Your Questions Answered by Top Chevy Volt Executives, Part 3
Q: Are you on schedule with the mules?
A: “Yes we’re on schedule.”…”The definition of what kind of mule is ready when I’m not going to define.”..(SF) “We will definitely let you know when its ready.”
Q: Are you planning to lease the battery? Is it still on the table?
A: (TP) “No decisions have been made one way or the other. Remember we have leased vehicles before, such as Project Driveway..There are all kinds of ways to make sure the technology works.”..”We are exploring a lot of different ideas and alternatives. That’s where we’re at in the program right now” ..”Were intrigued with the ideas of replaces a petroleum or gasoline bill with a different energy bill”..”How to transact that, it could get a little dicey or complicated.”..”Uncertainty around the battery itself, how much does it cost, how much is it worth, is there a secondary market around it”..”These are things enough people are interested in because of the interest in probing the different areas, were collecting a lot of data.”..”There has been no decision made, were investigating the alternatives. It is frankly fraught with a lot of tricky stuff.”..”Some seeds have been planted about the idea we are taking to some people we are not privy to discus at this time.”
TP: “Imagine this…Let’s say you’re driving the Volt and a message comes on saying you have to check out the battery. You have not noticed any driving or performance issues. But you bring it in to the dealer. One of the quandaries were in is this. Do we let the well-trained technician open the battery up, you sit there and wait, does he have the right tools and diagnostic equipment OR does he pop the battery out give you another that’s there and sends yours back the central expert center to Denise’s engineers who looks at them and works with the supplier, appropriately reconditions it and the batteries ready again. Or do you really always have to have that same battery always with you, like an engine is to a car now? This is an example of the type of things we’re studying.”
Q: Will you make the batteries swappable so that if a better technology comes along or if a Project Better Place-like program arrives the car could participate?
A:(DG) “Your battery will always be serviceable. Always. You just slide it out and put another back in.”
Q: Your going to design it that way?
A: (DG) “I have to. Easy to slide out and in by a trained technician. And we’ve learned a lot about how to service batteries.”
Q: Are you training first responders to car accidents on dealing with the batteries?
A: (DG) “Yes.Yes.Yes. In fact I have an engineer whose only job is vehicle safety for first responders. He spoke to federal agencies (recently) about safety in high voltage vehicles, and did a wonderful job.”
Q: Where are the charging ports going to be, and will there be one or two?
A: (TP) “We are thinking about it, and are very close to finalizing our decision on that matter.”..”It will be one or two, not three or four (laughter)”
Q: What are the barriers to sub-7 second 0 to 60 time, and why are you picking 8.5 seconds?
A: (TP) “We are still in the general 8.5 vicinity, what we ultimately settle on may vary slightly from that.”…”A really really important point to note is 0 to 60 has become a sort of de facto standard although very few people really do 0 to 60″..”One of the things, Lyle, you can help us with, and we’re going to help develop the metric, is with us, it’s really your initial acceleration because of the instantaneous torque you get from the electric system, now whether its a 0 to 30 time or a seconds to 0.2 G’s. We think thats a much more practical everyday, real world measurement.”..”We want your readers and your community to understand that one of the advantages of an electric vehicle are in the launch feel, launch performance”..”8.5 seconds is a nice car”..”We’ll have instantaneous torque”..”Our vehicle will be low (to the ground) and very very aerodynamic from the perspective of aerodynamic benchmarks.”..”Now, could we make it faster? Perhaps for future versions.”..”Remember the first objective we have is the 40 miles EV range”..”thats the primary objective, we can’t lose site of that”..”We have to do the first car right..it has a mission and a purpose..If we can achieve that mission, were very confident that other spinoff opportunities and choices will become available. It’s nothing prohibitive”
Popularity: 1%
Related posts:
- Your Questions Answered by Top Chevy Volt Executives, Part 5
- Your Questions Answered by Top Chevy Volt Executives, Part 4
- Your Questions Answered by Top Chevy Volt Executives, Part I
- Your Questions Answered by Top Chevy Volt Executives, Part 6
- Your Questions Answered by Top Chevy Volt Executives, Part 2
(No Ratings Yet) 
Loading ...
72 Responses to “Your Questions Answered by Top Chevy Volt Executives, Part 3”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- Summary of Thursday’s Senate Hearing: Automakers Fight to Survive
- VIDEO: GM’s CEO Arrives to Capitol Hill in Chevy Volt Prototype, Senate Hearings Underway
- GM CEO Will Drive Volt Mule Inside Washington DC Today, UAW Agrees to Drop Job Bank
- GM: Out of Time, Out of Money, Out of Options
- GM Submits Long-Term Viability Plan to Congress: $18 Billion Needed
- Detroit 3 Viability Plans Go To Congress Today: GM’s CEO Will Drive to DC in Hybrid Malibu
- GM-Volt Exclusive: Bob Lutz Details Volt Mule Energy Use in Highway Driving
- GM’s Canceled LA Auto Show Conference: Was it Going to be the Volt Battery Contract Announcement?
- Flextreme Concept Wins Prestigious Design Award, Still Not Production Intent
- What Would Happen to the Chevy Volt if GM Failed?
November 19th, 2007 at 8:39 am
I am going to buy this car, whether in 2010 or 2011 when it comes out, unless someone else builds a EVrx-30+ before Chevy. But I sure hope I don’t have to buy a car that is that slow merging into traffic. 8.5 seconds 0-60 isn’t asking much, especially when you consider just how much torque this car will have. I realize its 0-30 will probably be decent but getting up to speed in the first EVrx is going to be something that will drive a lot of people away from the technology. As long as the time starts with a 7 it won’t be much of an issue, I would bet.
I really wish they would figure out how to assure buyers that the battery won’t be leased, after their disastrous choices with that piece of overly-expensive niche marketing know as the EV1, they don’t want any of the lease issues dogging their new car.
November 19th, 2007 at 8:59 am
I agree with GM entirely about the acceleration. People get so hung up on 0-60, like they’re going to be drag-racing in this thing. I drive a car that does 0-60 in 9.5 seconds, and I’ve never felt that I have any trouble merging with traffic. The key thing about the Volt will be that it will let you do your daily commute without gas. To sacrifice that selling point for a slightly faster acceleration time would be short-sighted.
You know, generally speaking, while I think it’s great that people are so interested in the Volt, I think people too often substitute their own preference and decide that’s what GM should be doing, without actually knowing anything about the technical trade-offs and limits. GM has committed to this car, I don’t imagine they’re going to want to under-deliver.
(Though I hope, I hope that it does as well in crash tests as any other car on the road. With the batteries sitting there, don’t give people any reason to worry about safety. Make it an IIHS Top Safety Pick and a 5-Star NHTSA car all-around.)
November 19th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Battery lease
What they should offer instead is a premium battery warranty that promises to swap it for another one if something goes wrong. Leasing the battery is a huge turn off for me.
