Grab our RSS Feed
Video: Bob Lutz Discusses Production Chevy Volt Design
In this video segment GM vice-chairman Bob Lutz noted that he didn’t think the previously leaked photos would ruin the public’s acceptance of the Volt in production form. He felt however that even if people didn’t like it, it wouldn’t matter because as he puts it “this is a case where handsome is as handsome does,” that the Volt was designed for function.
In other cars he says he’s normally willing to sacrifice function for style.
However he says the Volt’s form had to change for function. He says the front end of the car and the roof line had to come down a bit. He says the headroom of the production Volt, although adequate, is “not fantastic”. Superwide tires, he noted couldn’t be used.
He says no one ever “accused the Prius of being a beautiful car,” but that people still buy it for its appearance, because they want to make the statement that “I’ve got it and you don’t”, and that they bought the car to help save the planet.
Popularity: 2%
Related posts:
- Video: Bob Lutz Discusses the Business Case for the Chevy Volt
- BIG NEWS VIDEO: Bob Lutz Discusses His Chevy Volt Test Drive and the Current State of Development
- GM-Volt EXCLUSIVE!: Brand New Interview with Bob Boniface, GM Director of Volt Design on the Production Model Volt
- Interview with Chevy Volt Chief Designer About the Production Car: Plus Leaked Pictures and Video
- Production Volt Exterior Design and Appearance: When Will We See it All?
(3 votes, average: 5 out of 5) 
Loading ...
Posted by: Lyle
October 15th, 2008 at 6:26 am
He is right on this. Looks will not matter for Volt V1.0. The looks they ended up with are above average IMHO.
What worries me about the comments is the lack of headroom. This is a problem for many. If you are tall and have back issues (many people in this category), small cars are a real pain.
October 15th, 2008 at 6:27 am
Lutz needs to stop giving the Volt backhanded compliments. At least he gave the pink tie a rest.
October 15th, 2008 at 6:32 am
I’ve had to come to the same realization when I saw the production model. The concept is gorgeous. The production model is not.
However, in the Volt’s case, what is on the inside is what is important.
And this car is beautiful on the inside.
It is the start of something big……..Really big.
The function is so much more important than the style.
Especially if it helps to keep our troops out of harms way.
October 15th, 2008 at 6:34 am
This video sucks, i can’t understand a word.!
October 15th, 2008 at 6:48 am
How come no superwide tires I though Volt was about feeling tough in a car…
NPNS !
October 15th, 2008 at 6:49 am
From Mr Lutz according to the post “He says no one ever “accused the Prius of being a beautiful car,” but that people still buy it for its appearance, because they want to make the statement that “I’ve got it and you don’t”, and that they bought the car to help save the planet.”
================================================
I’m sorry he is thinking along these lines, as it seems to imply that the only people interested in the Volt will be those who would otherwise purchase a Prius. Maybe he is right, but that is a very narrow niche market, maybe 1% of total car purchases.
The tone of the comments by Mr Lutz seems argumentative. As that is not Lutzian, I wonder if the overall stress on the auto companies is getting to him.
October 15th, 2008 at 6:51 am
Far out. People are so worried about how they look. Image is nothing. Function is everything. Big gas guzzling SUV’s are disgusting. The Prius is nice. Electricity is beautiful.
October 15th, 2008 at 6:55 am
I don’t care what he says; the concept to production is another bait and switch by Chevrolet. They did this with the Monte Carlo by saying it was going to be a rear wheel drive and have a corvette drive train option and when in came out there was a joke! The car looked like what it should have but had a POS front wheel drive train and NO V8. GM thinks it can keep screwing its customer base and they will take it, NOT SO! Toyota, BMW, Audi/VW and Honda are going to take your customers and you will have no one to blame but yourselves.
October 15th, 2008 at 6:56 am
Make the Volt a convertable. Then you have all the headroom you want. Since when is buying the newest technology “reverse-chic”? Maybe geek-chic would be a better way to describe it.
October 15th, 2008 at 6:58 am
Mr Lutz’s comments about the tires are worrisome. If the Volt has special one-off tires that will make the Volt a difficult as well as expensive vehicle to own.
October 15th, 2008 at 7:00 am
#7 Bearclaw says ” Image is nothing.”
=======================================
Maybe for you that’s the case. But most people want something as expensive as a car to look nice. They want to be proud to ride in it, not ashamed of it.
October 15th, 2008 at 7:19 am
Mr. Lutz talked about a statement that the Prius makes by it’s shape etc. Similarly, the Concept Volt made quite a statement, you knew it was a Volt! The production Volt however, looks like 90% of the 2008 cars on the road now and it will be coming out in the 2011 production year. Would you buy a new 2008 car that looked like all of the 2006 cars right now, I think not,
The Volt was tested in the wind tunnel at 80 MPH and they changed the shape based on those tests because the Concept would only get 35 miles on electric instead of the target 40 miles on electric. 80 MPH, really? If the average drive is 40 miles per day, that’s 20 miles each way. Are those 20 miles driven at 80 MPH? Let’s get serious, those 20 miles probably average 30 or 35 MPH or less in some places. Stop and go traffic, city driving, etc.
Let’s be honest, GM blew it, big time. Their complete redesign into a mundane, boring, common, 2008 car was based on a false assumption of 20 miles being driven at 80 MPH. So once again, in the 2011 model year, they are going to bring out a car that looks like 90% of the 2008 cars at twice the price. I’m afraid that’s a dog that won’t hunt, or sell.
October 15th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Lyle,
Thanks for putting this video out. It gives us some insight into the thinking.
John C. Briggs
October 15th, 2008 at 7:26 am
After having seen the production Volt in person. One thing I noticed is the LARGE amount of headroom. My guess is about 10″-11″ over the top of the headrests. The inside of the doors are designed with a slight bow away from the occupant making for good elbow room as well. Should be a great daily driver.
Santa Monica Expo 09/26/08
http://garfwod.250free.com/Photos/Volt_inside-looking-up.jpg
=D~
October 15th, 2008 at 7:34 am
#14 Dave K on headroom
====================================
Did you sit in the Volt you saw, or was your impression from outside?
(It’s an important issue for me.)
October 15th, 2008 at 7:35 am
#14, Dave K.
Thanks for the picture, that’s the first picture I’ve seen of the interior at the rear seat. One thought, if you’re seating in the rear seat on a sunny day, it could be a little bright (hard on the eyes) and hot.
October 15th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Less than “fantastic headroom” doesn’t worry me, but I am concerned with the comments about GM choosing a cheap battery pack that won’t last more than three years, assuming it manages to avoid an almost inevitable explosion. Since there wasn’t much discussion can I assume the battery pack is OK?
