Just as Toyota saw fit to pimp its own forthcoming
plug-in hybrid, General Motors is hitting back with "hopes" to produce a similarly equipped Saturn Vue Green Line in 2010 as well. We know, GM doesn't have the greatest track record when it comes to delivering on time, but you
say what you have to in order to keep up, right? Nevertheless, this vehicle is slated to house a "modified version of GM's two-mode hybrid system and plug-in technology" along with an obligatory Li-ion, and current testing has shown it able to traverse ten miles at "low speeds" when running on battery power alone. It's also stated that the SUV can be fully recharged in just under five hours, but alas, GM isn't opening its mouth even a little to address pricing expectations. Hit the read link for a gallery of photos -- who knows when you'll see it in the flesh.
posted Jan 14th 2008 7:44PM
I think japanese cars pwn. But I'd always take a luxurious italian or british car over a honda though.
Hah, well, yes, but "Luxurious Italian" and Honda aren't exactly in the same tax bracket are they? ;)
-Taylor
This whole story is dumb because thats not a real Saturn Vue (engadget please correct or remove it).
The picture is fake it looks photoshopped.
Yeah, the reflections are all wrong. Definitely photoshopped
We're talking PLUG-IN hybrids.
They CAN make electric cars, but they don't want to, it would REMOVE too many moving parts for them to make money on okay.
It would cost so much to retool the current factories to handle Hybrid production.
It takes ages for dreadnaughts like GM to be turned around, but it shouldn't take this long, when will they lose enough money that the jet set lifestyle of the owners finally gets affected? That's usually the only time companies change.
They should already know by the amount of cars still sitting on their lots, and the unions should get a clue about keeping jobs with a future, not just jobs for this year.
Stop masturbating on your halo vehicles, we've all been hammering about MPG for years, stop dragging your ass before you go into receivership GM.
Toyota will be actually selling them, GM will just be greenwashing...
lol, asspies still stuck in the Roger Smith days.
2010? Hello? **After** GM is bankrupt?!
Maybe should stick to tech comments and not venture into posts about cars. GM is as healthy as they have been in almost two decades. Some of the best product that is out right now belongs to GM. You are welcome over at Autoblog any time.....
Not to mention GM in foreign countries, like China, is doing increasingly well.
@ Vp
So are you saying just because it is about a vehicle it is not a tech type of post? Maybe you need to go to autoblog and read about car technology!
@VP/@Reader.
Get a grip guys, and take a deep breath. (I said bankrupt by 2010, not now.)
FYI, GM's sales fell 6% in North America last year. And, in 2007, GM had its worst year in China in the past five years. See, e.g., http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/10/business/gm.php
Maybe you should read a little more than your own flatulent blogs.
GM had announced in 2006 that at their current rate, they would be bankrupt by Q2 2008. This was a public announcement made at the plant that my dad works at (he works for EDS in Moraine Ohio) by the plant supervisor. A company that is facing bankruptcy isn't exactly doing so well, ladies.
Its always funny how they demo these concept cars at auto shows -- be it hybrid, electric, hydrogen etc... Other then the big-ass sticker on the side and an extension cord sticking outta the tailpipe, absolutely no proof of it being a working car
Plug-in? Are you kidding me?
Every time energy is changed to another form there is loss. So to plug in your car the energy goes through this process: diesel fuel burned to operate mechanical generator, mechanical generator makes power, power is transfered over long wires to your house, power is stored in Li-ion battery, stored energy is transfered back into mechanical energy to move your car.
How can that possibly be more efficient than just putting gas in your car and going directly to mechanical energy? This vehicle will not be more fuel efficient than my 01 Accord.
Because i could charge my car with a wind generator, a water mill, or if i needed to, a nuclear power plant. it doesnt all come from burning desiel generators. solar cars seem to be the most efficient, at the cost of a hot interior when you want to drive.
There is considerably more energy lost in the electric potential energy to mechanical than there is in chemical potential to mechanical simply because automobile technology for the efficiency of oil use is over 90 years old. The technology for battery storage and electrical grid tranference hasn't reached the quality as petroleum delivery and usage.
I don't believe the plugins will be very good (just a fad) simply because they aren't economical in any way. The Chevy Volt is a SMALL CAR. In order to be truly efficient we need to increase the work load but decrease the required energy.
Also, the key point to these vehicles is the reduction of greenhouse gases. Ultimately, alcohol, ethanol, hybrids,etc suck because they STILL REQUIRE PETROLEUM which will always produce carbon dioxide when burned. What we must focus on is FUSION TECHNOLOGY. Fusion technology and expanded nuclear technology will be what cuts Greenhouse gas emmissions by more than 80% but we aren't investing in that technology because big oil doesn't want it.
