be recycled. Just like people have been recycling lead acid batteries for years. This has to be one of the stupidest arguments I can imagine. This isn't like seeing some redneck leave his car battery on the sidewalk. The batteries will rarely ever leave the car. And when they are disposed, it will be by a proper facility. Junkyards and such will have mechanisms in place (as well as financial motivation) to recycle them. Just like Jiffy Lube recycles all used motor oil.
And its not like anyone will be using them come 2025. Lithium Ion prices will drop significantly, and on the horizon there are ways to harness new tech like ultra capacitors.
As far as it destroying the countryside - all mining destroys countryside. smart guy. This is a policy issue. You regulate the companies doing this and you enforce maximum environmental safeguards and practices. Unless you think mining stuff should be outlawed.
Mass Trans isn't going to solve our problems sir. It won't even scratch the surface.
Nuclear power produces nuclear waste. Hardly 'clean' energy. Not to mention that we don't have an unlimited supply of reactor-grade uranium or plutonium in sufficient quantities to replace all coal and oil power plants. Or the fact that it would take nearly 50 years to construct all of them.
Solar power is only about 40% efficient, and you would have to put solar panels everywhere to generate enough electricity so that the areas that do not have sufficient sun could benefit from it.
Geothermal power is still untested, and widespread usage may cause a shift in weather pattens that would wreck havoc worldwide. The same with Wind power. The longterm effects are unknown, although I would say that this out of all of the options is currently the most 'clean' of them all.
Short-term strain on the power grid is a VERY valid concern. I don't care how you try and spin it, you try living without power for a couple of days and see how much you can get done in your day to day life. I'm sorry, I'm not willing to be unable to do my job and I bet that hundreds of other people are also unwilling to be told the same. However, the point I was trying to make was that if everybody switched over to EV cars overnight, there would be consequences.
And yes, I realize that Ni-Cad batteries CAN be recycled and most of the components can be used again. What I was saying is that the actual MINING of the metals is the worst part of the battery production, with the chemicals used to make the cadmium coming in second. Most batteries are made overseas, which do not have the strict regulation that the US has on chemical waste.
Yea, 'regulate' the mining operations of overseas companaies. Just like they 'regulate' offshore jobs, and cheap labor farms of China. That's working out great, lets keep that ball rolling.
Ultra-capacitors have been a theory for as long as capacitors have existed. They are always '10-15 years away' and I'm sick of hearing about them as a 'cure all' to our battery problem. They will have just as bad, if not worse, stuff inside them than the current battery technology--so we would just be trading a 8-hour recharge time to a 8-minute charge time. Same impact on the environment.
And there is not enough Lithium on the planet to supply the world-wide demand of it. We are going to run out of it soon, and then the price of the already-sky-high batteries will reach astronomical levels.
You say I spread FUD? Where is your proof. Until you pony up your sources, we are just in pissing match that will never end.
@alexander: aren't you a ray of sunshine!
Massive amounts of single-person transportation aren't ideal, and mass transport is certainly better. BUT, replacing massive amounts of small, inefficient internal-combustion engines with a few large, efficient, low-polluting (by comparison) electric power plants to drive the electric cars has to be seen as a step forward.
No,
A PHEV using serial hybrid technology is vastly SUPERIOR to parallel hybrid PHEV technology.
In a serial setup, the motor can be smaller since it is always able to run at the most efficient RPM level because it doesn't have to cope with the demands of changing levels of resistance from a transmission. The engine simply acts as a generator (only when needed) with its output "buffered" by the batteries.
Also, with serial technology you have a simpler drive train because it is connected to a single mechanical drive device (electric motor) versus both electric and mechanical motors.
Of course, there are losses when energy is converted from chemical to mechanical to electrical to chemical to mechanical, but these losses exist in a parallel hybrid as well.
@Aaron Walker
I figured everyone knew that companies were here to make money. Been living in a cave? Come out of a coma recently? Why would you expect a company to be run like a charity? You're being a little naive, aren't you? You mean GM is doing this to try and make "boatloads of money"?!?!? SHOCK!!!
@Clinton Blackburn
Do you really not think that companies and individuals EVERYWHERE aren't working on building a better battery? I'm sure you realize the FORTUNE that stands to be made by the corporation or individual that comes up with it. That's the beauty of capitalism. Money is a great motivator. Maybe it's just that a better battery is a tougher nut to crack than you realize. Ever think of that? I know it's not as fun as blaming big business but sometimes the truth isn't fun or sexy.
You know, for most commuters, an electric only car would be was better than this.
Or if it's a short commute, even 5 miles each way, you can just bike to work.
I agree with Art Guy - it won't look quite as cool as it does now by the time it hits the streets. The real thing never looks as edgy as the concept did.
Alexander said: "The solution is not more efficient cars. the solution is more efficient people. We need more mass-transportation, not massive amounts of single-person transportation"
I don’t like nor want mass transportation...who wants to be shoved in some train or bus packed with people...?
Americans like freedom...and a part of that freedom is being to go, wherever you want, whenever you want. and mass transportation doesn't allow that.
We have at least 40 years of oil left...200 years of coal left....we still have plenty of natural resources just sitting there for us to use...theres no need to have people change their lifestyles.
The US needs to do several things, Like: drill for oil in more places...like the gulf of Mexico, and Alaska...we have access to oil...but due to the crazy tree-hugger crowd (aka:environmentalists), were just letting it be taken away by other countries....the gulf of Mex is right next to us....yet no US drilling is going on there...even China is building oil platforms there...and there their on the other side on the planet!
Global Warming is not man made...we can not control it, so if anyone’s reason for buying an electric car is because of that...do more research into our planet, and you will see that man, hasn't changed the earths climate.
I think electric vehicles are the future...not because of less CO2...but because of other reasons...one being that we have tons of ways of creating electricity...and electric cars have very few moving parts, meaning less mechanical breakdowns.