October 15th, 2008 at 7:47 am
Mr. Lutz, take a look at your competition from the House of Pininfarina, pure electric. http://www.pininfarina.com/index/storiaModelli/B0.html
This one has it, great design with function addressed, however the Volt concept would have put it in the shade as we say in the South. Frank B. is dead on with his comment. GM needs to listen and quit making excuses for its shot-falls even before the car is produced.
October 15th, 2008 at 7:55 am
#12, Frank
1. You think the 2011 volt will look like any 2008 year vehicle, I have the feeling that the car companies won’t be able to do any fantastic design changes anytime soon due to the cash flow problem now.
2. I could care less about what a petrohead thinks about the looks of the volt. Greedy americans go for looks/size/HP over fuel efficiency and that’s why we are in this situation in the first place. If you care more about looks and don’t want to be part of the solution then why not go buy yourself a hummer?
The volt is a nice looking car still. In fact I like the production version more than the concept.
October 15th, 2008 at 7:55 am
#17 akojim about battery pack
========================================
As we don’t know what pack they have chosen, there is not much that can be said technically. While there have been random comments alleging most everything, I don’t think we have any substantial basis to doubt either the pack’s lifetime or its safety.
October 15th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Why don’t they wise up and make a decent video.
October 15th, 2008 at 7:59 am
I think they should electrify the pontiac solstice to compete Tesla style , its small enough and very good looking.
October 15th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Apparently, the mantra is ‘reverse chick’
I notice the things that were removed from the car that had nothing to do with aerodynamics are missing from the talk. The hella-cool GE roof…the cool see-thru side panels, the unique dash/steering wheel (not a plastic reworked Cruze dash), etc., etc. Basically, all the stuff that points the finger at GM being cheap.
That is the bottom line. Lutz is right, people will buy this thing irregardless of looks (for awhile), it didn’t have to be, ‘as show’…so thats what they did…’jelly-bean-Cruzification’. Honestly, if I was GM, I would have done the same thing, but as a consumer it ticks me off.
I like in the interview how when he talks about putting it into production and changing it, he just says it so matter of factly, ‘no, we aren’t doing all that’ like that had been the company line the last year and a half…and they didn’t string us along with all the ‘very distinctly the Volt’,'very true to the concept’ nonsense, all the way up until the Transformer’s leak shots.
Side note: the way he talks about the photos, ‘didn’t look very good, bad camera angle, they used the wide angle lense and the thing looked all distorted’ you would think someone just ran by the studio with a camera phone. Get real, the production Volt in those ’studio shots’, looks exactly like the production Volt in real life.
We need to remember where we have come things to put things into perspective:
http://reviews.carreview.com/files/2008/04/chevy_volt_concept_4_med.jpg
/only dollar bills
October 15th, 2008 at 8:12 am
#23 Statik (Me)
Ok…and I’m still a little bitter, I can allow for that too, lol. It is a old wound…and one that is not likely to heal by double talk, lol.
October 15th, 2008 at 8:15 am
There was an episode of Curb your enthusiasm that showed just how shallow some Prius owners can be. It centred around Larry David getting annoyed because another Prius driver didn’t wave hello to him in traffic. The jist of the gag was Larry David thought by owning a Prius he was buying into some kind of exclusive Hollywood club! Bob Lutz is 100% correct in his evaluation that if the Volt can become Synonymous with green credentials, the cool green crowd won’t care what the styling is!
October 15th, 2008 at 8:18 am
IMHO I like the production version very much. It is stylish and still very futuristic looking with its closed grill and really nice blue colored headlights.
October 15th, 2008 at 8:19 am
hi RB #15,
No, I wasn’t allowed to sit in the Volt. The GM rep let one guy sit in the driver seat. He was wearing a navy blue suit and I would estimate he was 5′ 11″.
I stand 6′ 1″ @ 180LBs and didn’t see a problem with the front seat headroom.
All-in-all I get a 68′ 302 Mustang fastback feeling from the interior.
http://garfwod.250free.com/Photos/68_302_Mustang_Fastback.bmp
=D~
October 15th, 2008 at 8:41 am
22. Randy
“I think they should electrify the pontiac solstice to compete Tesla style , its small enough and very good looking.”
Randy, AMP Motorworks, in Cincinnati, is currently converting the Saturn Sky to pure electric. Check it out.
http://www.ampmotorworks.com/index.html
October 15th, 2008 at 8:59 am
#19
You missed the whole point. The Concept Volt was a real winner, a car that would sell and sell big! And that’s the whole point isn’t it, to get us off of oil. The Concept Volt would have no problem selling at the higher price while the production Volt will have a very hard time. We Americans appreciate style And technology. If you don’t agree with us about styling, why aren’t you driving Smart Car? That has everything you want in a car.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:04 am
@#25 Gary
LOL, he got angry because the other guy didnt wave back. Thats too funny.
I’d actually prefer to have a unique car, rather than be part of a club, AKA lemming. However the car has to look good still. The concept was eye-catching, but some of it looked stupid to me (just my opinion, what was up with the clear plastic on the sides, ugh). The production is closer to something I’d buy. It looks different enough for me. I dont think it looks like 80% of the cars out there, unless your critieria is that is has 4 wheels, headlights, and a windshield.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:06 am
#9 kdawg Says: “Make the Volt a convertible. Then you have all the headroom you want. Since when is buying the newest technology “reverse-chic”? Maybe geek-chic would be a better way to describe it.”
————————————————————————————-
Yes, a Volt convertible would be really cool. Maybe they’ll have that as an option for the 2012 year model.
And I agree that reverse-chic is not what the Volt is about. Maybe the Prius is reverse-chic, but the Volt is supposed to be mainstream.
Which reminds me, does anyone know if the Volt’s Instrument LCD has a mode for an analog speedometer? At one point, I believe GM said this would be configurable. I know first hand that digital speedometers are an instant turn-off for many people, perhaps even a majority.
And by the way, Lutz said in the Video that people will pay more to advertise that they are saving the planet. This is not true. Current hybrids cost less. A recent CR study found that the cost of ownership with current hybrids is typically less than a regular car. In the case of a Prius, it’s $2000 less than a Corolla. Details here:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/cr_hy_3.jpg
October 15th, 2008 at 9:11 am
#29 Frank B
Everything…..except range. The aerodynamics were terrible (per Lutz). That efficiency hit is doesn’t help get us off oil. It means lower AER, lower MPG,
You’ve got to think that GM did their homework on the styling. If the new styling will sell worse then the old, why would they make the switch? GM’s goal is to make money here. Boniface is not an idiot. I’m sure he earns his pay. I would at least concede he knows more about styling than myself, or you.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Looks like bluetooth and IPOD integration are going to be as standard as cruise control once the Volt come out.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/15/over-half-of-2009-vehicles-in-
america-will-offer-ipod-support/
October 15th, 2008 at 9:18 am
#29
Please read my original post (#12) in regards to range, etc. Thanks.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:24 am
yes but the prius is not priced at around 40 thousand i dont like the looks of the prius and im very dispointed with the looks of the volt it does not look anything like the concept i will not be buying a volt either looks is not that much different than a prius and price is much higher
October 15th, 2008 at 9:29 am
#23 statik reverse chick
=============================
I think he is saying “reverse chic” in the sense that chic = style.