November 19th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Great job Lyle, as usual, I dare say.
Here we are convinced that the project will succeed.
Look at : http://www.autoblog.com/2007/11/14/detroit-2008-preview-gm-goes-mean-and-green-schizophrenia-rule/
GM is adding to the pressure.
November 19th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Swappable battery — excellent. We want it swapped, not fixed.
November 19th, 2007 at 10:49 am
I honestly can’t see much in the way of advantage to leasing the batteries. Those batteries will already be amortized over 5 or 6 years in the car loan. Now if those batteries lasted 20 years, that would be different …
I’ve said it before, but Project Batter Place is attempting to solve a problem which really doesn’t exist (driving range) and is making worse the economic obstacles to all-battery electrics - namely the cost
of the batteries, which Better Place, with all of its overhead, can only make worse, not better. The whole scheme looks for all the world to be a con, although in all likelihod it is not intended to be. I also see plug-in receptacles all over the place (especially at work) and probably free, which causes Better Place to have even less relevance.
November 19th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Negatively, for a moment, if the car looks something like a Cobalt (yesterday’s hints) and gets on the interstate sluggishly (today’s hints) with weak HVAC (yesterday), the Volt will be a car for the nice people from Molly Maid but one with very little appeal to trend setters or, more generally, to people who like cars. It has to be something more than eco-electric to have broad appeal. That market already has a Prius.
November 19th, 2007 at 10:56 am
If they need a test real life driver…..let me know. Would be willing to drive to 22 mi to work. I have 110 outlet there that I used with my Corbin Sparrow. Charge for 8 (+-) hrs, and drive the same back, every week day. Let them know that I am ready!.
2010 is so damn far away……….
November 19th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Just give a choice to lease or buy the battery.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
#7, RB:
I too am starting to get a little fearful that our fancy concept car is going to be turned into a ‘Cobalt E’
GM has too leave some ‘twirrly’ junk on it…or at least give in a distinctive image.
I think I’ll throw up a post in the forum about the dangers of a electric cobalt.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
I am glad to hear the batteries will be easily removable.
I assume the whole leasing of the batteries issue is due to GM wanting to get the car to market nicely below $30,000. GM may have a difficult time achieving this price if the batteries cost say $10,000. Buyers of the Volt will definitely save money on fuel. I assume they are trying to think “out of the box” and maybe trying to spread the cost of the battery over a period of time that equates to the fuel usage. My opinion is they should just raise the price of the car to include the extra cost of the battery. Most people buying the Volt will be either financing or leasing the vehicle so their cash flow would already be spread over say 4 or 5 years. For those paying cash for the Volt …they are in effect prepaying for future energy usage (fuel savings). Some may equate the battery lease to the EV1 and may be skeptical. Some may also say the most I will pay for a car is $30,000. If the Volt comes in at $35,000, people need to understand they are really buying a $30,000 car and prepaying for $5,000 of future energy.
I agree with above post #3 …GM should include premium extended coverage for the battery similar to coverage offered today.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
I’m not too trilled about a slow to merge something that looks like a Cobalt either.
I also prefer to purchase the battery and have it swappable.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
GM should install a circuit breaker in the Volt that disconnects the battery in the event of an accident, for safety purposes. If there is little damage due to a fender bender, the driver would just flip on the circuit breaker …just like at home when a circuit breaker trips.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Let me take a small detour to refresh some history and statistics before returning to my own (as yet unanswered) question:
After the 1973-74 Arab oil embargo, Congress passed the Energy Policy Conservation Act (EPCA), which established corporate average fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards for passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States. In 1975 Congress set a goal to double fuel economy for passenger cars from 13.8 mpg in 1975 to 27.5 mpg by 1985. This year’s 2007 Compact Car combined EPA data shows that the 1985 goal target was more or less met:
1975 = 13.8 mpg
1985 = 25.5 mpg (peak)
2007 = 24.3 mpg
Note, however that no further targets were set and that a fifth of a century later the USA has WORSE fuel economy than in 1985. Returning to (and placing in context with) the current round of GM Volt answers, what then has GM told us?
1) That the battery pack will be entirely replaceable.
2)That non battery mode will provide 400 miles from 8 US gallon tank, which is 50 mpg (and has been quoted previously by GM for the vehicle)
The question that I(and at least 2 other readers)asked was ‘why not build the Volt as a series hybrid - ie with no battery at all - and add a battery when/if it is ready?’
WHY did I ask this question? Well, for a start because series hybrid drivetrain has been in use at sea for over ONE HUNDRED YEARS and by train manufacturers like EMD since the 1930s. EMD have the largest installed base of diesel-electric locomotives in North America and internationally. They are America’s second largest locomotive manufacturer(overtaken by GE in the 1980s), and the only one to have produced more than 70,000 engines.
Oh naughty me - I didn’t point out that EMD stands for Electro Motive Division. Now would any of you optimists out there care to know which large American corporation had a division of that name which provided the majority of the world’s diesel electric trains between 1930 and 2005, when they sold the division off? Could it be…. the SAME company who bought up and ripped out all of the tram, trolley bus and street car systems in America to make way for its cars? Could it be the SAME company that did a deal on NiMh intellectual property to supress the enabling technology for EVs until 2013 whilst keeping us all hanging on for its unproven LiIon successor until 2011? Could it be…. General Motors Corporation? - it’s a funny old world isn’t it?
Anyway I digress: My point is that series electric hybrid is not a revolutionary drivetrain concept.
My (still unanswered) question therefore remains: Why are we waiting for a better battery and why are we waiting for a battery AT ALL if series electric hybrid can DOUBLE our fuel economy TODAY with NO BATTERY whatsoever?
Volt could be built right now with a
big ‘T’ shaped hole ready for a LiIon battery in 2011 (or NiMh battery in 2013 when prevention of use is lifted). This series hybrid drivetrain (requiring no battery at all) would return 50 mpg (and probably even better due mass saving from an empty battery compartment).
Even when I posted my ’series hybrid / no battery’ question as one for inclusion in the meeting with GM people I posted the addendum that I expected that it would go unsatisfactorily or not at all answered (just like my questions regarding NiMh which were never answered other than with ‘LiIon is great’ which is clearly not the case hence our wait until 2011 and beyond. So far my prediction that I would be ignored has proven correct.
So before we all cream ourselves into a lather regarding 0-60 times, should we not be asking GMC and ALL of the car manufacturers some more fundamental questions regarding what they can and cannot do, and over what timesclae? Should we not be thinking about the body bags and cripples for life returning from the Gulf and asking if there are quicker ways to stem that flow?
I have said before that I’m a fan and would love to buy a volt, or the Opel Flextreme it becomes available to me here in the UK, so don’t lauch the B-52s at London just yet. I am just looking for common sense answers to obvious questions and don’t understand why there is such head-in-the-sand acceptance out there that GM’s word is trustworthy gospel, when their past track record says otherwise.