As for this topic, props to GM for going full force into this cars design. I'm sure it will be a good seller. it has a cool aggressive look to it, if I had the money, I'd buy one.
When the oil runs out, we are to power our cars with coal then? Somehow, I don't think the mustang running on a steam-boiler would be a big seller.
Drill for more oil? Are you insane? Lets exacerbate the problem, and just put more holes in the planet in our ENDLESS search for more oil. Yea, that's BRILLIANT.
I am not saying there shouldn't be a change. But I don't think that people realize that there are issues that are clear and present with BOTH SIDES of the argument. You must know both sides in order to make a decision. I would love to have solar panels all over my house, and the rest of the country and have wind power and all that ultra-hip stuff...
But lets not forget that there's always a downside to everything. We must keep that in perspective. That's how we got here, by people saying, "Oh, we have millions of years of oil left. No need to save it."
I believe we do need to change our lifestyles. I hope you do some research because climate change is a huge issue, one that you shouldn't set aside to let the next generation deal with.
Change is necessary now. Not in forty years. The US needs to do several things, one is to get out of a war that is over oil. The US needs to elect leaders who don't have special interest groups like Big Oil affecting policy.
Well said...I love to see that there are optimists still left in this world. I totally agree with the global warming thing! Our climate has been ever changing since the beginning of the world. And as Dennis Miller said "I think people are too puny to have an effect like that on the world."
You seem to know a lot. Why don't you have more money?
cause jobs dont pay you based on how much you know, just on how good you do your specific job.
and in my case, I am the "glass guy" at a bodyshop....its not great or well paying....but its a job, and it pays the bills.
Ugh, I can't wait for the current trend of macho, overbearing design for many cars to go away.
"The car has become the carapace, the protective and aggressive shell, of urban and suburban man." - Marshall McLuhan
Get out of your cars, people.
Not to be rude but... YOU ARE IGNORANT if you say that this is not a great inovation.
It is if you consider that battery technology is improving far beyond what it was in the past.
Remember the exploding laptop batteries, we are just getting it right.
GM is inovating more that any other company believe it or not.
Given your line of thought, Consumer Reports is not to be trusted because they recommnded the Ford Fusion; thus they have half of a brain. Toyota and Honda don't advertise? Have you been living in a hole?!
I'm not saying Toyotas and Hondas suck--they are awesome, reliable, cars, but uninformed FORD SUX, GM SUX, BLAH comments just highlight stupidity.
@ Rick - Are you serious...The Prius is the most overhyped car out there...I see tons of ads for it.
And lets not forget...that is 2005 Toyota had more recalls then vehicles sold....and here you are less then 2 years after that talkin up there quality. *rolls eyes*
@Rick - What car/truck are you referring to, in my family we've personally owned a 205K '88 Ford Ranger, 211K '91 Chevy Lumina, 218K '97 Chevy Silverado, 68K '98 Dodge Stratus, 55k '01 Ford Focus, and a 58K '03 Chevy Silverado, plus my GF owns a 80K '98 Pontiac Sunfire and her sister owns a 88k '99 Pontiac Grand Am... so I'm not sure where you're going with that. @aStopper - the ford Fusion is actually the Mazda 6.
American's cant make cars they have only made like 2-3 cars in the past 20 years that drives good arround a track/cornors I doubt this will be any good but I love the looks :>
Eh, nothing special. By 2010 dodge will have their new Charger out and Chevy will have their competing Camaro out. I don't see why they chose the weird look on it. It's supposed to be an everyday car not some weird type of roadster, so just take the current models you have and produce them with this same technology. I don't see a reason that an entirely new design should be created and fabbed when you've got factory lines already pumping out the older frames and body styles.
Ummm...last time I checked Honda and Toyota weren't driving around the top of a building, nor did they have Snoop Dog playing Golf with Iacocca. The cars are made out of the same materals, no difference there just that one is put together well and the other is a piece of shit. And its not the people on the assembly line its the higher ups who are mismanaging the companies. To try and sway the american consumer back they're trying to come out with every gimmick possible from weenie roasters in the glove compartment to auto ass wipers on the seat and it doesn't change a damn thing with regards to reliablity and fit and finish - the real problem. I don't give a damn about consumer reports and I sure as hell don't care what car you prefer to drive, fact of the matter is foreign companies are winning and american car companies are losing. Deal with it.
500 miles times $4 or $5 a gallon (the price in 2010) translates to $2k to $2.5K a year. Thats a hell of a lot of money. Depending on the cost, the car could pay for itself over its expected lifespan.
"500 miles times $4 or $5 a gallon (the price in 2010) translates to $2k to $2.5K a year."
You mean 500 gallons. And you know that every statistic they give you is going to be inflated, yes? It'll probably save you $1000 a year. Big whoop, when you consider it cost you an extra few thousand to buy. It's a good idea, and it paves the way for us to lessen our dependence on oil, but don't think that this here is the answer. This is the path to the answer; only some progress has been made.
Don't forget the fact that its a GM means it will Depreciate much faster than a Toyota. So that savings in Gas doesn't mean Crap. GM would have to make the VOLT get 80 MPG + for there to be a real savings.
"Not to be rude but... YOU ARE IGNORANT if you say that this is not a great inovation (sic)."
Yeah. Either that, or else better informed than those who see it as a great innovation.
The position you take on this really depends on how much you know about the technology involved. Ironical, isn't it?
Venk - For perspective, I wonder how much that translates in terms of avg MPG. Assuming 12,000 miles/year, which is pretty light around here considering Silicon Valley commutes, at 30mpg we're talking about 400 gallons *total,* right? If it gets 20mpg, that's 600 gallons of gas for the year. So an average commuter might never need to fill up the tank, or perhaps only fill up once every other month?