@Flashpoint
... Fusion? Um, people ARE working on that, and have been for many years. There is still NO viable fusion energy generation available on this planet. It IS being worked on, but until then, we need to do what we can, and plug in hybrids help. Regular hybrids certainly don't "suck" compared to what else is avaliable, which is regular petroleum cars, and plug in hybrids will be even better. And yes, we still need more nuclear (fission and fusion) power, but then how do we get it in the car? We're a long way from a direct nuclear powered car, if we ever go that way (safety concerns, cost), so even if we build more nuclear plants (which we should do), we still need to get that energy into the car, and the only way to do that is to plug it into the grid.
Also, you mention that petroleum power is more efficient, but it's not necessarily... In a petroleum car, every time you hit the brakes, the energy is wasted, because there is no reasonable way to store and re-use that energy. Hybrids reclaim that energy and use it again, and even though the process is lossy, the fact that you get ANYTHING back from hitting the brakes makes that a moot point compared to nothing back in a petrol car.
You say hybrids aren't economical in ANY way? Why are they more efficient and emit less than similarly-sized petrol cars then?
We do need fusion (some day), and we need more fission ("regular" nuclear, since fusion is nuclear too) power, but even then, we'll need to plug in our cars to take advantage of that. Either that or we use the nuclear power to generate hydrogen, then use fuel cell tech, but either way, plug in hybrids are an excellent way to better use the technology that we have today and any time in the foreseeable future.
-Taylor
Screw the stupid greenhouse gases, give me good fuel economy! And don't make me get a second mortgage on my house to do so, might I add.
First plugin to 15k dollars get my money.
Even if it has three wheels.
(I think the batteries, alone, are worth more than 15k on the all electrics, right now)
Prius batteries are about $10k to replace.
-Taylor
Hmm put the Prius batter in a Tata and there you go.
Yah and Taylor do point me to a single person who has warn out his battery. I know of 3 people who are over 100,000 miles one who is at 120,000+ and they are doing fine. Take your damn FUD somewhere else. The Prius never fully charges or discharges its battery which makes it a hell of a lot better then anything found in most cell phones, laptops, flash lights, etc.
PS- Its costs around 5 grand (At most. I've been quoted $4500 by my local dealer.) to replace the battery. Sorry to dash your hopes and dreams of a 5 figure cost.
I like how they claim everything that plugs into the house green especially for us who gets power from coal plants. People need to realize that coal is not really better than oil. But if is nuclear or hydro like what I am on it is greener but I don't know about cheaper?
I don't know why you got high ranked, because coal powerplants remain more efficient than gasoline/diesel-powered automobiles altogether, I'm still surprised this isn't common knowledge. Do some research, I know that burning coal as opposed to heating water using a fission or fusion process is worse, but it's still better than having a bunch of combustion engines propelling vehicles inefficiently.
womp womp woooooooomp.
I guess everybody gets their energy from coal plants? No. And feel free to google "carbon offsets" for companies (like carbonfund.org) if you want to reduce your carbon footprint from owning a green vehicle.
But I doubt you own a car over 15years old and since you're probably going be kicked out the library at any moment why don't you shutup and stop pretending your not an ignorant jackass.
If you haven't seen the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car" I highly recommend renting it. All I can say is that I don't plan on ever buying an electric car from GM.
That movie was horribly misleading. It overlooks the fact that at 1% market penetration the electric car would bring down the US power grid every day. The system isn't robust enough to handle the amount of energy we would need to start transferring.
And I suppose you believe everything Michael Moore spews at you?
I watched the movie, I'm surprised they didn't blast Toyota for killing their electric Rav-4 (of course they didn't crush them, but the thing's more of an image than anything else). The EV-1 project didn't meet 'American transportation standards' (you know what I mean), if you know what I mean by that - the Volt, when it comes out, is going to fix most if not all of the EV-1's flaws with the addition of an engine that allows the charging of the battery pack as you're on the road.
Need I remind you, these vehicles were only sold in California (and I hope you know why they were even made - plus with gas prices where they were back then there wasn't really any incentive to switch to EVs when you considered how much you had to fork out just to have one).
Yeah Who Killed the Electric Car is a great movie. I hope the execs at GM hemmorage oil out their well-lubed asses.
GM = Generally Malevolant
I don't know about where you live, but every once in a while I still see a parking enforcement personnel or someone working for Edison the electric company driving an electric Rav-4. BTW I am in Los Angeles.