Then again SOMEBODY put George Dubya in power … TWICE.
Poor,little car company… doesn’t want to answer nasty man’s hard questions? There, there how about a nice easy one. Do you think you’ll still be in business in 2011?
Scepticism and hard questions are a part of healthy, balance debate, but a debate only works if answers are given to the questions posed.
I’m still waiting for an answer.
tootle-pip!
November 19th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Pete k,
The are plenty of vehicles out there doing 50mpg.
It is the 130 mpg(normal driving pattern) of the volt that makes the difference. And for we subnormals that live a lot less than 40 mile from home we can get down to the carbon emissions of a renewable energy electricity grid.(Use your own grid figures here)
Now it is making a difference!
Still I love the joke about the B52’s.lol
They may come loaded with Hershey bars and Coca Cola. It worked before!
November 19th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
What would be wrong with an E-flex Cobalt? I’d buy one in a minute, it’s not a bad looking car at all. I know, I know. There’s the “I want to stand out” crowd on this site.
Look, I don’t really care that much about looks, as long as it doesn’t look butt ugly like the Prius.
Has anyone seen the VentureOne car that’s gonna be made in California? Look at flytheroad.com. It would make a cool little commuter car. Later, guys.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Pete,
Relax. The series hybrid can get a theoretical 50MPG BECAUSE of the battery. It has been quotes and shown many times and in many sources that a series hybrid car with no battery will get worse mileage than our mechanical transmissions of today. That is because the losses from converting mechanical to electrical and then back to mechanical are greater than the straight mechanical transmission. What makes a series hybrid WITH a big battery so efficient is that the motor can run at its most efficient RPM without the start/stop from the accelerator. All of that quickly needed energy comes from the batteries and then is slowly restored by the engine.
Ships, giant trucks and locomotives are different, for whatever reason, and benefit from diesel electric. It’s apples and oranges. Not everything is scalable.
The main point is, you need the battery for 50MPG. How big a battery I don’t know, but don’t go off like you have it all figured out just because you have a simplified idea of how a diesel electric train works. The car MUST have a battery to store that energy!
November 19th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Pete K-
Just to try to answer your NiMH questions-
The Chevron/Cobasys control of advanced NiMH only really affects the Japanese companies like Panasonic/Toyota, who can only sell more primitive NiMH cells in their hybrids for the time being. Until 2014 when the patent expires, that is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobasys#Patent_dispute_with_Panasonic_EV_Energy
“just like my questions regarding NiMh which were never answered other than with ‘LiIon is great’”
Lithium ion IS great BECAUSE its performance is way above and beyond that NiMH - both theoretical and in real life. The most advanced, mature NiMH cells are only half the capacity of even the most energy restricted (and thermally stable) Li-ion cells.
There’s also the question of charge/discharge capacity. Lithium ion is a MUCH cleaner and more efficient chemistry - which means much less energy wasted every time you cycle. Just look at the impedance of the A123 cells - that sort of low resistance is what makes it possible to charge and recharge them so quickly and efficiently. Something that would be impossible for even the most advanced NiMH.
With a premium put on weight and volumetric and electrical efficiency, people have very wisely chosen to invest in the technology with the most room for future improvement. Apart from HEVs, NiMH technology has just simply ceased to be a viable contender - it’s been maxed-out.
“‘LiIon is great’ which is clearly not the case hence our wait until 2011 and beyond.”
As has been stated before, systems integration is the obstacle.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
I think EMD’s locos may have benefited from all that start torque of a DC motor. That made diesels nearly as good as a steam loco but never as sexy.
I didnt know GM had quit EMD. GM must have decided at some stage they were a finance company. That seems to be a common decision of companies that are on their way out the back door.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Lyle:
Please get a picture of the LG Chem battery that GM has received. I can’t wait to see that.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Jimmy #11:
I disagree with your thinking. The batteries are not “prepaying for future energy”, they are a storage medium for the transfer of energy I have to pay for from my electric company.
And why would a lease for the battery pack make it any easier for a warranty repair? If the pack fails under warranty, they would swap out a different pack, just as if the transmission failed in my current vehicle. And I own my current vehicle…. The only way this would make any sense to me if if they come out with a “new and improved” battery pack in 3-4 years, that I would get it without having to pay anything for it. The never ending lease would just cover upgrades and maintenance of the battery pack.
As far as the timeline, lets not forget that this is a new concept, new design, and new engineering which therefore must go through all the hoops that government testing and certification will require. And unfortunately, that takes time.
And please, please, please don’t just make this an electric Cobalt!!!!!!!!!!!!
November 19th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Jim I #21:
The equivalent cost of electricity will only be about 20% of the cost of gas. Thus …in a sense you will be prepaying for future energy.
Regarding the warranty …I could have written what I was trying to communicate better. The point I was trying to make was they should offer an extended warranty similar to the extended warrantys you can buy today.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
I would like to echo the sentiment that Jim I said in #21
And please, please, please don’t just make this an electric Cobalt!!!!!!!!!!!!
November 19th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
I haven’t heard GMs reasoning on even mentioning leasing the batteries. I can only assume they would offer a lease if they believe battery technology will drastically improve within the first three to five years after the Volt is released. Either that or perhaps they do not believe the initial batteries available will have a long enough life span.
Does anyone know any other reasons WHY GM even mentioned the idea of leasing the batteries?
November 19th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
If you really want to pre-pay for your energy, it is simple: Install a solar system, figure on about 2KW, I will need about 1.6KW to cover 8000 miles in New York.
Cost of solar is about $7.50 / KW, but with rebates, and tax credits, it could cost as little as $4K.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Hi Bruce,
My posting did intimate that the fuel economy would be BETTER than GM’s ‘with-battery’ guess (I mean ‘quote’)of 50mpg due to the mass saving in a ‘without-battery’ series hybrid.
Moreover the 50mpg figure is GM’s not mine, and is itself a guess because it is based upon a car that does not exist yet.
I think we all know that the series hybrid should in fact give much BETTER than 50mpg: For example, cnsider that the the original EV1 had a 26 cell NiMh battery pack. GM’s own series hybrid experiments then demonstrated a bigger (FOUR seats PLUS a larger 44 cell NiMh battery pack to lug around) version of the EV1 a fuel economy of 60mpg (so beating both of the Volt’s quoted plug in AND series hybrid ranges). How much better would that fuel economy figure have been WITHOUT the the battery pack?
I can walk onto a forecourt in the UK tomorrow and drive away in one of 10 models that will return between 65mpg (Citroen C2 HDi) and 74mpg (VW BlueMotion) (combined cycle / UK gallons). All of these beat the Parallel Hybrid Prius. How high an mpg could these cars produce as Series hybrids having removed all the weight of their large, heavy ICE drivetrain and transmission components? Nearer to the Volts with-battery 130mpg? I think so. How much nearer? Don’t know - I’m only an airline pilot.