And if it's targeted to compete with the likes of a current-gen Prius, at 40mpg and a 15k/year average use, you're only using 375 gallons of gas. So exactly what is this 500 gallons/year savings compared to? A Hummer? An M1A1?
You mentioned the strain electric cars would have on the grid....all I was saying is that there is no reason to not build more plants...coal is in high supply in the US, and is the cheapest...so why not use it.
And Nuclear IS a clean energy, yes, there is nuclear waste produced, but it’s not that much when you consider the power your getting out of that plant. As far as I'm concerned just keep all the waste in storage until we have a reliable means of space access...then just hurl all of our waste containers at our sun...and problem solved. And obviously I'm not thinking rockets...In under 30 years we should have a space elevator...a cheap and safe way to bring the nuclear waste up into space.
As for drilling for more oil.....what problem are you referring to???
and no one is saying we have millions of years of oil....But we do have several decades of the stuff...if we dont use, it will just sit there going to waste.
Burning coal for electricity is one of the dirtiest methods of producing electricity. It's way worse than if every person on the planet was driving hummers/SUV's. Again, you'd be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Or, you'd be trading one pollution producing problem (petrol-powered cars) for another (coal burning power plants).
Nuclear energy is not clean. We have very little space left in the USA as it is now for our nuclear waste... Compounding the problem with hundreds of other plants, will only make the issue worse. Throwing it into the sun is not really an option, as whatever craft we have would disentigrate long before it got there, potentially blowing up and sending fragments back at the spacecraft that launched it or towards earth or other planets.
My comment about millions of years of oil was directed at people who first found out about petrol back in the 1900's. Once they started drilling for it, they started to find it everywhere and the comment was, as it was for years, that we have plenty of it--no need to save it.
What you fail to realize is that the Oil industry has far, far greater reach than just $3 at the petrol station.
Plastic, and all it's derivatives still need oil to be manufactured. Lets think about a world with no plastic in it. Well, we can't drive our electric cars around, as there's no plastic available to make plastic for the batteries now--or any of the other hundreds of components that make up all cars, electric or not.
"If we don't use it, it will just sit there"
Yea, and that's a good thing. We don't need to use it, it was perfectly fine sitting there, not being used. But we rely too much on plastic, so it will end up getting used. It's just a matter of time.
If you build it*, they will come.....
*Exactly as looks, Exactly as described, At a price point that EVERYBODY could live with.
The recalls were for early 90s cars, genius.
I seem to remember a Honda comercial for the new civic bouncing all over buildings to dance music.
So, here's my question:
When the war between the two groups debating in this blog about the environment becomes a resources war... Who will win?
I have a hard time believing that the earth will ever run out of resources... Just out of humans... So logically, if we are all out to save ourselves (and not each other) wouldn't it make sense to start stockpiling useful resources for our grandchildren now? I know I'm having an oil silo built in my back yard... just in case :-).
Then again... We might all find a way to travel to another planet where we can consume the resources there instead (afterall there has to be a planet out there somewhere made up entirely of lithium, or maybe uranium...)
Nifty! That would be very cool to see the shift to electric vehicles. I'm sure it will come eventually... I just wish they'd hurry up about it!
Actually, I saw an article in Popular Science a while back about an aftermarket-type project that converted a (some japanese manufacturer's) hybrid sedan into an electric car. They may have just added a bunch of batteries, but apparently you could drive it around town all day just off the batteries. Something tells me that progressively longer-(battery)-lasting hybrids will come next.
I just don't get the interest in ethanol and other "5% more environmentally friendly!! Yippee!!" fuels. If we're going to change, why not go all the way? Put lots of R&D into efficient nuclear power (it *really is* environmentally friendly, contrary to popular belief), tone down our use of combustible fuels, and go electric for cars & heating. Like, why not, eh? :)
2010? Damn, they need this thing out now. They'll be lucky to be in business by 2010 with their current offerings. Mangement really f-up by not focusing on getting higher fuel-economy cars out the door years ago.
Plus, GM is already in the red, how do they expect to take a hit on this thing to get it out the door? If they had bothered to look ahead and what was happening with gasoline prices a few years ago, they could have afforded to sell a car like this at a loss.
At least Toyota recalls their cars when there is a problem. GM's legendary for fighting against recalling problematic or dangerous vehicles and only doing so under public pressure. (side saddle gas tanks for starters... autosafety. org)
As far as the Volt goes, it's long overdue. The 'Big Three' were given nearly a billion in taxpayer's money to R & D hybrid technology in the 90's... not surprisingly they dropped the ball and stuck to the status quo.
Now Honda & Toyota are leaders in hybrid technology and efficiency.
Mass transit is a good idea, but most people hate using it.
Putting money where my mouth is I'm parking my 'guzzling SUV' (30mpg) for a Honda motorcycle, which gets between 80-90mpg.
The only people who hate mass transit are the morons who have never lived in a city with a solid system. yeah, riding the subway can be a drag... but so can getting stuck in traffic, pumping gas, paying for tires, etc. And if you live in a real city, you have the freedom to walk anywhere you please. It's all about perspective. If you have always lived with a car in some transit-barren shithole like Houston, then you can't imagine using mass transit. Live in NYC or Chicago for a while and you can't imagine owning a car.
Gm owns SAAB
No, GM pOWNS J0000!!!!
The serial hybrid concept is superior, of course, to the so-called "parallel" hybrid which is much more complicated. The idea of needing more than 100 miles of all-electric range per day is illusory; while the auto gives us the idea of freedom, that we could run off to "Alaska or bust", in reality most car trips are short, to the store or to work. For longer trips, take a train! Trains are 200 times more efficient than gas autos.
The GM Volt is a good Public Relations ploy, but there's no reason to believe it's for real, yet. GM is insisting that it needs battery research into Lithium in order to make the Volt real.