It escapes me how his statement in effect that the car is an ugly ducking helps sell it. Discouraging, to me. He seems to argue that the people who will buy it are such nerdy narrow-focus people they won’t notice that it is not attractive.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:32 am
#32 cautious fan says ” If the new styling will sell worse then the old, why would they make the switch?”
=============================================
It is cheaper to make the Volt as a variant of another car,the Cruze, than to make a different low-volume car. GM is trying to save money.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Attention Hydrogen supporters. Mazda has developed a working engine that runs on hydrogen or gas. Similar strategy as the Volt really. Since infrastructure is problem, take baby-steps. Nice.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/10/15/mazda_hydrogen_car_norway/
#37 RB
Agreed, but they still went mainstream on the styling. And there’s nothing wrong with GM saving cost. If GM can’t make a profit, they wont’ do the Volt in large numbers. If they make a nice profit, other firms will enter the market too. If you want EREV’s to succeed, root for GM to make billions.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:35 am
“reverse chic”
“[The Volt] would have done better if they put it in [the wind tunnel] backwards”
Maybe all you concept Volt lovers could have driven your concept Volt in reverse to be chic.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:42 am
#39 ThombDbhomb says “Maybe all you concept Volt lovers could have driven your concept Volt in reverse to be chic”
===========================================
Maybe driven forward when we wanted to be chic, but backward when we wanted to save the earth
October 15th, 2008 at 9:45 am
All of this assumes the Volt makes it to production. Unless GM improves the value proposition, a future bankruptcy receiver will have a hard time continuing this vehicle. If you doubt this scenario, read this:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/14/news/companies/gmwoes_taylor.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008101509
October 15th, 2008 at 9:54 am
People did’nt buy the Prius to show everyone “I’ve got it & you don’t” Bob.
Nor did they buy it to “save the planet” Bob.
The reason why people bought the Prius & why they’ll buy the Volt is to keep themselves from getting their brains knocked out by high fuel prices.
The simplest explanation is usually the correct one Bob (Occam’s Razor).
Also, nice to hear Bob state the old tried & true: Form does indeed follow function.
Superwide tires are useless for a car like the Volt, they’ll reduce its efficiency (mileage), and in addition, they’ll look stupid.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:01 am
If GM can get a “new and improved” 80 mile all electric range battery for Volt 2.0, I’m sure that the exterior designers will have a lot more freedom to make it have all the “cool” exterior features that people like. GM might even have radically different IC engines for the Volt in the future that are more fuel efficient, simpler, lighter, and cheaper, run on several types of fuel, etc.
http://www.freepistonpower.com/FP3.aspx
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/21442/page1/
Soon, they’ll be able to have larger frames and all that. The better the batteries get, the cooler looking the E-Flex cars can be. Cars that can easily do 50 miles of all electric range can afford to be less aerodynamic, a bit heavier and larger, etc.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Maximum Bob is reported to have said, “He says no one ever “accused the Prius of being a beautiful car,” but that people still buy it for its appearance, because they want to make the statement that “I’ve got it and you don’t”, and that they bought the car to help save the planet.”
Except… The Volt looks like a perfectly conventional little car… There’s very little visual distinction from a zillion other conventional little cars. So, in the course of development, GM’s cut itself off from the “bold styling” crowd, didn’t go for maximum aerodynamics to hit the “function over form” crowd hard and doesn’t even get the “This car is unique” visual, so it loses to the Prius and Insight on the “green halo” visuals.
What was GM thinking? Is there no one at GM bold enough to give the car some form of unique look?
#23 Statik, The things that aren’t aero but are missing are undoubtedly missing for cost reasons. They’re going to have enough trouble holding the car to $40K… they absolutely can not build an “economy car” that’s $50K.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Probably the main reason Lutz shouldn’t worry is that there will be follow on variants of the platform from other divisions, and I guarantee you that Pontiac will not hesitate to give up a few miles of range to make a fashion statement. Nor Cadillac, either.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Bob made a very interesting comment about the Prius and people who drive them at 4:30 into the video. “They’ve made a financial sacrifice to reduce CO2 and save the planet for future generations.”
Point being… you don’t really save money driving a Prius, you’re really costing yourself money.
I don’t want the Volt priced so that is also not going to make financial sense. I’m in it for saving money! and part of that is independence form foreign sources of energy and crazy price swings.
So Bob, don’t think everyone interested in the Volt has bought in on this CO2 religion. The Volt has to make financial sense too.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:13 am
What I want to see happen is for battery technology to advance to the point where the Volt and vehicles like it can have form and function. If the battery could go 80 miles per charge before the ICE cuts in, I would be happy with a Volt that gave us great looks and good interior space but only gave us 60 miles per charge versus the 80 miles per charge the battery was capable of. Form has to follow function for now. But one day I hope both can be a top consideration. The production Volt still looks good, but could look better. Keep plugging away GM. Great job, so far. We are pulling for you.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Guys, The Concept is dead and so is the EV-1. May they both rest in peace.
The Prius, regardless of your feelings, easily stands out in a crowd and is noticeable. The Volt perfectly blends in with the crowd and will only stand out when it is the only car in a very large parking lot.
Is this important? Each of us has our own idea of what is important and why we are willing to buy the Volt. I could say that all of your opinions are wrong and only mine is the correct one. That would be a joke though.
You guys are awesome and I have learned so much from each of you. But let’s move on, play nice, buy a Volt, and make this planet a better place to live for the generations following ours.
My 2¢
October 15th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Well, I have more often than not disagreed with Mr. Lutz, but I have to put in with him this time.
#48 Rashiid Amul:
Amen.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:24 am
#35 Eugene Scarberry Says: “i will not be buying a volt either looks is not that much different than a prius and price is much higher”
————————————————————————————-
The Volt will cost around $30,000 after tax rebates. GM’s CEO said the Volt will cost “mid-to-high 30s”, and the tax rebate is $7500.
The Prius has sold so much that tax rebates no longer apply. The base price of a Prius will probably be around $25,000 by the time the Volt comes out. So the Volt should only cost about $5000 more than a Prius.
Given that the Volt hardly uses any gas, and electricity is only 2¢ a mile, the Volt break even point over a Prius would be 7.5 years. If you sell it before then, the Volt should have better resale value. So in the end, the total cost of ownership for a Volt and a Prius should be about the same.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:28 am
#3 Rashiid Amul
“Especially if it helps to keep our troops out of harms way.”