I suggest that only a project run by the Keystone Cops MIGHT be incompetent enough to produce a series hybrid that only gives 50 mpg.
Come to mention it I haven’t seen the Keystone Cops for quite a while. Have I stumbled upon something? Might Detroit be sitting on more secrets even than I suspected?
tootle-pip again
November 19th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Pete-
“GM’s own series hybrid experiments” used a high-revving microturbine as the genset, instead of an ICE. That’s how they got 60mpg.
I also doubt that it used a larger battery pack - you’d have to actually remove battery volume to include the fuel tanks. Defining the pack in terms of weight and kWH capacity is a lot more precise than simply spouting off the number of cells.
Comparing the gas-powered Prius to those diesel cars also isn’t a very good comparison. There’s the lower weight of those cars, plus the simple fact that diesel has more energy per volume than gasoline.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
0-60 in 8.5 seconds is certainly not sluggish. I had a 2.2L 2001 S-10 and it did 0-60 in 12 seconds, my 1.5L Scion XB does it in about 11 Seconds. I rarely floor it and have never had an issue merging on the highway, or any traffic for that matter.
Just FYI 0-60 times for comparison
2003 Toyota Camry SE 2.4, 8.35seconds
2003 Toyota Camry XLE V6, 8.35seconds
2001 Grand Am GT, 8.40seconds
2005 Pontiac G6 0-60, 8.5 seconds
2007 Yaris 0-60 time of 10.8 seconds
2007 Honda Fit - manual 0-60 9.2 seconds
2006 Prius takes 10.37 seconds for 0 -60
2003 Mazda Protege5, 8.71 seconds
1996 Honda Civic EX Coupe, 8.80 seconds
1995 Chevrolet Camaro V6 (3.4), 8.73
With the exception of the prius name one of those cars that gets 50MPG. To me it seems like the Volt would be right where it needs to be to be an average car for 0-60 times. It is not a sports car it is an economy car.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
I like the idea of the battery being swappable in case better battery tech comes along, but how will this be designed so that only the dealer/technicians can do this, and not have the battery stolen by thieves??
November 19th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
perhaps a lock with a key over the battery covering? I also couldn’t imagine anyone removing the batteries without putting the car on a lift.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
its a 0 to 30 time or a seconds to 0.2 G’s…
I’m not crazy for 0 to 30, cause as you says “0 to 60 has become a sort of de facto standard”. I think it a good point of view to use “seconds to 0.2 G’s”, but it had nothing to do with speed on the road, but how fast to get up to force exerted by gravity. It may feel like it fast, but it not a measure speed. When many cars start useing electric motor. It may be useful to use “seconds to 0.2 G’s” for compare other electric motor. It just a good market ploy to claim how better the motor able pull a load or it own weight itself in a short amount of time. Correct me if I’m wrong.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Mark #29
It’s my understanding the battery is much taller than the road clearance of the car therefore it will have to be on a hoist to remove .It also ways over 400 lbs so it will only be sliding out after a large # of bolts the size of your finger have bean removed that hold this monster in place! If someone wants your battery they will be stealing the whole car it will be alot easier.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
The battery is going to weigh 440 pounds. The car will probably need to be up on a lift in order to get it out. If someone wanted to steal the battery …it would probably be easier to steal the whole car.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Mark H. #32:
I should have read your post before I responded to #29. Great minds think alike.
November 19th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
The battery might also be configured in modules - that way one can easily swap out a single module that’s having problems.
November 19th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
While Li ion batteries definitely have a much higher energy density than NiMH, they also have a much higher power density. I believe that if you created a car with a 40 mi range with a NiMH battery it would have serious performance issues.
I really cannot understand why there are so many that - in spite of the obvious engineering facts - still insist that NiMH is good enough to build the Volt. This is simply not true! Please do some research, with an engineer in tow, to explain the technology to you.
I have been a mechanical engineer for over 27 years. This is not all that difficult and the numbers bear out GM’s position very clearly. I have never worked for the auto industry and have no reason to lie to you.
The gas mileage quoted for the Volt occurs because of the optimization of the ICE made possible because the battery functions as a giant load leveler. Diesel electric trains and boats don’t need the big battery because they are mostly a constant load device to begin with.
BTW I believe the load sharing capability in the Prius to be one great piece of engineering. I think it would be great idea to apply to the long haul trucking industry assuming it can scale.
The real genius of the volt is in the restricting of it to a 40 mile range. The pure EV with out a range extender has to carry around lots of heavy batteries for the 80% of the time when they are not needed. It is kind of ironic that the Volt is likely greener than a pure EV. The range extender is much lighter than the batteries it displaces.
November 19th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
#28 Nic says of the Volt
“It is not a sports car it is an economy car.”
I guess it seems to me that the ccncept car is more of a sports car. To be true to that spirit, the production car has to have some style and some quickness. It can’t be just a sluggish Cobalt-E (at $10K more per car). I hope that TP, despite his comments, actually intends to take some risks with styling and performance (as was done with the Prius), as GM really needs this car to be a winner.
November 19th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
This is great! I’m getting replies! Not from GM, but replies nonetheless!
Thanks for your answers so far. Some interesting ideas put forward, which I’ll go and research.
AES:
Yes, the EV1 series hybrid did indeed utilise a gas turbine. It weighed 220 lb, measured 20 inches in diameter by 22 inches long, and delivered up to 40 kW of electrical energy. But WAS that what gave it 60mpg? The French Cleanova plug-in hybrid does it with a Weber MPE 750 two cylinder ICE that weighs 207 pounds and burns petrol/E85 mixed in any proportion, so a gas turbine is NOT a prerequesite.
Regarding battery packs the non ’spouted off’ numbers (care of GM)are: The 44 Cell NiMh pack was 26.4 kW, weighed 1147 pounds, and replaced a 26 Cell 18.7 kWh Lead Acid (my original posting said NiMh - my error/ my apology) pack that weighed 1310 pounds.
To clarify then, the 4 seat series hybrid EV1 had the same 44 cell NiMh pack as the standard 2 seat NiMh EV1,ie an upgrade over the 2 seater’s Lead Acid pack. It had space for this AND it’s APU plus a 6.5 gallon fuel tank (although I believe that lived in the boot!)
As to doubting that there was a larger battery pack on the on the basis that they needed to make space for fuel, why not just check for yoursel? As I said, it was a FOUR seat version of the EV1. It was in fact 19″ LONGER than the 2 seater. THAT (combined with putting bits in the boot) is how they made the space for fuel.