But the 1997 EV1, when the faulty GM Delco batteries were replaced with reliable Panasonic lead-acid batteries, got up to 110 miles range on a charge. The Volt could be issued right now with lead-acid batteries, since the EV1 weighed over 3100 lbs., it was heavier than the Volt concept.
The real question is GM's motives. While GM had purchased control of the worldwide patent rights for Nickel Metal Hydride batteries in 1994, it had refused to issue a NiMH Electric car until Toyota and Honda both proved that it was possible. The 1997 Honda EV+ carried 4 and had a 125 mile range; the 1997 Toyota RAV4-EV carried 5 and (still) runs with a 120 mile range.
Only in 1999 was GM forced, by California Air Resources Board, to finally release the NiMH EV1, which had up to 160 miles range even though the NiMH batteries (owned by GM) were not as good as the Panasonic version used in the Toyota and Honda EVs.
On Oct. 10, 2000, GM sold the NiMH battery to Texaco.
On Oct. 16, 2000, Texaco merged with Chevron, arguably allowing GM to claim that it had not worked with Standard Oil to kill the Electric car. Instead, GM sold to Texaco which then handed off to Chevron.
The merger was concluded in 2001. A lawsuit was filed against Toyota, Panasonic, et al., by Chevron's "cobasys" unit (Chevron had aquired 50% of the batteries plus 20% of the parent, a 50%-plus-one ownership). The settlement agreement involved Toyota ceasing production of the NiMH battery for any plug-in car, paying $30M to cobasys (Chevron), and cross-licensing the better Panasonic technology with Chevron's.
This means NiMH cannot be used, in practice, for the Volt.
Yet NiMH (or lead-acid) is the only proven battery to last longer than the life of the car, and the only one that has been tested and proven reliable (defects in the single digit per million cells).
Now if GM were serious about the Volt, why not use NiMH or lead-acid? GM would not have sold the NiMH battery to CHEVRON, of all people, if it were serious about building an EV.
And GM had an EV1 fan club, fanatically loyal to GM and to the EV1. GM threw that all away, even jailing two would-be buyers of the remaining EV1, preferring to pay money to destroy them rather than nurture a fan club.
GM would, if serious, rebuild its relations to the EV1 fans, who were bitterly disappointed by what they view as GM's treachery, lies and vindictive pursuit of them for "scratches" and other charges on the cars that were forcibly taken away from loving drivers.
Could GM be serious about the Volt? It's possible, of course, but unikely; If you are building a market, you start with the target demographic, those already sold on it; yet GM is still beating up on former EV1 drivers.
Thanks to Toyota, the only car company which sold an Electric car on the open market, we drive the Toyota RAV4-EV, last sold in Nov., 2002, every day, powered by credits generated by our rooftop solar system. Each year, we generate more credits than we use, and we've driven our two Toyota RAV4-EV over 160,000 miles since 2002, saving over 8,000 gallons of gasoline.
Hundreds of others could be doing the same, except TM took away and crushed their EV1 plug-in car.
Don't trust GM; they are proven LIARS. Lutz even confused electric motors with "engines", and confused kilo-Watt-hour with kilo-Watt when talking about the batteries. GM needs to do a lot more work on getting its lies to make a little sense.
Do you realize that it's not a good idea to take what's presented to you at face value? It's easy to follow the thinkings of "Who Killed the Electric Car" without taking time to find out the real reason that things happen in the automotive world.
Here's a brief explination ala wikipedia... which is pretty accurate, based on what I've learned:
"Over a hundred people offered to purchase the electric cars and waive such liability as they were able under American consumer product laws. GM refused, stating that they would be subject to ongoing product liability from both the purchasers and any future owners, and that their internal customer support policies would require them to provide service and replacement parts for the EV1s for at least ten years. [10] GM's suppliers stopped making replacement parts because of low demand, making it impossible to repair the vehicles[11]. Of particular concern to the company was the likelihood that each leased car's battery packs would require replacement at 25-35,000 mile intervals, and that the very low volumes involved would necessitate the corporation's subsidy of spare parts to private owners, perhaps on an indefinite basis. (As an example, the wholesale, or in house, cost of the battery pack to GM was still in the $2-3,000 dollar region during the production phase of the EV1 program. Including delivery and installation, GM thought it unlikely an EV1 could be repowered for less than $6-7000 per unit)"
Of course, it's easy to say that GM should have continued the EV1 program... when you're not the one who has to pay for it, and maintain a level of liability for it...
GM's suppliers had been cut off in 1998, sparking some bitterness as they had thought they were investing for a real car program.
As for liability, what about all the Toyota RAV4-EV?? What liability does any auto company have, when it sells a car?
When a wimpy company like GM starts making excuses about "the lawyers" or "liability", you can bring out the crying towels, they are all washed up.
In reality, there was NO product liability, and the EV1 buyers (over 5000 were on the original, informal waiting lists, many more never got on the list; today there are many more) would have assumed any "liability" GM was afraid of, via taking them under what's called a "salvage title".
Like any other used car, once the thing is sole, it's "caveat emptor".
GM, wimpy and wussy, claimed to be afraid of those darn buyers. Maybe that's why GM had 2 of them arrested.
"Hahahaha! American Engineering? My dear boy, they're getting worse than China for copy cat designs!
I bet SAAB is super pissed at this duplicate!
http://www.saab.com/microsites/aero_x/GLOBAL/en/index2.shtml"
Hmm, you do know that Saab is a GM brand. . .
http://www.gm.com
I have put all car purchase plans on hold since I first saw the VOLT. My Buick will have to soldier on until I can take delivery. I am not considering any other car at this point.
Another posted : "Props to GM for this move. I really like this car, I just hope they don't botch the design in the process."
If this person had been paying atention, they would know that Bob Lutz stated that the far corners wheel positions in the front are not possible, due to front end
accident considerations. Those front wheels in the production vehicle will be positioned in a more conventional spot.