Countries have fought many battles throughout history. Only in the last few decades has oil been of any significance as to the reasons for going to war. I don’t think any war has ever been fought over just oil alone. If we could rid ourselves of the need for oil throughout the world, I don’t believe any less wars would be fought. I am sorry to say it but our government and other governments around the world will always find new and different ways to keep our troops in harms way. That is why we need to keep our forces up to full strength and well trained and very well armed. We should always be ready to meet any aggression with greater force and fierce determination to be the victor. We seem to have lost the desire to be victorious when we go to war these days. Our media and most of the congress constantly call for us to lose and say such terrible things about our troops and our effort to help oppressed people. It is just not worth the effort sometimes, it seems.
Sorry, but your comment is one I have seen time and time again on this site and I felt the need to respond this time. All of us want to keep our troops safe and we need to spill our nation’s blood for only the best of reasons. But we should not be fooled that by removing the need for foreign oil will ever reduce the harm to our troops. I pray it will, but I hold no great hope. This comment is not directed at you, Rashiid. I greatly respect your opinions.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:28 am
#48 Rashiid Amul Says: “Each of us has our own idea of what is important and why we are willing to buy the Volt. I could say that all of your opinions are wrong and only mine is the correct one. That would be a joke though.”
————————————————————————————-
No, that’s actually true. All of us are wrong, and you’ve probably got it right.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Call me a styling contrarian. I *like* streamlining. I like sleek shapes. I *don’t* like something with the aerodynamics of a brick. It’s not “reverse chic” at all to me.
I thought the concept car was ugly.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:31 am
@42 “The reason why people bought the Prius & why they’ll buy the Volt is to keep themselves from getting their brains knocked out by high fuel prices.
The simplest explanation is usually the correct one Bob (Occam’s Razor).”
Actually, no one buying a Volt, or even a Prius saved any $, and they realized that before buying, so Bob’s explanations remain sound.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:37 am
8 Jay: I don’t care what he says; the concept to production is another bait and switch by Chevrolet.
…just like how other manufacturers do it.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:40 am
______________________________________________________
The VOLT is DOOMED!
* Different than the concept…a big let down.
* Looks like 80% of all other cars.
* GM won’t be around to manufacture the Volt
* Can’t compete with other EV’s slated to be released.
* Price of oil going down therefore VOLT economics won’t be viable.
* The VOLT Program is an elaborate GM / Big-Oil conspiracy to undermine EVs.
* Bob Lutz is Nutz… he wants the VOLT to fail.
* No need for the VOLT because the world is coming to and end.
* BLAH…BLAH…BLAH…
Reality Check Time:
The world is not coming to an end and…
The VOLT is the only EV scheduled for production that pragmatically addresses the real-world variables of the wider consumer market. MANY Americans like me are looking for a way to individually contribute towards America’s energy independence and the VOLT allows us to do just that.
GM will survive and the VOLT will prove to be a tremendous success story.
_____________________________________________________
October 15th, 2008 at 10:47 am
#51 N Riley Says: “Only in the last few decades has oil been of any significance as to the reasons for going to war. I don’t think any war has ever been fought over just oil alone.”
————————————————————————————–
Yes and no.
Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in order to get oil. The U.S. had just stopped all oil exports to Japan. In addition, the U.S. said that if Japan invaded the Dutch East Indies, the U.S. would declare war and intervene. So Japan made a preemptive strike in order to insure access to oil fields in the Dutch East Indies.
But while past wars were started over oil, the main reason for fighting the war was something else. So you are right. Oil has not been a significant reason for fighting wars until recently.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Face it, folks, this is the first E-REV. GM is looking to demonstrate efficiency, and if it receives a 100 mpg EPA rating, it will have achieved that goal.
The Volt has a purpose, and that is to demonstrate the future, yet do it in a pleasing manner so that the public wants to go electric. Good mileage, low gasoline consumption, no range limitations, creature comforts like leather/AC, modern audio system, and great performance will make the buying public realize that you don’t have to make huge sacrifices when you trade your ICE driven vehicle for an E-REV. This is needed to sway the majority of the buying public in favor of electrically driven vehicles.
As others have mentioned, once E-REV is proven and successful, the sportier versions with more performance, edgy designs, and less AER will follow.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:52 am
N. Riley #51
Alas, I’m afraid you are correct when you say, “I am sorry to say it but our government and other governments around the world will always find new and different ways to keep our troops in harms way.”
—
However, I should have been more clear. If we stop buying oil from the Middle East, our government would meddle in their affairs less.
They would have less reason to hate us, attack us, and we won’t have to send troops in retaliation. All other points you mentioned, I agree with.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:54 am
#36 RB
#23 statik reverse chick
=============================
I think he is saying “reverse chic” in the sense that chic = style.
It escapes me how his statement in effect that the car is an ugly ducking helps sell it. Discouraging, to me. He seems to argue that the people who will buy it are such nerdy narrow-focus people they won’t notice that it is not attractive.
——————–
You got me…I am teh careless on da spellin, heh.
It is kind of a bankhanded compliment of some sort.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:56 am
If GM survives in some form and Volt is produced, there is a good chance IMHO that there will be a wide variety of GM (or GM/Chrysler) vehicles built around the Volt concept.
There will probably be an even wider variety of competitive products.
Many on this thread speak as if there will only be one VOLT at the one high price for ever. I do not believe this will be the case.
RELAX!!!!! This platform is just too good an idea to be an only-child.
I am more excited about all that is coming than I am the original Volt itself.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:58 am
#56 CDAVIS
Detailed replies to your points:
CDAVIS says:
* Different than the concept…a big let down.
——————————————————–
Some people like the production car better. To most, it doesn’t matter that much.
CDAVIS says:
* Looks like 80% of all other cars.
——————————————————–
… and that’s supposed to be a bad thing? The Volt is supposed to be for the masses.
CDAVIS says:
* GM won’t be around to manufacture the Volt
——————————————————–
You may be right. We’ll have to see on that one.
CDAVIS says:
* Can’t compete with other EV’s slated to be released.
——————————————————–
The Volt will out-compete a pure BEV in the market.
CDAVIS says:
* Price of oil going down therefore VOLT economics won’t be viable.
——————————————————–
The price of oil usually goes down before every presidential election. Watch it go back up in mid-November.
CDAVIS says:
* The VOLT Program is an elaborate GM / Big-Oil conspiracy to undermine EVs.
——————————————————–
No, that was hydrogen and fuel cells (a.k.a. Fool Sells).
Other points don’t require a reply.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:01 am
“Let’s be honest, GM blew it, big time.”
Oh please. It can’t be all THAT bad. The issue here is that everyone on this site has their own specific reason for liking or disliking, owning or not owning a Volt. We all need to acknowledge that so we can speak (er, type) in a level-headed fashion. Some of us have gotten so invested in the Volt that we are only setting ourselves up to be let down. What makes the Volt different from other EV’s is that it is designed to be a NORMAL car that can compete with many other sedans in terms of looks, utility, and hopefully sales. Therefore, expect to encounter some of the disappointments that accompany ALL new cars as they move from concept to production.