Finally yes, diesel does indeed have a higher calorific value than petrol. However this was me agreeing with bruce g who commented that plenty of 50mpg cars exist now, so why was I excited about a 50mpg series hybrids? Hence I was postulating upon what sort of range those same cars might give as DIESEL series hybrids? There are also non-hybrid PETROL (sorry, GAS) cars producing over 50 mpg (UK gallon)but those too are smaller than the compact class of car which (like the Prius) I presume the Volt is meant to fall into. If you are telling me that not many cars of the same class as a Volt (and therefore a Prius) exist which can do 50 mpg then I agree with you - don’t tell me - tell bruce g!
Bruce g - please provide AES with a list of 50mpg petrol (sorry - gas) compact cars? He’s picking on me! And I’ll take extra Coke in place of the Hershey bars!
Also in answer to your question (bruce g)regarding train motors I think DC was originally the technology in use as you postulate, but newer “AC” locomotives such as General Electric’s AC4400CW or EMD’s SD70MAC also produced power with the diesel which turns an alternator producing AC current. These locomotives also rectify this power to DC, but then “chop” it back to AC using inverters. This AC power then goes to AC traction motors which are more expensive but much more durable than DC traction motors. The reason for the change to DC and back to AC is to make sure that the AC current is a constant 60 Hz, even though the engine is changing speeds.
And finally to Scott - thanks for your reply - that’s all fine and I’m always happy to be put right on a point, so please EXPLAIN:
1)WHY a diesel electric train differs from a diesel electric Opel Flextreme? You tell me that the technology is not scaleable but please explain WHY? Do different laws of physics apply? Dwayne the engineer at post number 36 says that trains don’t need the batteries for stop start because they are mostly a constant load device. But they DO still need to pull away don’t they? And they DO still do this without a battery don’t they?
2)If the mech-elec-mech inefficiencies are so high then WHY was mechanical linkage in trains replaced by series electric and for that matter why isn’t the Volt going to be a plug-in PARALLEL hybrid with its nice efficient clutch and gearbox?
3)My simplified idea of how a diesel train works is based on schoolboy control electronics of over 25 years ago, so I’ll concede they are a bit hazy now. My understanding is that a fairly constant revving diesel generates elecricity for dc (older trains) or ac (newer trains) traction motors (one per axle). The driver selected different notches on his ‘power lever’ to engage different combinations of contactors, each producing a different voltage. Some combinations of contactors put certain parts of the generator winding into a series configuration that results in a higher voltage. Others put certain parts in parallel, resulting in a lower voltage. The traction motors produce more power at higher voltages. As I say it’s been 25 years since I studied it but that was the rough idea, and the train didn’t need a battery to accelerate from stand-still in my simple school-boy model. Please EXPLAIN to me why it is that a car would need a battery?
4)If the answer to 3 is that there simply is more stop start for cars than for trains, hence necessitating more load levelling, then why can’t the same small pack used right now on existing parallel hybrids be used on a (zero plug-in range)series hybrid (and then scaled up for plug in range when LiIon is sorted out)?
I just don’t see why, technologically a series hybrid NEEDS to wait for LiIon. I haven’t got any handy engineers - Help me Obi Dwayne engineerobi - you’re my only hope!
and finally - I don’t claim to have anything figured out. Asking questions? Yes. Putting the cat among the pigeons? Maybe. Enjoying your answers? Definitely. I’m a fan and I’m on your side (I think). I’m also a very relaxed fan (whoever it was who told me to relax) - I’ve enjoyed 150 miles to the ‘gallon’ (and rising) at UK petrol/electricity prices for the last 2 years in my Citroen EV
Nitey Nite!
Lyle - thanks as ever - love your site
November 19th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Pete , I agree with everything you say and more, can I upsize you to a bigger MacDonalds?
My comment that 50mpg is readily available was sweeping and more about japanese hybrids and and clever (and small) european cars.
I just shake my head over truck based SUV’s, Im a Peugeot man myself.
I was thinking it has all been done and the challenge is 130mpg and less emissions.
Bob and his team will change the game next easter for everybody.
Down to the serious stuff, it was enlightening to see Dwyane #36 comment on INERTIA, a 10000 tonne ship and a 1 mile train are slow to start and slow to stop so they can be fed energy at a constant rate, voila, a mechanical effect like a flywheel, an enormous mechanical battery.
Well, thats a start…back later.
November 19th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
50 british mpg converts to approximately 6l/100km.
Even the Peugeot 407 does that on the open road, (not quoting source), and it is very quick.
It isnt hard.
Im not trying to restart the American war of Independence, its just that 50mpg is no challenge any more.
November 19th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Pete-
I never said a gas turbine was a prerequisite. But it did help a lot
So did the Stirling engine in GM’s series hybrid experiments from the 60’s.
http://econogics.com/ev/stirlec1.jpg
“Please EXPLAIN to me why it is that a car would need a battery?”
Trains are constant load machines. Cars are NOT.
Revving the train’s diesel engine higher to generate more electrical current for acceleration makes the engine deviate out of it ideal efficiency range (which is a certain speed and load). However, when you are going to be traveling at an ideal speed/load for 99% of your trip across the countryside, that really doesn’t matter.
Cars, on the other hand, are constantly stopping and going. Thus, they are rarely at their ideal efficiency - which typically occurs at 3000rpm and 55mph. The point of the battery is to make engine speed and load level completely independant of what the car is doing. The car could be stopped at a red light, and the engine would still be at 3000rpm charging the battery. When the light turns green, the battery and electric motor take care of acceleration much more efficiently than the ICE could.
November 19th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
wayne Scott Says:
November 19th, 2007 at 5:45 pm Quote
While Li ion batteries definitely have a much higher energy density than NiMH, they also have a much higher power density. I believe that if you created a car with a 40 mi range with a NiMH battery it would have serious performance issues.
I really cannot understand why there are so many that - in spite of the obvious engineering facts - still insist that NiMH is good enough to build the Volt. This is simply not true! Please do some research, with an engineer in tow, to explain the technology to you.
======
Thanks Wayne. I’ve been making this point repeatedly with those who suggest that the Volt could be out this fall had they chosen
Nimh. Not so and ridiculous.
M.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
So the real question boils down to how much battery is needed to make a good series hybrid? I don’t think a 40 mile battery is needed. Like all optimization problems you reach a point of diminishing returns. Without doing a detailed analysis, I suspect (but have not worked the numbers) a 5 mile battery would yield an almost constant loading on the ICE. The real answer would be very sensitive to the type of terrain you drive in. Kansas would need less battery than the mountains of Colorado.
To answer the question directly - yes an efficient series hybrid could be built with a much smaller battery than is planed for the Volt and said vehicle would likely cost much less than the Volt.
That being said, I am very glad that bigger batteries are being created. I really want to be done with foreign oil.