Alexander, you are obviously anti-energy use regardless of source. How many hamsters do you use to power your generator wheel?
I see that GM-hater Doug Korhof is here speading his lies about GM and the EV-1.
The EV-1 was a piece of crap that Korthof imagines was a "wonder car."
The biggest mistake GM ever made was to bring that totally impractical vehicle to market. Of course, Korthof doesn't realize it, but the EV-1 could not be legally sold in this country - it didn't meet the Fed safety regs by the time it was ready for production. Korthof thinks that GM, for some strange reason, should have sold
an illegal car to the public, a car which was only leased after negotiations with the Feds in which they agreed to recover all the vehicles after the leases expired.
And oh, by the way, few EV-1 parts were still in production by its suppliers, another legal reason preventing sale to the public. Manufacturers are required to supply parts for 7 years after the end of production. I can see the headlines when the first bozo who works on his EV1 electrocutes himself. Korthof thinks that should be of no concern. Anyone here want to hire Korthof to evaluate their product liability situation? Ha, Ha, Ha. Korthof simply hates GM and makes up stories that have no basis in fact. If GM's cars were as unreliable as Korthof's statements, they would have folded years ago. He's about as reliable a source about the EV-1 as Chris Paine's fictitious piece of trash called "Who Killed the Electric Car?" which has taken advantage of the ignorance of the public, like that displayed by Korthof. To my knowledge Korthof has never written a truthful statement. In his fantasy, he now imagines that GM has the power to go around arresting citizens for no apparent reason. That' sad when you're so paranoid you think that a corporation has governmental powers. In reality, GM can't even get the crooked UAW workers to obey their contract. Korthof is fun to read because it's so seldom one runs across
such a classic case of paranoia. But what if GM went bankrupt? Korthof's entire life would fall apart, now, wouldn't it?
GM already loses money on every car they sell (about $2000), so how is this any different.
Fuel Cell? What a joke. Get the US hooked on another "at the pump" product instead of using an electricity based infrastructure that already spans the ENTIRE GLOBE.
I'm purchasing one. Even if it costs more then a gasoline powered car at that size, it is worth it not to pay for gas as much, and laugh at people who do.
As others have mentioned, some of us are not going to be too forgiving with GM for the whole EVO mess they did, including destroying all of the cars they did not all that long ago.
Granted, electric cars have made some more progress, but GM should have stuck with it.
I think more people will bite when they see that GM sticks with this one for a good amount of years.
Who do you believe?
The people that stand to make or lose money over the issue of electric vehicles, or the ones that are giving their personal time and money trying to give the other side of the story?
Details aside; one side has billions at stake, the other has blood sweat and tears.
GM's attempt at the electric car is one reason why we don't have any today.
Remember back to Oldsmobile/GM's attempt at bringing diesel engine car into the fuel starved North American market the early 70's... it was a colossal failure. They were forced to swap out gas engines for the diesels because they were so bad; souring people's & market opinion of diesel power (and now electric cars) for decades.
I'm just glad Honda and Toyota got a hybrid on the road before GM; otherwise GM apologists would be complaining quality issues, liability, technology and other problems that made hybrids unfit for sale.
The Volt is their scrambling attempt to cobble something flashy together before they lose too much ground.
@ fashionista
Should someone living in a city with inadequate transit shouldn't automatically be a "moron" because they hate it.
Mass transit is a great idea, but it needs work to entice more people to use it. Maybe more routes, better hours, safer/cleaner systems, or TV's to entertain people etc. Google the 'street car antitrust suit' to see why efficient/effective electric street cars were ripped out of American cities.
@ Andrew
Good call. Don't forget massively subsidized: ethanol, hydrogen or biodiesel (and even gasoline, in oil exploration canada)... they're all tricks meant to keep us coming back to fill up at the pumps, instead of plugging in.
BULLSHIT. PURE AND SIMPLE. In 1997, GM was able to get 120 miles PER CHARGE. With the Volt: 40 miles PER CHARGE, before needing ... guess what? GAS. So in 13 years, GM has gone from producing a car getting 120 miles PER CHARGE to 40 miles PER CHARGE. Estimated savings on gas? 500 gal per YEAR. Wow!!!! That's an estimated savings of 9.6 gallons per week.
This car is a JOKE, sorry. 40mile range... before needing gas? I can't even drive to work and back.
with a 12 gallon tank the and it's "640 mile range" on that means the car gets 53 miles per gallon, the new VW TDI's do better than that.
GM is a joke. I'll never buy one.
Yes, but how does it drive?
i AM a fan of SOME american cars, but this looks like a GM EV1 on steroids.
I blew away from everything at stoplights with my rented EV1 seven years ago. GM refused to sell or even lease me one, took down the comments/questions facility on the GMEV web site, sued to avoid producing EVs and crushed almost all of its 1165 EV1s.
Volt is a pale shadow of the EV1; GM might just survive at number three if the PHEV goes on sale in 2010.
I'll buy a Tesla White Star EV sedan, a Phoenix EV or have a car converted to electric before then.
mmh....nuclear waste is ClEAN? Why dont we bury it in your backyard then Murc? we used to dump things in the vast endless ocean, hten we realized, oh we are distrupting the food chain. now we bury things underground which which will decay for hundreds of thousands of years. How long till we realize it is hurting people?
But as you say we can just build space elevators to the sun? seriously? how do you build an 'elevator'in zero gravity? And more importantly, do you realize the sun gives life to everything on this planet and without it there would be nothing? does it sound good to interfere with that?
the fact remains, we have to change our lifestyles, and the attitude of "i'm american, i liked my freedom" will be hard for our great-grandchildren to swallow when they are living on a dying planet.
