The Volt is GM’s iPod

11 Responses to “The Volt is GM’s iPod”

1. 
   
   

   Mario M Says:
   May 29th, 2007 at 9:49 pm

   GM talk the talk but let’s see if they can walk the walk when they’re going to be making very little profit on the Volt.

   People often refer to Who Killed the Electric Car on these kinds of blogs but for this entry, The Cooperation seems to be the more relevant documentary.  
   
   (Quote)

2. 
   
   

   Ziv Says:
   May 29th, 2007 at 10:42 pm

   GM is claiming that they can build an incredibly fuel efficient mid-size/compact car for less than $30,000, and we are questioning whether they can make money on it? The battery is only good for 40 miles a day, so they are using todays tech, and have understood the fact that most people don’t commute all that far, (albeit with a minority that commutes a great deal further), to supply a car that will fit a huge number of peoples needs. The need for a car that will go 40 to 60 miles a day, using energy that is much cheaper than gasoline, but without requiring an hour long fillup when the battery goes dry… It is unbelievable how large this group is, if GM builds this car within 4 years they will sell hundreds of thousands of them annually.
   More importantly, it will allow them to leverage their knowledge to build Silverados that get 30 mpg, or Trailblazers that are fairly decent SUV’s, but get 35mpg in town, or to build a new Crown Victoria for the cops of this world, and it won’t get 12 mpg it will get 25mpg, and it will be able to run a computer for hours after the cop sits down to do his ‘paper work’. How many cities would buy a cop car that cuts their fuel costs in half and enables them to boast about their ‘carbon footprint’ shrinking accordingly? The money in hybrids isn’t in making a Corolla more fuel efficient, i.e. the Prius, or the Civic, that just doesn’t same fuel. What saves money and fuel is if you can increase the miles per gallon of the SUV’s of the world. Or the cop cars. And I think that GM is beginning to realize that.  
   
   (Quote)

3. 
   
   

   Tim Says:
   May 30th, 2007 at 8:56 am

   Question: If all we’re trying to do here is cheaply and efficiently store energy, then why do we have to store it in expensive and complex batteries? Why must we wait years and spend $Billions globally on their development only to risk explosion, fire and electrocution? What if 2011 comes around and GM says… “Sorry, we tried and it’s not economically viable” It’s happened many times before and history does repeat itself.

   Question: What’s the least expensive, least complicated, easiest to implement and safest way to store energy… (a) a tank of compressed hydrogen with a fuel cell or (b) a L-ion battery with it’s control system and related electronics, or (c) a tank of compressed air?

   Yes, all technologies are compromises; however the simplicity in using ordinary compressed air vs. complex, heavy and dangerous electricity storage methods including chemical batteries and hydrogen/fuel cells cannot be overlooked. We can use renewable electricity to compress and transfer non-polluting air right now with and long life carbon fiber tanks won’t explode, cost thousands of dollars each or have a limited lifespan like l-ion batteries. We are also not risking releasing large amounts of greenhouse causing hydrogen into the upper atmosphere or risk explosive flaming meltdown or electrocution associated with high voltages in an accident. I’m sure the EMS teams will be happy with this. This reminds me of GM’s old skateboard tech sans the $Trillions for the lunacy of an all new hydrogen infrastructure. We can have our cake and eat it to without the wait, expense, risk or guilt!

   Instead of using a range-extender generator, we could use range-extender compressors. This should mean less weight and less complexity (no electric motors) thus increasing efficiency and further reducing maintenance. The lack of copper windings in and other “precious” metals should further reduce weight, manufacturing and operating costs. You know, KI.S.S.!

   Here is some more info on the Aircar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4

   It may not be perfect, but with the help of biofuels Aircars could help us off foreign oil quickly, cheaply and safely. Any thoughts?  
   
   (Quote)

4. 
   
   

   Dave Says:
   May 30th, 2007 at 9:13 am

   I’m glad you are enthusiastic about this car. I’m hopeful, but don’t really believe this is anything more than a GM diversionary tactic to convince people to let them keep building the huge gas guzzlers they can make the most money on.

   If GM is really such a changed (green) company, then why do they continue to sue California for it’s gas emission law? Why do they continue to build the huge gas guzzlers instead of announcing an effort to start cutting back on their production? Why are they pressuring Congress to not pass their fuel efficiency standards instead of embracing the new standards as a great challenge? Why are they working with the other American auto manufacturers to produce commercials ridiculing gas efficient cars to try to sway the public to stop Congress from passing higher CAFE fuel efficiency standards? Why have they not publically apologized to the former EV1 owners, to get their assistance in selling the Volt to the public?

   GM (and Ford and Chrysler) don’t get it. They don’t get (or believe) global warming, peak oil, they don’t get why the Japanese companys are outselling them so badly, and they certainly don’t get that the American public is crying for more fuel efficient cars.

   I’m afraid GM has not really changed – Its just a huge public relations effort just like the run-up to the EV1 fiasco.

   Sorry, but that is GM’s history and I don’t see anything that would change my mind. They are about their bottom line and about keeping the status quo. With their continued efforts, they will go out of business, blaming the American public for not supporting them, all the way down.  
   
   (Quote)

5. 
   
   

   Donna Reynolds Says:
   June 1st, 2007 at 2:36 pm

   I recently watched ‘Who Killed the Electric Car’ and have vowed that the next car I buy will be electric. I might have to wait a while, I know, but I am convinced that this is the way to go. Don’t particularly want to support GM after the EV-1 debacle, but I do like this concept.  
   
   (Quote)

6. 
   
   

   Jack Says:
   June 1st, 2007 at 9:31 pm

   In response to Tim’s question about the air car, what’s going to happen when the compressed air tank is punctured in a wreck?

   BOOM!

   I think the Volt is great the way it is.  
   
   (Quote)

7. 
   
   

   Mario M Says:
   June 3rd, 2007 at 7:08 am

   In the air car, the tank is constructed of carbon fibre. They chose to do this because if it were constructed of metal, it would explode like a grenade on impact. My understanding is that the carbon fibre air tank will split on impact but I’m not sort of threat this poses to the occupants of the car.  
   
   (Quote)

8. 
   
   

   RB Says:
   June 3rd, 2007 at 2:13 pm

   I think the Volt is a great concept, but the video was so vague it made me even more uncertain the Volt will ever be built. Is this person an engineer, or is he just another TV personality? I ask because he talks like a TV sports announcer, not a real engineer.  
   
   (Quote)

9. 
   
   

   Rodney Says:
   January 14th, 2008 at 7:08 pm

   I have not bought a car in many years because nothing has excited me. The Volt is a car I would buy.

   This game of redesigning headlights and taillights on old worn-out models, to make people think that cars are changing each year, is getting old. Build the Volt, it will sell.  
   
   (Quote)

10. 
    
    

    100%FreeIphone Says:
    April 23rd, 2009 at 4:30 am

    It was interesting.  
    
    (Quote)

11. 
    
    

    Free Gadget Says:
    August 22nd, 2009 at 6:30 am

    Great reading, thank you  
    
    (Quote)

Leave a Reply