Toyota has a new Prius coming in 2009, and they've already been testing plug-in Hybrids in Japan. I wouldn't put it past Toyota to beat GM to market with a PHEV by a year.
Flashpoint you are a troll and your IP is logged. Please go back to your cellar chamber in the basement of Generally Malevolent and don't come back out until everyone has a plug-in or hybrid and you can off yourself because Generally Malevolent will have no more use for you..
When you buy into hybrid technology, on top of the fact that those cars cost more than regular cars science has proven that drivers of hybrids actually use more fuel because they tend to DRIVE LONGER DISTANCES than the average driver would. In addition, those vehicles require more machinery and therefore more energy to produce. Until you can take petroleum out of the energy cycle in manufacturing entirely, there is no way to cut down on greenhouse gas emmision.
Regenerative breaking is a good start but its nowhere near as intelligent as designing cars with more efficient V6 engines and limiting the vehicle speed to 50 MPH. Speeds higher than 50 mph burn fuel exponentially higher than speeds below that mark. Another good idea is a "mild hybrid" where an oversized starter is used to power the car when the engine is not required.
As for fusion, the technology is there but the lack of funding kills further experimentation into it. We've already performed fusion experiments which yield remarkable amounts of energy but the politics behind oil prevent fission and fusion from getting their due.
Hahm what? Science has proven that hybrid drivers drive longer distances? That's just silly, and i'd LOVE to see the research behind that statement... As for the energy required to produce these cars? Well, the total cost of the car pretty well reflects the total cost of resources and energy consumed during manufacture (or else they wouldn't be profitable to sell!), and since hybrids are cheaper per mile per gallon than their gas counterparts, it looks like we're still increasing the return!
As for limiting vehicle speed to 50? That's just insane. First of all, do you understand the science behind wind resistance? It's ALWAYS increasing exponentially as speed increases, it's an exponential formula... But 50MPH is not some magic number where it just jumps off, and i sure as hell don't want anyone limiting my vehicle to such slow speeds... In fact, i drive fast, and floor it everywhere i go, and i only get about 3 MPG less than my vehicle's rated fuel economy... I'm pretty sure we there are better options to get that 3 MPG back than making everyone drive insanely slow. Also, the economic impact of everyone driving so slowly (and spending more time on the road, less at work), would probably cause more loss of income overall than just spending a bit more money on better technologies. As far as regenerative breaking... sure, more efficient gas engines would be good too, but we've been working on that for 100 years and we've only gotten as far as we have... The trick is more efficient engines AND regenerative braking/hybrid technologies... That is, until battery and power generation technology improves enough to the point where we can eliminate the petrol part entirely, of course. I really think that you're so interested in finding the "perfect" solution that you're losing sight of the most realistic ones. Yes we need to work on fusion and all that, but until then hybrid technology is pretty damn good... It's certainly not "stupid".
As far as fusion technology. No, i'm sorry, it's simply NOT "there", as you claim it is. No one anywhere has created a sustainable fusion reaction that is stable and manageable enough to create power with it, and with literally billions spent on fusion research in past years worldwide, this isn't some energy companies' conspiracy... Turns out it's just REALLY complicated.
As far as the politics? Fusion doesn't generate radioactive waste like fission does, so really, politically, it's a totally different game. That and we can use seawater to provide the energy, and that will apparently last for 65 million years or so before we'd need to find a better source. Politically, fusion power could eventually mean world peace, i kid you not. (set up power plants that basically run for free, get our third worlds online and educate them) People ARE working on it. If you want to know more about fusion there is a HUGE wealth of info online. I especially recommend Wikipedia's entry on fusion and the linked articles.
So yes i'm coming back disagreeing with pretty much everything you say, but honestly, suggesting hybrids are really worse for the environment? I get soooo sick of that argument... Especially since, with your tendency to think oil companies are all about conspiracies, doesn't it make sense that THEY would spread that kind of info? I'm personally not into the conspiracy thing, but since you are i figured i'd bring that up.
So i'm sorry i don't agree, and i may have come off as a bit of a jerk at times, but i realized flamewars are stupid and i don't want to get into that. Sorry if i was offensive but hopefully i made a good point or two in there...
-Taylor
I should note too, that your point about hybrid drivers driving more, if true, certainly has NOTHING to do with the fact that they're hybrids, just that they're more fuel efficient. I can guarantee you that someone with a car that gets 100MPG is going to drive a LOT more than someone who's car gets 1MPG, and you could do your research in such a way as to point a finger at the more fuel efficient car's driver, but that's just silly. Yes people in more fuel efficient cars might drive more, but that doesn't mean we should use less efficient methods...