I called my local Chevy Dealer and ask him to put my name at the top of his request list for the Volt. I am going to be the first person in Northeast Oklahoma to own one period. He agreed and put my name down after being showed the article about the go for production.
Electric cars already exist. Look up Tesla Motors. http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php Expensive? Somewhat. But with folks paying 55K for a BMW on a regular basis, then adding dealer maintenance, and Gas and Oil changes, the 92K for a Tesla suddenly is in the ball park.
After reading through many of these comments I'd have to say some are well informed while many are just simply wrong or are ignorant of the facts. I follow the auto industry very closely as a hobby on a daily basis so I will share a few facts as I see them.
First of all, I like the Volt. I have seen it in person and it does look better when seen up close than just in pictures. As a couple have alread stated, Saab is owned by GM. Saab doesn't have anything to be mad about. The two vehicles would not compete directly against each other. To say they would is like saying todays Saab 9-5 is in direct competition with the Chevy Malibu. The price point is different therefore the demographic changes. The Volt design IMO is more of a modern take on a vehicle that middle income folks can actually afford where the Saab would cater to a higher-end buyer. I do question the Volts coupe layout, however. Many more sedans sell than coupes so to limit the production vehicle to just a coupe doesn't seem realistic. I would expect a four-door family-friendly version to be made available as well.
That last comment also brings up another point - Tesla electric vehicles. Granted, Tesla has a cool design that shows great promise but their price point will hardly scratch the surface when it comes to making an environmental impact. The production numbers are simply too low so comparing what Tesla is doing to the Volt or even the Prius is an apples to oranges comparison in terms of helping the environment and getting the general public to drive more efficient vehicles. I do, however, applaud Tesla for advancing the technology. Now if they can have similar results producing an electric that carres more than two people at a price people can afford then I'd be up for making a purchase.
Some other points...
Toyota recalls - they make great cars but unfortunately the recalls do apply to new vehicles despite an ill-informed comment that they only apply to early 90s vehicles. For example, engine sludge build-up problem recalls over the last couple of years as well as the V8 engine in the new Tundra. By the way, this is the same engine going in the new top-of-the-line Lexus hybrid. Hopefully for Lexus the camshafts used in their engines are different than the ones causing the recall in the Toyota trucks. Toyota has been growing by leaps and bounds the last few years and they are experiencing what GM has known for years - the bigger you get the harder it is to keep quality levels up. The quality levels at GM are actually catching up to Honda and Toyota. Check the J.D. Powers quality ratings over the last couple of years. Actually, the whole auto industry in general (Chinese also) is showing much less variation when it comes to quality. The US auto companies do deserve some of the "junk" and "crap" comments due to some the vehicles they produced in the 70s, 80s and 90s but the newer vehicles have improved immensely and the auto writers have been noticing.
Now on the comment that GM is losing $2000.00 on every vehicle they sell. Simply not true. The $2000.00 number is true of the Cobalt and perhaps that is where this comment stems from but it isn't true across the line. The American car companies have long made their biggest profits on their larger vehicles which are also the biggest gas guzzlers. This is why the fairly recent rise in gas prices has caught them with their pants down. That is the fault of the Execs who have ignored fuel efficiency in favor of performance and size. Losing money on vehicles is due to the fact that costs are simply too high to produce the smaller, cheaper vehicles in the US and turn a profit. Blame this on the UAW for their expensive contracts and retirees and foreign governments (Japan) that do everything they can to create an advantage for the foreign auto companies by subsidizing them on their home turf where the US companies aren't even allowed to sell their products. Yes, there are Japanese auto factories in the US but how many of them are union factories? That's right - zero! Look for more of the smaller, more fuel efficient "American" vehicles in the US to be built overseas where the labor is cheaper in the future and don't forget to thank the UAW for losing those jobs. Unfortunatley it is cheaper and more desirable for the big three to go overseas than to build a new US factory while trying to keep the unions out. Unions have their place but in some areas they have gone too far. On a global level, GM is actually doing very well. In Europe for instance, their cars are much more fuel efficient because fuel prices have been high there for years and the company is profitable. Here in the states, however, it is a different story. Ford and Chrysler on the other hand, are getting hit the same way in the US but they aren't as large globally so they are having a harder time.
OK, back to the Volt and its related technology. The technology for the Lithium batteries needed for these vehicles does exist today. Take a look at your cell phones you have owned over the last three to five years and how much smaller they have gotten. The reduction in size is primarily from a move to Lipos from Nimh batteries. The problem is these batteries exist today in small formats designed for phones and laptops. The batteries needed for autos haven't been designed yet. Tesla motors is combining many of these smaller laptop batteries to build battery arrays which fit their need in the vehicle they are building. The performance Tesla is getting out of their EV just goes to show the potential of these batteries - and they are still improving. Use Lead-acid batteries and you will be driving a tank that has very poor range due to the weight. Nicads aren't much better and are still yesterdays technology.
The batteries are still the big key, however because even if a larger Lipo battery is produced for automobiles it will still be extrimely expensive. The prices will come down but that takes time and GM needs a battery that doesn't price the Volt out of reality. The argument made that an EV1 got better mileage in 1998 ignores the fact that it was a 100% electric vehicle, not a hybrid. The 100% electric design is also why the Tesla is so expensive. The hybrid design of the Volt means a smaller, cheaper battery can be used which makes the car more affordable. Were talking something more along the lines of a Prius or Camry hybrid. If all the folks who were able to lease an EV1 were able to purchase one outright they wouldn't have been able to afford it. The program lost millions of dollars for GM and in the end it was a money-losing proposition. It appears they have learned a few things from the EV1 and are being careful to make sure this time that what they bring to production is more realistic and makes more sense for the typical needs of a person who does most of their driving commuting to work and trips to the grocery store.