My PERSONAL views are as follows. I do not think GM blew it, not yet anyways, and we won’t know if they blew it until the Volt has been out for months or years. I am perfectly happy with the looks (I also thought the concept was rather ugly). It does indeed look like some other cars, but at the same time when I see a Volt on the road for the first time (and believe me, that moment cannot come soon enough) I will instantly know what it is. It still has its own look to it, like any other high-profile car. The people that care about what cars look like will notice it. The people who don’t pay attention to how cars look will not notice it. We’ll have to see which demographic wins out in terms of Volt sales. Some people don’t WANT their car to look too outlandish, while others hope to make a statement. Some could care less as long as it gets the job done. It will be interesting to see how the Volt fits in.
By the way Dave G: CDAVIS was being sarcastic with those comments.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Lutz actually disproves his own point here I think.
He says people buy the Prius, over the other superior hybrid lines of Toyota because the uniqueness (in this case the ugliness or ‘nerd’s shoe’ as I like to call it) draws attention to the owner…and they can be filled with ‘eco-smugness’
That argument actually hurts the Volt doesn’t it? The production Volt has no uniqueness from a styling point at all…it looks like every other car. It is not ugly…it is not anything outstanding, it is very status quo.
EDIT: I guess I just re-iterated your point in #44 dag, I missed it on my first run through somehow…nice thoughts there, hehe
#48 Rashiid
I agree, it is time to move on. I guess we just relive the past in these mini-threads as we wait….and wait…and wait.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:28 am
#63 Jake Says: “By the way Dave G: CDAVIS was being sarcastic with those comments.”
————————————————————————————-
Right. I got it now.
But it’s probably better that I addressed them, since other people may skim the points as well.
By the way, I think your personal veiws in #63 hit the nail on the head.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:29 am
The VOLT is DOOMED!
* Different than the concept…a big let down.
- I like the production much better.
* Looks like 80% of all other cars.
- This is a positive thing i think.
* GM won’t be around to manufacture the Volt
- yes they will.
* Can’t compete with other EV’s slated to be released.
- like what? its in a different market than a limited EV…
* Price of oil going down therefore VOLT economics won’t be viable.
-oil will only go in one direction sooner or later…
* The VOLT Program is an elaborate GM / Big-Oil conspiracy to undermine EVs.
- i can say it is not.
* Bob Lutz is Nutz… he wants the VOLT to fail.
- are mad you’re not one of the first 10,000?
* No need for the VOLT because the world is coming to and end.
- not if we build enough volts…
* BLAH…BLAH…BLAH…
- i agree.
If there is one thing i dislike about the way gm has rolled out the volt is they have been way too open. other companies would have NEVER gotten on the 40 mile range ride if GM didnt sell it to the masses. I would have liked a more of a surprise attack. the volt is a game changer, not just for GM, but for our country. go GM!
October 15th, 2008 at 11:34 am
#42 Guy Incognito
Double check your numbers on the Prius. I ran them when gas what at $4.00 a still wouldn’t come close to purchasing one for the fuel savings. Payoff time was over 10 years.
#51 NRiley
Many wars have been fought over access to natural resources, of which oil is only 1. We’ve always fought over water, land rights, etc. In the future it may be lithium deposits, high wind zones, etc. I agree with you. I think moving away from oil is fine, but, lets not kid ourselves. We’ll always fight over acces to geographically fixed scarce resources. Electric vehicles are great, but they’re no messiah.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:42 am
#66 and others who imply there are no other EV’s equal to what the Volt is scheduled to be. Haven’t you seen the Chrysler line-up? They already have 3 different vehicles.
https://www.chryslerllc.com/en/innovation/envi/overview/
All scheduled for 2010, just like the Volt.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:57 am
42 Guy
“People did’nt buy the Prius to show everyone “I’ve got it & you don’t” Bob.
Nor did they buy it to “save the planet” Bob.
The reason why people bought the Prius & why they’ll buy the Volt is to keep themselves from getting their brains knocked out by high fuel prices.
The simplest explanation is usually the correct one Bob (Occam’s Razor).”
Glad someone stated the obvious. The main reason I DIDN”T want to buy mine is because of the whole hollywood BS associated with it.
October 15th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
He says no one ever “accused the Prius of being a beautiful car”
_________________________________________________________________
The activity logs for my web-album clearly show that’s not the case, and the downloads of the printable calendars remove all doubt.
Aerodynamics have always been a factor of appeal for sport-cars. And now that family-cars have caught up, the wind slicing shape isn’t? Well, that explains the brick shape of SUVs and why Prius is such a standout in comparison.
October 15th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
#67 (Cautious Fan)…. your statement is meaningless without more context as you obviously are comparing it to another vehicle you were also interested in purchasing that’s in the same size category, as well as how many miles/year you drive it. Obviously if you were comparing it to a Hummer H1 and you drove 100,000 miles/year the payback period would be very small… while if comparing it to a manual transmission Corolla and you only drive 5,000 miles/year payback period would be much bigger.
My girlfriend this month went round trip from Boston MA to Montreal Canada for a conference with two co-workers/friends. Her friend drove her Prius and of course lots of luggage (3 women, not to mention how the luggage got heavier on the return trip after the shopping), and she averaged 52 miles/gallon.
I’m sure the early adopters, especially the celebs, when gas prices were cheap, were buying it to not only help the environment, but also to “make a statement”… but the past couple years have definitely been different and folks are buying it not because it’s a hybrid, but because of the fuel economy which currently can’t be beat (at least not here in the North America market).
Did folks in the 1980’s buy GM’s Geo Metro with it’s 1L 3-cylinder engine and got over 50 miles/gallon highway also buy it “to make a statement”? I don’t think so… my class mate bought one when she graduated because it was both affordable to buy, as well as very affordable to drive.
October 15th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
#48 Rashiid Amul:
One of the best posts I have read in a while. Agreed.
October 15th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
“Maybe driven forward when we wanted to be chic, but backward when we wanted to save the earth”
As has been pointed out, the electric motor can go full speed backward. Imagine: backward at 80 miles per hour, in complete silence! That should get you out of some awkward situations! Call it a safety feature…
By the way, some little kids in a fellow Fit waved at me. I waved back.
October 15th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
In the end, it doesn’t matter why people will buy the Volt, as long as they buy the Volt. The more Volts sold, the more they will make.
The more Volts sold, the more EVs other automakers will make.
As long as people buy the Volt, everyone wins.
I did not buy my Elantra because it stood out in a crowd.
I bought it because I needed a cheap car really quickly.
I had no idea how reliable of a car it would turn out to be at 175,000 miles.
I hope people buy the Volt. I hope the Volt is very reliable and makes everyone glad they bought it. And if GM keeps making technological improvements (like battery range, etc) while building a reliable product, people will remain loyal and spread the good word.