November 20th, 2007 at 12:59 am
I appear to be missing something here with all this talk of serial / parallel / batteries / no batteries:
The main idea of the Volt is that you get 40 miles with no gas (or petrol if you prefer) being used. The goal as I understand it, is that the GM research showed that a majority of the daily commutes will fall within this range. But to maximize useage to the owners, they are adding a Range Extender system for those few times that you need to go more than 40 miles per charge. And it will keep you from getting stuck, if you forgot to charge up. This makes the vehicle useable as a main vehicle, and not just a second car for short trips.
In my situation, I will be within the 40 mile range 6 out of 7 “normal” days per week. Actually, my average is about 35 miles/day. That seventh day, I have to travel about 110 miles. So that is 320 miles/week, but only 70 of those miles will require the use of any gasoline. The Crossfire (my current vehicle) averages just under 23 MPG, so my actual consumption of gasoline is going to drop from 14 gal/week to 1.4, or a 90% reduction!!! That makes my situation perfect for the design parameters of this vehicle.
Now lets look at it from a money standpiont.
Right now I use 14 gal/week, which is 728 gal/yr. At $3.30/gal (Crossfire uses 93 octane), that is $2,402.40/yr for fuel. And I fully expect to see gasoline hit $4.50 within a year or so, which would make that total $3,276.00, but lets use todays pricing for comparison.
The Volt should use 1.4 gal/week, that will be 72.8 gal/yr or $240.24/yr at $3.30/gal. According to the cost estimations on this site, in Ohio, it would cost about $0.66/ day to charge the Volt, but I am going to round that up to $1.00/day, or $365.00/year. That is a total amount of $605.24/year to fuel this car.
That is just under $1,800.00/yr in savings. I generally keep my cars for about 8 years, if they are operating properly. So that is an approximate savings to me of $14,400.00 over the life of this vehicle in fuel costs alone! And I believe that other maintenance costs are going to be lower as well, which further increases the savings.
Even if I was driving a vehicle that was getting 50 MPG, in my situation, the Volt would still save $3,400.00 over that 8 year period.
Now why wouldn’t I want to buy this vehicle? I am saving money, and helping to cut the flow of dollars to OPEC. It works for me!
And quite honestly, I could care less if they make the batteries out of peanut butter and jelly, as long as they make the specs they are talking about….
But it still has to look good!
November 20th, 2007 at 1:21 am
43. dwayne, yes, your last line is the whole point to this.
14. pete k., this is Not a debate room, it is a room for Ideas about the chevy volt. i disagree with many statements on here, but i don’t have a problem with most of them because they are idea builders.
you however just want to stir sh*t up (i.e. debate).
wonder what would have happened if franklin d. had just decided to keep us yanks home back in the 40s. i don’t want to start the war for independence again myself (as bruce g. stated earlier), but shoot man, if you’re going to come into our home, at least show a little respect, or maybe the next time we’ll leave you to whatever goosesteppers come to kick your asses, lol…. : )
tip of the hat to bruce g, nick d 0-60 stats, scott 17, aes 18, and 36 dwayne.
November 20th, 2007 at 1:33 am
jim i 44, i was typing while your post came up. my god man, you have hit it all right on the nailhead! and yes maintenance costs will be Greatly reduced. no; transmission, clutch, drive shaft, rear axle gears, etc., etc., and an electric motor is so much easier to swap out and much less costly than it’s gas/diesel/whatever engine counter parts.
not to mention, that according to nanosolar,
http://www.nanosolar.com/articles.htm , every building will soon have a solar energy producer on it’s rooftop, at reasonable cost.
so, i guess we can all make electricty, eventually. but, i don’t know very many people who are making their own gasoline!
November 20th, 2007 at 7:35 am
Amen to all,
We have reached the point of dissecting mouse-turds which wasn’t my intention.
Thanks for the serious answers, but some people FORCE me to stir:
James - I apologise - I thought that asking GM if a non plug in version of Volt would be one way of bringing it to market sooner WAS an IDEA. Debate is different from logical argument - look it up. I was looking for logical answers as to why it wasn’t possible to imlement what seemed to me to be a logical idea. Others sought to explain to me why it can’t be done. They have done so and that’s fine. If I provoked any thought, I’m sorry - I know it hurts. Freedom of speech (much like freedom itself) seems to be open to interpretation in some parts of the world, including chat-rooms now. Therefore I will leave you, the world’s new ‘goose-steppers’ to ponder whether thw World need rescuing BY or FROM you these days.
PS History has taught us that the War of Independence was won by Mel Gibson and the sound track provided by Tina Turner - available in all good stores from Thursday.
I’m off to an NRA chatroom now, where I expect they’ll be a bit more liberal!
Tootle-pip
November 20th, 2007 at 10:14 am
[...] You can read the full story here Author Bradyn Velasquez Comments (0) [...]
November 20th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
I don’t give a damn about the 0-60 time.
I would buy an electric Cobalt tomorrow.
If 50 mpg is no problem any more, how come it’s not happening here?
November 20th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Pete k,
One reason GM can’t release the Volt immediately is because they have never mass-produced a car with electric motors as the primary traction source. This is new technology, and the motors and control electronics need just as much testing as the batteries.
Believe me, this is an entirely different drivetrain than a parallel hybrid, and will take time to design and test.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
pete k. being a limey, i’m surprised that you know what freedom of speech actually means. to compare us to hitler is a long stretch, even dennis miller reailized that.
we saved your asses twice in the twentieth century, i truly hope we just leave you out to hang the next time it happens.
long live the chevy volt, and god bless america (elephants and donkeys).
good bye pete, spew your hate somewhere else…
November 20th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
james #51
I think perhaps you should take the books you have been reading about the first and second world wars back to the place where you got them and ask for your money back !
Mark A Canadian
November 20th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Pete K, you are my hero!! Seriously.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:02 am
mark h 52 being that you are still a subject of the crown, i would expect that reaction from you, lol…
dj, i believe that you must know pete k, or more than likely you are pete k. using a different name.
ah, mark h 52 again, if the u.s. did not enter the war in europe, england would have fallen, you really need to bone up on your facts. if i remember correctly, hitler already owned all or most of the countries there, and england was next. nothing like canadains to bow the knee to england, lol…
November 21st, 2007 at 3:15 am
british soldiers who served during wwll 3.5 million.
u.s. soldiers who served during wwll 16 million.
two emerging super powers after wwll u.s. and russia (not britain, and certainly not canada, lol).
November 21st, 2007 at 8:06 am
and what exactly does all this chatter have to do with the Volt?
November 21st, 2007 at 4:40 pm
it has to do with pete k. (a british citizen), slamming the volt and the u.s. many times above, so we are just straightening some things out.
and wwll has to do with the volt, because the same way the spirit of the american people, the u.s. governement, and the business world rose up and defeated the nazi’s and japanese, is the way the same will rise up and defeat opec and the terrorists.
simple enough to figure out, if you go back and look at pete k’s remarks and our answers.