The one thing that gets me excited about the Volt is the plug-in capability. For once you will be able to buy a hybrid that actually pays for itself while helping the environment and lowering our countries dependence on foreign oil. The way I look at it, the various technologies are finally starting to converge and provide more than some singular benefit that simply costs money. This, I think, is the key to getting the American car buying public to really start buying hybrids on a larger scale. You may be getting used to seeing hybrids on the road but the fact is they really aren't selling very well. The Prius is the obvious exception and outsells all the other hybrids by far. Honda has recenly canceled the Accord hybrid and the recent changes to the EPA milage figures pay homage to the fact that the real-world mileage one gets with a hybrid isn't as good as originally advertised. Plugging in is the equivalent to buying gas at .60 to .70 cents per gallon. That is the carrot needed to get car buyers to bite on this technology!
The conversions available for todays hybrids (alluded to earlier) turn them into a plug-in hybrid with a longer range at a cost (last I checked) of about $30,000.00 per vehicle. Check out the link below to see that Google is doing with these converted hybrids...
http://www.google.org/recharge/
The Volt is going to be a total Failure. Anytime you are targeting an uneducated consumer, they will always try to talk you down on price, because they don't know the value of what they are buying. Whats worse is if you ask GM base ( old people, and baby boomers ), they all think you have a plug in the current hybrids, and for that reason they have stayed away. My Father in law who owns a Cadillac Dealership, thought the prius had to be plugged in and ran on batteries. Shows you how intelligent those who run GM dealerships and its customer base are. GM needs to start making the cars I drive, instead of trying to get me to drive the cars they make.
As I drive to work everyday it seems quite obvious that the typical person doesn't care much for conserving fuel or they wouldn't be driving V8's and huge SUV's. Heaven forbid we might not have the biggest baddest car on the block. For those of us who would like to save a little money at the pumps I welcome any new choices thrown in the ring!!
You know...I can't wait to get one! I really love to see any type of advancement in fuel efficient vehicles. Better late than never, right? I believe that there are just a few too many people in here that simply just like to b**ch! On a different note, I love GM and have almost always driven a GM. And the fact that this research is still very becoming, shows that we are still moving forward! And that's what counts.
Excellent presense of the electric vechicle Chevy volt . But for my counrty (Cyprus) -even we are members of the E.U.- is like space technology . So i have some questions .
1. This car is available in the E.U. market and if yes , how much is it cost (in Euro's please) and how can i get one ?
2. Is it possible to be completely or partial supported by some energy production systems like solar panels ? (We have 10-11 months sunshine per year here).
Excellent presense of the electric vechicle Chevy volt . But for my
counrty (Cyprus) -even we are members of the E.U.- is like space
technology . So i have some questions .
1. This car is available in the E.U. market and if yes , how much
is it cost (in Euro's please) and how can i get one ?
2. Is it possible to be completely or partial supported by some
energy production systems like solar panels ? (We have 10-11 months
sunshine per year here).
The drive-train is ingenious in that it is stupid simple, which could make it more affordable than a parallel hybrid. Hi-tech systems tend to be failure prone after 5-6 years, no matter who makes it.
This is an electric car with an onboard generator. Could have been done 50 years ago (albeit, poorly)
Simple and practical is ingenious.
I understand the points made by htose that support GM, and I can definitely see the points made by the GM bashers. I won't lie about it. I've owned a Chevrolet Silverado. By the same token, I've also owned a Toyota Celica. The domestic wasn't the best in fit, finish, noise, vibration, harshness, gas mileage or depreciation. But for years it has served its purpose and despite everything else, in over 200,000 miles of interstate driving (as a welder to different states for jobs) it has NEVER failed me. I guess the function allowed me to overlook the flaws of the form. In contrast, my Celica was pretty, the gaps close, the engine quiet, the seats comfortable, the gas mileage far better than my truck was capable of, the transmission smoother. However I wouldn't trade either one for the other. The Celica was never meant to pull loads across states, nor was the Chevy meant to act like an Avalon. The point is GM messes up. So does Toyota. So does Honda, M-B, etc. I think that the Volt is "unique". I do applaud GM for doing it simply because they should have a long time ago. Yes there are a lot of american cars that have been crap, I'll admit. But as of 2007, who told anybody that there are only 3 american car companies? Last time I checked, the definition of a domestic automobile was one made by a company in America where a substantial amount of parts content is sourced in THAT country. I live in Alabama where we have Hyundai, Honda and Mercedes-Benz. In Georgia there is Kia and Nissan is in Mississippi. As a worker of 13 years in the steel and engineering industry, I know for a fact that over 65% of the parts and steel for these cars are sourced here in the US. Since their majority parts content is from the US in a US factory run by US citizens and staffed with US workers, then the Hyundai Sonata, Santa Fe, the Honda Odyssey, Pilot, all Merc SUV's, and every Nissan SUV and truck are all garbage. You notice that even the import tuners are in love with JDM (Japanese Domestic Market) parts? because their Honda wasn't built with Japanese parts but american, so I guess we yanks CAN do something right. Simple and plain. If you like the Volt and can acquire one, then do it. If you don't like it and don't want it then don't buy it! Businesses are in the business of making money, not catering to 15 people in a population of 300 million. I hope GM not only builds it, but I hope it functions well enough to back up what they say it will. And even if it doesn't, so what? You'll still get to work, still eat and find something else to gripe about...
It's really sad how ignorant people are....
"Burning coal for electricity is one of the dirtiest methods of producing electricity. It's way worse than if every person on the planet was driving hummers/SUV's."
Actually, the U.S. is blessed to not only have a lot of coal. But to even have anthracite coal in Pennsylvania - which is reasonably clean as hydrocarbons go.
Furthermore, when people talk about using coal instead of oil for vehicles. They're NOT talking about coal powered steam engines. That'd be stupid for a vehicle now days. They're talking about liquefaction and gasification and deriving comparable fuels from the coal. The resulting gas from gasification is nearly as clean to burn as natural gas.