They will also want to upgrade to the latest version.
October 15th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Bought my prius in 2005 for $26,000 I have 46,000 miles on it now, and figure I average about 42 mpg (conservative estimate). At 3.50 gas (I haven’t paid that since I bought the car) I’ve spent 3833 on gas so far since owning it. I replaced my wifes Jeep cherokee that got 15 mpg, but she also liked the new Ford Mustang that gets 20MPG (averaged) but the way I drive probably less.
Compared to the mustang we saved 4216 on fuel over the last 3 years plus got 2500 back from the fed bringing our total to $6716 saved since we bought it. If we would have kept the jeep going we would have spent 10733 on gas for that car over the last 3 years, bringing our savings to 9,400 or the car cost down to $16,500.
I’m sure you can compare this to a Kia, Escort, or corolla and say I woulda done better if…. but I liked the tech factor of the prius, at 6′1″ I can sit in any seat of the car and never hit my knees (I woulda never sat in the back of the mustang), Having a hatchback is more useful than I ever thought possible (Moved accross country with it, holds bikes, a large dog crate, and a lot more crap I’ve had to lug around).
It’s a great car and to me it has made financial and practical sense. I can’t wait for the day when I can replace it with a Volt, but 2 years is a long time away. If I would have kept my wifes Jeep alive for the last 3 years and the next 3 years I’m sure I would have spent enough on repairs and gas to completely pay off the prius.
It’s not the greatest car in the world, but until I can afford something I can plug in and drive for at least 40 miles straight electric it’ll be the last new one I buy.
October 15th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Bob Lutz says,
“He says no one ever accused the Prius of being a beautiful car, but that people still buy it for its appearance, because they want to make the statement that “I’ve got it and you don’t”, and that they bought the car to help save the planet.”
Here’s why I bought mine:
Right, right, right, right, not right, and half-right.
Right- (no one ever accused the Prius of being a beautiful car)
Right- (people still buy it for its appearance)
Right- (they want to make the statement)
Right- (that “I’ve got it)
Not right-(and you don’t)
Half right -(they bought the car to help save the planet)
Plus sending $700B out of the country EACH year for oil, some of which goes to terrorists, is insane.
October 15th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
#48 Rashiid — Wise advice. Thanks.
October 15th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
“Bob made a very interesting comment about the Prius and people who drive them at 4:30 into the video. “They’ve made a financial sacrifice to reduce CO2 and save the planet for future generations.””
And then there was more discussion of this… As far as I can tell, the payback on a Prius is just about immediate. The car has the room of a base Malibu for about the same price and uses half the gas.
Everyone I know who bought a Prius bought it for a combination of reasons… save the planet? Sure. However, they also expect to save money on operating costs and those who track their costs feel they have done well with the car. Nobody purchasing it compares it to a much smaller car, they all compared it to other mid-size cars (which is how its classified) and they’re quite happy.
As long as GM is sees the fuel-efficient/hybrid/EV/advanced tech market as one made up of people who like to wear hair shirts to save the planet, GM’s entry doesn’t have a chance.
October 15th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
The reason for smaller tires(not wide), is a practical one, the less rubber on the road, the more fuel efficient they are.
NPNS
#1984 in the list
Oh, also, I got my Prius in ‘01, because I live in FL and no EV of any kind was available here. I had to, my Corbin Sparrow only has the 1 seat ya know, and I had just gotten married.
October 15th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
#67 Cautious Fan Says: “Many wars have been fought over access to natural resources, of which oil is only 1… I think moving away from oil is fine, but, lets not kid ourselves. We’ll always fight over access to geographically fixed scarce resources. Electric vehicles are great, but they’re no messiah.”
————————————————————————————–
Actually, I think E-REV is the messiah (so to speak), because it will switch from a single fuel source (oil) to an array of fuel sources (coal, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, oil, bio-fuels, etc.). This will destroy oil’s monopoly on transportation.
Jim Woolsey, Former CIA Director and leader of http://www.setamericafree.org, makes a great analogy in his speeches. Here are his words:
“Salt was the only way to preserve meat until the very late 1800’s. It had a monopoly. Believe it or not, countries went to war over salt mines. If you had a salt mine, you could dominate your neighbor. It was a very big deal.
“Today - salt on the table out there. Do you know where it came from? Are we salt independent? Do you care? Does anybody care, unless they’re in the salt business? Of course not. It’s a useful commodity that does some things, and we buy and sell it in international commerce. Nobody dominates their neighbor anymore because they have a salt mine.
“We need to do that to oil. And we can do it with electricity the way electricity affected salt monopolies in the late 1800’s. We can, we should, and we must, as a major national priority, destroy oil’s monopoly. Absolutely, totally, completely, destroy oil’s monopoly.”
October 15th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
#78 dagwood55 Says: “Everyone I know who bought a Prius bought it for a combination of reasons… save the planet? Sure. However, they also expect to save money on operating costs…”
————————————————————————————–
Consumer Reports estimates the Prius will cost $2000 less than a Corolla over a 5 years period. In fact, most of today’s hybrids end up costing less. See here for details.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/cr_hy_3.jpg
October 15th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Dave G #80.
“We can, we should, and we must, as a major national priority, destroy oil’s monopoly. Absolutely, totally, completely, destroy oil’s monopoly.”
————–
I can’t argue with that. Agreed 100000000000000 percent.
October 15th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
#70 Zel says “The reason for smaller tires(not wide), is a practical one, the less rubber on the road, the more fuel efficient they are.”
==========================================
Yes, although narrower tires will not steer and brake as well.
Volt tires also seem to be in a non-standard tire size. If so that will limit availability and increase price.
October 15th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
#80, Dave G…
Woolsey was wrong… Canning was invented in the early 1800s.
#80, #82,
Not at all. Simply robbing the oil states of their economic power is enough. You can do this by managing demand and reducing the worldwide price. Eliminating oil is not necessary.
And the 10K units of the Volt due out in 2011 won’t make the merest dimple in worldwide oil demand, anyway, so you’d better employ alternative strategies besides.
We could start by increasing the taxes on oil… that would reduce demand.