November 21st, 2007 at 5:45 pm
pete k, #14:
Well alas, point taken about DUBYA. Touche!
November 21st, 2007 at 10:15 pm
anyway to keep these freakin’ limey’s off of here ole’ chaps? i mean really, how many times does it need to be explained about the highly inferiority of the british ole’ bean, lol…when you guys actually win a world war without our superior help, come back and harass us then…lmao
and tuouche’ pip sweet, god, i can’t help it, i’m rotf LMAOF
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Chaps - You should put James on different pills - he does the average American (who I generally like very much) a dis-service, and I thought we were having a fun and educational discussion until he butted in.
JAMES
This is the beauty of that old thing called free speech which you say I don’t enjoy in the UK and which you apparently won for me in the first place. I trust that the following will induces a health-inducing pulse increase.
WE are not straightening(57)anything out: YOU are demonstrating your ignorance. Do you have attention defecit disorder or do you usually select every 20th word of what you read in order to form a self-centric understanding of what the writer is trying to say?
That you should accuse me of spreading hatred is so ironic (hence YOU won’t get it)that it requires no reply given your own subsequent outbursts - somebody is spitting vitreol but it’s not me.
As a UK citizen I APPLAUD the fall of the British the Empire, which was based upon exploitation, inequality and the trampling of basic human rights. A bigger bully comes along eventually - as YOU will discover.
The age of empire is rightly over, and the fact that we still have world powers who control and appropriate saddens me, as does your talk of World Wars as if they are are a baseball World Series to be tallied in numbers of wins.
I am myself an ex-serviceman and I uphold solemn humility and respect for the 95 million or so military and civilian dead on all sides from WW1 and WW2, not just the 1.3 million Brits or the 540,000 brave Yanks who never came home. Your comparative statistics of who went to war cheapen the memory of those who didn’t return, and to what point I’m not sure, but then neither were you I suppose.
On a lighter note your use of a Fox News presenter to strengthen your point tells us all from where you get your picture of the world, while your steroid-pumped trail off into acronyms makes us all(I’m sure) wonder if you aren’t Mr Bush’s script writer.
Do a bit less bench-pressing and a bit more reading beyond “history according to Bubba and Billy-Bob”. That will mean finding books without pictures to colour in. You will find that SELF INTEREST (not benevolence)was a MAJOR reason behind the American political/corporate machine’s involvement in Europe’s two major Twentieth Century conflicts, when America had huge interests at stake in the event of a British loss: America equipped BOTH sides in BOTH wars. In WW1 US armamnet loans to Britain/France of $2 billion, vs only $27 million to Germany had iplications for where US military support went later: Non-payment of the larger sum in the event of a German victory would have collapsed the American economy. Hence, the next time around the US hedged against the possibility of German victory by equipping and aiding the Nazi War machine. Don’t believe me? Read Charles Higham’s trading with the enemy - here’s an excerpt:
“The government smothered everything, during and even (inexcusably) after the war. What would have happened if millions of American and British people, struggling with coupons and lines at the gas stations, had learned that in 1942 Standard Oil of New Jersey managers shipped the enemy’s fuel through neutral Switzerland and that the enemy was shipping Allied fuel? Suppose the public had discovered that the Chase Bank in Nazi-occupied Paris after Pearl Harbor was doing millions of dollars’ worth of business with the enemy with the full knowledge of the head office in Manhattan? Or that Ford trucks were being built for the German occupation troops in France with authorization from Dearborn, Michigan? Or that Colonel Sosthenes Behn, the head of the international American telephone conglomerate ITT, flew from New York to Madrid tot Berne during the war to help improve Hitler’s communications systems and improve the robot bombs that devastated London? Or that ITT built the Focke-Wulfs that dropped bombs on British and American troops? Or that crucial ball bearings were shipped to Nazi-associated customers in Latin America with the collusion of the vice-chairman of the U.S. War Production Board in partnership with Göring’s cousin in Philadelphia when American forces were desperately short of them? Or that such arrangements were known about in Washington and either sanctioned or deliberately ignored?
For the government did sanction dubious transactions—both before and after Pearl Harbor”
Henry Ford (who was both openly anti semitic and an admirer of Hitler) refused to build aircraft engines for England and instead built supplies of the 5-ton military trucks that were the backbone of German army transportation. They arranged to ship tires to Germany despite the shortages. Net profit for Ford’s French branch of netted 58 million francs including payment for dealings with the Nazis in 1941.
General Motors, under the control of the Du Pont family of Delaware, played a part in collaboration comparable with Ford’s. Simultaneously with the rise of Hitler, the Du Ponts in 1933 began financing native fascist groups in America.By the mid-1930s, General Motors was committed to full-scale production of trucks, armored cars, and tanks in Nazi Germany
General Motors Adam-Opel establishment at Russelsheim manufactured military aircraft for the German government throughout World War II. Including 50 percent of all Junkers Ju 88 bomber propulsion systems; the Junkers was the deadliest bomber of the Nazi air force.
So,
1)Do NOT tell me that ’saving of limey asses’ (which America DID - thanks btw) was anything other than a means of protecting America’s best whilst continuing to profit through trade with both sides?
2)Do NOT fool yoursef that America actually gives a stuff about a single Iragi citizen who is currently being so-called ’saved’ right now any more than it ‘cared’ for us limeys.
3)You are as gullible as you are easy to provoke if you believe that GM would even be considering the Volt if Toyota’s unexpected hybrid success hadn’t taken them by surprise. They could have built far more economic cars a LONG time ago - as could have ALL of the other greedy car manufacturers.
I am NOT slating the US or GM or the VOLT
I AM recognising that it is GREED, not altruism which turns the corporate wheels to provide the products we get to choose from. That frustrates me because it’s our greed and rampant consumerism that have put us into the very climate crisis whose resolution is surely a core concern of EVERYONE on this site, whatever other differences they have. If at times I seem cynical about the corporations who have it in their hands to provide solutions to our problems sooner thean they do and then for the wrong reasons - that’s because I AM cynical.
And now, being a polite Brit I’ll let you have the last word, as I will categorically NOT be replying to ANY of your future postings. You are an Oxygen thief. Any future postings from myself will be on questions relating to the Volt (unless my Limey freedom of speech forbids it).
Lyle - I’ll say it again - I love your site
(please don’t ban me - I’ll be a good boy now!)
Ta Ta!
November 22nd, 2007 at 6:59 pm
pete k. surprised that you keep brining up free speech, and that You are the one who constantly harasses others on here (go back through and read the posts that You first wrote, and then my and some others answers to Your posts). and you then attack me for my use of free speech, and you use cheap insults to try and make your point.
you started the insults, i have not been insulting, i have merely pointed out that you ole’ beans would be the ones who would be goose stepping and trying to invade america under the nazi dictatorship.