-Taylor
Wow, 10 miles on a charge...that's almost like a bicycle. Well done, idiots. The Prius is expected to hit 40 miles without touching gas, which would get most people to work and back without needing gas. Maybe if they tried that idea in a normal 2wd 5-person car instead of a stupid 2wd 5-person SUV they'd actually make something worthwhile.
California doesn't have enough power on their grid to sustain the consumption of people's homes. I can't wait till they toss in a few thousand cars. Maybe then they'll be asking for those nuclear plants to be recommissioned.
California isn't America.
Yeah, what is this 10 mile garbage we keep hearing about recently. I'm fairly certain we can do much better than that?
Sorry but I can't take Saturn seriously when it comes to hybrids. When
one minute I'm watching their FUD based commercials how a bicycle can
outrun a hybrid and how its all about the horses dummy...then the
next they are all about hybrid and its now mature enough and its the
best thing since sliced bread. If it wasn't for the Prius and the
Insight Saturn would still be shitcanning the very concept of the
hybrid. So in conclusion
Dear Saturn,
Go do unmentionable things to yourself you two faced ho.
I can't take Saturn seriously because they were trying to sell a Vue with an oversized alternator/small motor as a hybrid. I think it gave em an extra 2-3 mpg.
Also the fact that I bought a Saturn and it has been a piece of crap. So much so that I am not going to buy another GM product.
I've saw the prototype last year. (see http://blogs.edmunds.com/strategies/361) GM is serious. The biggest issue is decent battery technology.
LOL, does anyone else see the irony in these"green" vehichles??? How does getting electricty from power plants, putting bigass lead batteries, and making the vehichle mostly made of plastic, good for the enviroment?? Yeah you got rid of the emissions, but you create even worse toxic wastes when this vehichle is no longer in fashion or something else comes along. I guess it makes hippies feel like they are doing something for the enviroment. LOL
Um...this is a farse! '10 miles on battery power alone'. I cannot believe what i'm reading! A few years ago (we're talking 2-4 at the most) General Motors developed and produced a car called the EV1. It had an approximate range on one charge of 100 miles and didn't involve any friggin 'GAS' as you say.
I'd advise all of you to watch this documentary. It's called 'Who killed the Electric Car'. It's fantasticaly produced docu-film, one of the best i've ever seen and it pwns GM and a lot of others to be fair for their lack of backbone and capitalist greed.
Here's a link to the film. Watch it, and you will understand the absolute Bull***t that gets pulled off right before our eyes.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5977085690337730430
The Prius Hybrid plug in is only expected to go 7 miles (per Toyotas announcement) on electric alone and doesn't pull 3500 pounds. Also for every that calls this a prototype. GM already has two mode hybrids on the road (large trucks). The only thing different about this is the batteries used in it and it plugs in. Toyota doesn't have a plug in on the rode yet because of the same battery availability issue. The non plugin version of this SUV goes on sale this fall which is based on a Saturn VUE that's already on the road.
Hasn't Ford just introduced a bunch of Plug-In Escapes for SCE (Southern California Edison)? I read rumours if it does well it'll be available for consumers in the next two years or something.
And I know most manufactrers test both smaller vehicles and larger "fuel saving" vehicles but with America's love of large cars it's no wonder they tend to hybridize SUVs. My personal opinion (you don't have to agree) is that I would like a semi larger vehicle if I were to buy a Hybrid but nothing the size of the Lexus h SUV but something more smaller like the Escape. I don't really like the size of the Prius.
Old technology, has been around for millennia. Walking, try it. It could work. Oh yeah I’m sure there is someone out there who claims driving is better for the environment, let’s not hear that ******* argument please. Plus walking is technically free, at least for the 50% of the overweight Americans out there. Other benefits, you look sexier, leading to more sex, prolonging your life, but that’s actually a drawback for the environment. If people live longer they consume more, damn, there is no way around it. Oh, I’m sure someone will retort with walking is slow and takes time I don’t have. The average American watches more than 4 hrs of television per day, and I’m guessing the fatter Americans watch more, am I right. Walking 4 miles per hour for 4 hours a day is 16 miles we can deduct from the 32 miles a day the average person drive.
On another note, gasoline engines are one of the least efficient ways to create power. We don’t run houses on a gasoline engines… I wonder why… If you still don’t understand, think about all the heat a gas engine produces, that’s wasted energy genius.