October 15th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
#48 Rashiid Amul:
Well said, my friend. We certainly cannot live in the past. What is past is in the past. We need to look towards the future because that is all we have beyond the “right now”. We live “right now”, but we should always look to the future. The past is a guide and should be used to teach us lessons. Usually lessons about what we did wrong. But, every now and again we do get it right. We should learn from what we do wrong as well as what we do right. So, let’s move this discussion towards the future and discuss the coming Age of the Volt.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
I have noticed several comments regarding the Prius today. They all have been good comments and shows the Prius is a well respected car by most of us on this site. Yesterday I mentioned that I had purchased a 2009 Honda Accord EX-L. What I did not mention was that I was also considering two different Priuses. (Is that spelled correctly?) One Prius was a white beauty priced at $25,100 with gray cloth seats and the other was a bronze beige color priced at $29,155 with beige leather and some package stuff I could do without. I really liked both Priuses. I liked the “idea” of lower fuel cost, but at 64 years of age I also wanted some luxury and a car with adequate space to carry four or five people in comfort. I was really torn between the Prius (either of them) and the Honda. I spent an agonizing weekend trying to decide which vehicle. After discounting the white Prius with the gray cloth seats (I don’t like light gray interiors) I was faced with a Prius and a Honda that was priced nearly the same. The Honda was about $1,500.00 more, but had a navigation system. The Honda also had Ivory colored leather interior and was a V6 in a White Diamond Pearl color. It is a beautiful car. But still, I was torn between a vehicle I knew would serve me well (the Honda) and another I assumed would do the same, but for different reasons. I even tossed a coin four times. Heads for the Honda and tails for the Toyota Prius. Four times straight the coin came up Heads for the Honda. Now, I am not superstitious, but I had to admit the coin came up the way my heart was wanting to go. I went out Monday afternoon and purchased the Honda. I admit I have had some misgivings and second thoughts about the decision when I consider the cost of fuel differences, but sometimes you have to go with what you feel is the best decision for you at the time. I would love to own a Prius, but I felt the Honda was the car for me at this time. In a year or two I will probably purchase a Prius or an Insight for my wife. But in the meantime, I will be enjoying the Honda Accord.
I just thought I would add some comments relating to the Prius. Not necessarily germane to the subject but here it is anyway.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
There is a true elegance in function following form for transportation. As a design student back in the 80’s I felt like a fish out of water in this “more is more” culture. In the long run, “less is more” will benefit us in the ability to use energy more efficiently, and will also benefit us with a more efficient economy.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Re: #80 and Jim Woolsey,
He is certainly correct.
After a decade of no Global Warming, the entire hypothesis of CO2 as the ultimate evil, is getting very creaky.
But there is no doubt that Oil has lost three of its four big markets and the Volt and what is offers as an end to the fourth market, is the final nail in the coffin of Oil cartelization and scarcity.
The Oil Commissars and Oil Sheiks have labored to obtain a monopoly as a means to power. Too bad after having sacrificed so much, we will simply bypass their attempts at power, and employ substitutes.
Thirty Five years is but a long momentary snapshot of time to have fought them.
They have been largely successful in disrupting the world for 35 years.
That past period, has not been without its successes for us. Four of the Five markets for Oil have been destroyed.
First, Electricity generation markets for Oil are gone.
Second, Industrial demand for Oil is way, way, down. US industry uses no more energy than it did in 1970 overall, and much less of it comes from Oil.
Third, Organic chemicals are increasingly made from non petroleum feed-stocks, i.e. natural gas and/or coal. We don’t make our medicines and polymers from oil any longer. That third market has become static and declining.
Fourth, Residential and Commercial HVAC still consumes Oil but little new HVAC capacity for the larger stock of buildings uses Oil, and as old oil HVAC buildings are converted or torn down, Oil demand is slowly declining there too. There is certainly is no growth in oil demand, in that sector, even as energy demands grow.
Only Transportation has found no satisfactory substitutes until now. With four of the five legs of the Oil industry markets destroyed, the Oil industry is increasingly vulnerable. All that is needed is to attack the last market and see if it can be collapsed. And appears to be on the verge of doing so.
Efficiency improvements over thirty five years are often unrecognized and substantial, but that is not an ever existing source. It is almost a pure case of diminishing returns; and the easy changes have already been used. The Prius is the vitual logical end of such attempts. It still relies on Oil as the ultimate driving force.
Only PHEVs and BEVs will free us from Oil dependency. The Volt and its offshoots, and the building 35 new nuclear plants to power them, in the Nuclear Renaissance, show the way. Oil demand by such attempts is not just minimized it is virtually eliminated.
A Prius just uses petroleum fuel more efficiently. A Volt eliminates its use, and substitutes another one. That is a fundamental difference.
US political leadership in fostering Li_Ion development, along with rationalizing fission nuclear power and the laws to regulate it have taken a decade or more to start to produce discernible beneficial effects. But that substitute wave is building, it’s a tidal wave that will wash away all the Oil Commissars and Sheiks who threaten us, within another decade.
October 15th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
#81
Concerning that Consumer Reports image you send
The Prius they list at 24,170 (good luck finding a outfited one for that much by the way as #86 shows) + 5,500 fuel costs for 5 years…. That is a minimum 5 year cost of 29,670 dollars… yet your chart has 28,250 dollars as a 5 year cost…. somehow the Prius gives you money!??
Scanning down the list, I also notice a very suspcious treatment of the Camry Hybrid. They compare the base Camry Hybrid at 28,460 to the highly up-grade Camry XLE at 26.720. I did a quick check at Toyota.com to compare a similar feature set and had the Camry Hybrid “XLE” MSRP at closer to 32,000.
I am not sure when that chart was made, but feel that the comparisons are off base, the math is clearly wrong in several situations, and worse postive Hybrid assumptions were clearly made in some situations.
October 15th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
#86 N Riley,
The Accord is a nice car. I helped my mother-in-law buy one.
Just curious, what did you think of the Camry? In particular, the Camry hybrid gets 34 mpg. Did you look at one of these?
October 15th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
RB #6
“I’m sorry he is thinking along these lines, as it seems to imply that the only people interested in the Volt will be those who would otherwise purchase a Prius. Maybe he is right, but that is a very narrow niche market, maybe 1% of total car purchases”
*** *** ***
Or maybe he’s relieved that even though they couldn’t deliver the looks of the concept it’s still a heck of a lot better looking than the Prius.
October 15th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
#88 stas peterson,
These are encouraging trends on oil diminishing in various sectors other than transportation. I didn’t know that. Good news.
From what I’ve found looking on doe.gov, U.S. oil consumption today breaks down roughly as follows:
• 70% of the oil consumed in the U.S. is imported.
• 45% of the oil consumed is made into gasoline
• 17% is made into diesel
• 5% is jet fuel
• 8% home heating oil
• 25% other (industrial fuel oil, petro-chemical, plastics, etc.)
So while 2/3 of oil consumption is for transportation, less than 1/2 relates to passenger vehicles. Heavy duty and long distance transportation represent around 1/4 of our oil consumption. Since batteries are not a good fit here, we’ll need bio-fuels to break oil’s monopoly in this segment. That’s why Jim Woolsey and setamericafree.org are pushing both plug-ins and bio-fuels together as a two-pronged attack on oil’s monopoly.
October 15th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
http://www.edn.com/index.asp?layout=blog&blog_id=1470000147&blog_post_id=1550034955
Take CareArch
October 15th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
#88, Stas Peterson: “After a decade of no Global Warming, the entire hypothesis of CO2 as the ultimate evil, is getting very creaky.”