You started the name calling.
i have just been answering your ridiculous slams, along with some other slams made by knee bowers to the crown.
pip pip and cheerio old chap.
happy thanksgiving to all, even those who would be under the nazi flag if not for us.
still rotf, LMAO! LOL
oh, and one other thing, about some of the u.s. companies involvement with the germans in the 30s. guess you don’t remember the fact that britain was kissing hitler’s ass (using appeasement, as they called it) during the 30s. man, if you are going to through insults, at least have better ammo.
and yes, i’m still lmao!
ah, sorry but, regarding free speech, i Did Not say that U don’t enjoy it in jolly ole’ englan’, i said that you, pete k., probably don’t know what it means. you are such a bullsh*tter son, noticed you constantly changing everyone’s word around, even your own.
dear pete, i now have no further use for reading your posts, so i will now
“iggy” them. i.e. scroll by and ignore.
however, i keep the right to post that i will be ignoring you on all future postings, and hope that others will do the same.
also, what you personally think about america, with or without me, really means nothing, as i now consider you less than nothing. hense, my iggying, lol…lmao at the british stupidity to allow you to even get online.
November 22nd, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Pete K
I only wish you could hear me laughing every time I read james responce to your posts or should I say I’m ROTFL-LMAO-LOL.
PS. How is my Queen these days.
Cherio
Mark from the colonies! (that to will likely go over someones head)
November 22nd, 2007 at 11:56 pm
mark h. from the colonies is a yank term to slam the brits. you are a canuck, you are not “from the colonies”.
let me see, i think, but i’m not going to go back and check, that you were the one who stated that i should take my history books back.
but, when i quoted just who the h*ll it was who did 80% of the fighting, and probably supplied even higher numbers than that of equipment, food, etc., you shut up?!?! had nothing to say? we saved the brits as*es, even pete thanks us for that.
you on the other hand pretty much did nothing. let me see, did that go over Your head?!?
so, as we (the u.s.) defeated the nazi’s for you knee bowing fools, we (the u.s.) will also kill this oil problem.
let me know when a canadian car company is doing anything (and i don’t mean a foriegn company doing business on your soil) about the fuel situation.
none? ah, i thought so.
still rotf lmao at such stupidity.
tea and crumpets and all that you know mark, toot sweet, you are now iggied, LOL
November 24th, 2007 at 10:35 am
I need to ask if we can keep the posts on subject…. PLEASE!
November 24th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
sure david 64! wwll is on the subject, the subject of the us rising up and defeating the enemy, as we will now do regarding oil and opec. with such great things as the volt, and nanosolar electric panels to power the volt at rates that are almost free.
keep the trolls off the board david and we will have a better chance of staying on track, (see the highly civil posts on today’s 11-24-07 board) PLEASE and THANK YOU!
November 25th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
On subject, the United States is losing. The u.s. dollar is losing, the economy is losing, the war, we are losing. The rest of the world is advancing while we(I live in Wisconsin) are stagnant. There are countries that are fully run on renewable energy, have fully electric cars, and are not entirely controlled by corporations. It’s funny to me all of the ego-maniacs here that look so ignorant to the rest of the WORLD. You think the U.S. is still on top? The U.S. is seen as a joke. Open your eyes and realize that the U.S. is not on top anymore. And neither is GM.
November 25th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
You gotta love Toyota’s commercials no fuel cell vehicles… it is some of the best comedy on TV these days in fact.
Electric Vehicles are something we can build and use in the very very near future. Stay on target GM because the Volt is an idea whos time has come and people are ready for.
On another note… electricity, though not as green as I would like it to be, is something that we are capable of producing locally. Energy will also become more and more greener to produce while gas powered vehicals cannot not in any serious way.
Hydrogen is AT LEAST 30 years away, probably a lot more, especially when you factor in any serious local delivery system.
Go GM! Go away Toyota Go far far away Middle Eastern Oil.
November 25th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
D.J - You are an oasis of honesty in a desert of blinkered self-deception, but beware, for there is one here who thinks he is the webmaster but who is not and who will ‘iggy’ you (oooh) if he doesn’t agree with you.
Mark H - I’m just back from tea with the Queen who sends her regards: She was also positively delighted that our mutual friend ‘Mr Acronym’ has chosen to flatter me in ultimate fashion by imitating me. So don’t worry if you get ‘iggyd’ (or what ever he calls it). Just smile knowing that the award of this honour is in fact a doffing of the cyber-hat to the bloke who snubbed him first! Keep on questioning the status-quo and remember that (much as it apears otherwise) he is neither the webmaster nor Grizzly’s boyfriend.
PS Doug Korthof - love your work!
tootle-pip until my comedy-counterpart next steps on his rake!
November 25th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
dj 66, i don’t have time to explain to you how the economy actually works, except to say that you should read up on the federal reserve and see how it is that they manipulate the money flow to decrease (when they want the economy to expand) interest rates. they then increase the money flow to increase (when they want the economy to slow down) interest rates.
they do this to keep the us from falling into a depression like that of the 30s. do a little research and figure it out.
regarding the dollar’s fall, a year or two ago, the us asked china to do something to adjust their currency, because of the steep trade deficit we have with them. china refused, and i would guess that the feds are manipulating the dollar to adjust for that problem, along with the problem of the oil deficit. not totally free commerce?
when you say the war, do you mean the war in iraq? actually it’s recently been in the news that the influx of troops earlier this year is having a very postive effect in the security of the area. also, name another country with an economy as strong as the u.s., and also another country where people are trying their best to get into it? but hey, think what you like dj, and post whatever you like, but you my friend are counter productive and you are now iggied, lol. ROTF LMAO @ DJ, LOL.
pete k., did you say something? sorry but you are iggied, i did see my name mentioned as i scrolled by, but did not read the post, lol.
but, let me remind you pete, we kicked your ass in the war of independence, and again in 1812, we then saved your asses in both world wars. pip pip and jolly ho pete, also, ROTF LMAO @ PETE! LOL…
November 25th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
James-
Don’t forget about the housing market also. Let’s see how much that mighty dollar can be manipulated.
You say that you have been around since 1812? Damn, your an old motherf**ker! ROTF LMFAO!! I doubt you kicked anybody’s ass for independence.
November 25th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
oops, dj, my apologies, i didn’t realize that you are the same idiot from earlier and that you are iggied.
i.e. ignored and scrolled by. in the future i will try to be more energetic about iggying you. ROTF LMAO @ the stupidity that is DJ. lol…
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:11 pm
[...] battery and … out after a large of bolts the find of … You will size that SELF INTEREST not …http://gm-volt.com/2007/11/19/your-questions-answered-by-top-chevy-volt-executives-part-3/Paris Preview: Peugeot 207 EPURE Concept - AutoblogThe Peugeot 207 EPURE concept looks like a [...]