The main advantage of electric vehicles is that instead of needing tens of thousands of catalytic converters we only need scrubbers on a few plants. And we can invest in higher quality to reduce the pollution released.
Furthermore, America has the largest coal reserves in the world.
***
And yes, there are major problems with the electric grid. And no, in it's present form it cannot handle out electric use let alone all these other vehicles. However, shingling the roofs of our homes and garages with solar cell shingles can greatly reduce the need for consumption from the grid. We need more self-generation.
***
"We have very little space left in the USA as it is now for our nuclear waste..."
First off, a large part of the problem is what we define as nuclear waste. Often you'll hear how this waste is going to be around for 500 million years. Well guess what, that type of nuclear waste is nigh harmless. In fact, our coal plants tend to release far more nuclear waste.
There is an issue in storing the most radioactive waste. And part of that is determining where to store it.
Furthermore, we have an area that is relatively safe to run modern nuclear power plants whose designs prevent meltdowns. But Alaska is wide open and the size of 1/2 the U.S. We could easily build all the new powerplants in Alaska in order to qualm people's fears. Furthermore, some of the new breeder plant designs could use some of the more radioactive waste a fuel and also process it down to safer waste as well.
***
As for reliability...
a) I've owned two Hondas. The best life I got out of either was 115K before the Accord went caput.
b) I own a 2002 Toyota Prius. It's good for commuting but leaves a lot to be desired. Oh, change the tires and you get a dramatic drop in mileage. (ie: -5mpg) And the only two tires designed for the vehicle only last 25,000 miles. For $500+, not quite economical. The newer Prius are a bit better.
I think Toyota/Honda receive the benefit of mythos. For instance my Dodge Durango is rated low for controls. But I find all the controls quite easy to use, even the rear wiper knob found on the center console. My Prius, has by far the worst dashboard layout I've ever seen or used.
***
GM was looking ahead, to 0% emission vehicles (namely the EV-1). Toyota and Honda took the easy road with the hybrids. California changed their law...boom...one vote and the billion dollars GM spent became worthless.
Oh, and to any one lacking intelligence who thinks EV-1 was viable because they watched a particular movie. It wasn't....
Honda's Insight which got 70mpg and didn't have to be recharged wasn't viable to ever turn a profit and eventually was discontinued. If the Insight failed at viability, how was a car like the EV1 that cost 2-3x as much as the Insight. Had all of the Insight's failings plus a limited range and a long wait to re-charge (versus unlimited range with refueling and a 4 minute charge/refuel time).
Nope...wasn't viable.
And did GM kill the electric car? Nope...it was shelved until better battery tech could be developed. When shelved it looked like it'd be a few decades but something happened to speed up battery design and improvement....the cell phone.
Cell phones and other battery devices have become far more common place with a lot more demand on usable life per charge. They've pushed battery development and financed it.
"But the 1997 EV1, when the faulty GM Delco batteries were replaced with reliable Panasonic lead-acid batteries, got up to 110 miles range on a charge."
Except that with all the new safety features that are now required or considered de facto, plus all the entertainment systems, GPS, what not we demand. Those same batteries in a EV1 today with all those features would be lucky to get 45 miles on a charge.
Second, the EV1 was a 2-seater. And the Honda Insight is proof that a 2-seater is NOT viable except as a sports coupe. And far from being a general purpose vehicle for a family.
"The Volt could be issued right now with lead-acid batteries, since the EV1 weighed over 3100 lbs., it was heavier than the Volt concept."
Where are you getting your weights from? I saw a detailed comparison and the Volt is far far heavier than the EV1.
***
In Europe, diesels are common. But that's because Europe has had a clean diesel infrastructure. The U.S. does not...(though it's in the process of building one and should have it up and running about 6 yrs). The issue is our diesel is heavily laden with sulfur. So most of the diesel vehicles running in Europe that you hear quoted at 50mpg, cannot pass the emissions requirements of today. However, once we have the clean diesel available, we'll open the market up
***
"As I drive to work everyday it seems quite obvious that the typical person doesn't care much for conserving fuel or they wouldn't be driving V8's and huge SUV's."
No, you're just naive and fail to understand that most families can only afford one or two vehicles. Those families who need a vehicle that can tow or carry cargo will purchase a truck or SUV. Many families also decide on SUVs because the mileage difference between and SUV and a mini-van often is negligent. So they're buy the light SUV instead due to it's added abilities and safety.
Yes, people will often deride the soccer mom driving around doing her shopping with a big Suburban SUV. But what those people fail to take into account is that after grocery shopping mom stops to pick up the three kids from school and daycare. You try taking 3 kids and a full load of groceries and all their stuff (especially when any of them are still in safety seats). That little sub-compact is really not up for the job.
That said, people tend to dismiss the fact that in recent years American auto manufacturers have greatly increased the mileage of these big SUVs. When I first was looking at a full size SUV they were getting 8 City/12 HWY. Now, many are getting 13-16 City/19-22 HWY. That's a pretty substantial improvement. And both GM and Chrysler are planning hybrid Tahoes & Durangos for 2008. Moving the mileage closer to 20-25mpg. Which is a lot less than the 40+mpg of my Prius. However, the reduction in use of oil will be far greater with these SUV hybrids than with the Prius (as the Prius is really only getting about 4-6 mpg more than a comparable vehicle of it's size).
***
"1. This car is available in the E.U. market and if yes , how much is it cost (in Euro's please) and how can i get one ?"
Yes, I've seen photos an Opal hatchback variant which used a diesel generator instead.
"2. Is it possible to be completely or partial supported by some energy production systems like solar panels ? (We have 10-11 months sunshine per year here)."
Not yet, but there are solar cell garages you could buy that would do the trick.
***
Just some food for thought...