Bzzt. As insolation has decreased, in its natural cycle, over the last few years, global temps have remained STEADY but have not FALLEN as has been the normal behavior. The difference is CO2 heat retention. The science is solid, your wishful thinking is not.
October 15th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
#89 Steel Says: “I am not sure when that chart was made, but feel that the comparisons are off base, the math is clearly wrong in several situations,…”
————————————————————————————-
The chart comes from the Oct 2008 issue of Consumer Reports (page 41). I also noticed that the rows don’t simply add up. I’m assuming there are other factors in the total cost of ownership, like resale value, maintenance costs, etc.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/cr_hy_3.jpg
October 15th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
#95 Arch:
Thanks for yet another great link..Pretty scary though.
Memo to GM re the above:
LJGTVWOTR!! NPNS!
October 15th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
What a lot of people don’t seem to realize or want to admit is that the Chinese company called BYD is at least five to eight years ahead of the rest of the world in its Hybrid and Electric vehicle Technology.
It seems to be that the writers seem to believe that it must be designed or developed in America or Japan and they are so very wrong in that thinking.
You need to wake up and realize that the Chinese can make anything that the mind can come up with. You want quality , you can get the highest quality possible made in China , just supply the high quality specifications and it can and will be Made in China by very skilled and dedicated people.
ISO manufacturing standards are just as common in China as they are anyplace else. The good news is that China has a population of 1.3 billion people and a lower standard of living than the rest of the world so all products cost less to manufacture because not everybody in China makes a management salary like in America or Europe. People will be able to buy these HIGH QUALITY BYD Electric and Hybrid vehicles that are at least five years more advanced than anything produced in Japan or America (Volt) for much less money with a real usable electric driving range, they look attractive and are made to operate safely and comfortably.
I would suggest that you go to BYD’s site and do some research reading yourself. There is lots of information posted there. BYD has been working on this technology for some time with many engineers and much testing.
we don’t hear much about it because that is the Chinese way of doing things. The Chinese didn’t say much about their space walk before it happened , but when it happened it was posted live for all the world to see.
That same thing is going to happen with the Hybrid and Electric cars from BYD too.
The Chinese company BYD was building and testing these cars before the 40 mile GM wonder car (Volt) was even a concept dream car.
For my money I will take the 110 km all electric drive plug in DM Hybrid that charges 50% in ten minutes over the 40 mile Volt any day at thousands of dollars less with quality that is equal to or better than anything GM can produce.
I am an Engineer and a Professor and I work hard for my money. Sure I like the looks of the Volt , but for my money I will take the BYD car anytime for tens of thousands of dollars less and much better economy of operation $26,000 is a fair price and an attractive price to me and I will be able to buy it anyplace in US.
This is a link to the R&D site of BYD. Take a good look at all the sites information , get informed .
http://www.byd.com/tech/Research.asp?show=t2
Now you can’t say , wow I didn’t know , I thought that the Volt was the most advanced technology.
October 15th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
#94 dagwood55,
Global warming is getting to be like religion. People either believe it or they don’t. If somebody has made up their mind, all the scientific arguments in the world won’t help. With all the attention, I think most people have already made up their minds.
October 15th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
#97 Keith,
China’s new cars may be great, but we just don’t know yet. There is no track record like Japan, Europe, or America. As I understand it, most cars currently sold in China are from Japanese and American companies.
As for BYD, I saw this many months ago, and yes it looks interesting. There’s no doubt they have the battery manufacturing capability. We’ll just have to see if it works out.
October 15th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
#90 Dave G
Yes, I did kinda look at the Camry hybrid, but was not really interested. I drove a Camry hybrid last year, but liked the Prius better. Nothing wrong with the Camry. It looks good and probably is a good car. I just liked the Prius better than the Camry.
October 15th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Arch # 93
Discussion about BYD has come up from time to time on this site. As has been mentioned, BYD is not a joint venture but a pure Chinese company. Manufacturing on a scale to take on the GMs and Toyotas of the world is not easy and this car is currently only for the Chinese market. Keep in mind that that product will not meet US safety standards and re-engineering anything can sometimes be almost like starting over. I’m not saying we won’t see these in the US, but they’ve got a ways to go before that ever happens.
October 15th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
#98 Dave G wrote:
“Global warming is getting to be like religion….”
It’s been a “Religion”… with AlGore as the Main Minister.
Al will be “defrocked” soon as snow blower sales surge in the coming years.
Behold ! The second coming of the “Little Ice Age!”
October 15th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
In my stock screener program, it lists the news for GM, these are the link topics, back to back:
“GMAC has limited funding, may trim lending -report”
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINN1534430820081015?rpc=44
“GM campaign tells buyers they can still get loans”
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081015/gm_financing.html?.v=2
/hehe….oops
This is GM’s plan to get customer’s credit to buy there cars:
“The program, called “Financing that Fits,” will publicize a 6-year-old computer database that lets dealers locate banks, credit unions and other lenders willing to make loans based on a particular buyer’s credit information.”
—————–
I’m sure the general public will truely value and appreciate a 6 year old list of places that they themselves can go knocking door-to-door to get a bag of cash, to then plunk down on GM’s door.
October 15th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Arch # 93 said:
Discussion about BYD has come up from time to time on this site. As has been mentioned, BYD is not a joint venture but a pure Chinese company. Manufacturing on a scale to take on the GMs and Toyotas of the world is not easy and this car is currently only for the Chinese market. Keep in mind that that product will not meet US safety standards and re-engineering anything can sometimes be almost like starting over. I’m not saying we won’t see these in the US, but they’ve got a ways to go before that ever happens.
>p>
The good news is that they ARE made to American standards and they pass with flying colors.
Another point of interest is that a fleet of them has been going through on the road testing for a number of months in California with equally good results.
Don’t be surprised when you see them (BYD) advertised as available in a few months (spring) , long before the Volt.
I like the 10 minute 50% charge and the under $25, 000 price tag with the ability to seat five people comfortably.
Didn’t you hear about the Volt gen-set is going to be built in the Cruze engine factory, not that the Cruze engine is going to be built in the Volt gen-set factory. I really wonder where GM priorities lie. Is it the Cruze or the Volt.
October 15th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Global warming is one of those things that can really start an argument. Like religion and politics.
Let me put in my 2¢.
I think the Earth is warming. I have no idea why or how.
But in buying the Volt, we lower our CO2 usage.
Is this a bad thing?
October 15th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Rashiid Amul: No that is not a bad thing. I do believe that global temps have fallen.
October 15th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
omegaman66 #106.
I don’t wish to get involved in a global warming debate.
Here is a site from The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The graphs show that the mean temperature of the Earth has risen
since 1880.
“http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/”
Now, it would not surprise me if you could produce a graph that shows the opposite.
I have no idea who is right. Which is why I don’t wish to debate this.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
A very eloquent explanation from Lutz, and I can’t say I agree more. He is absolutely correct on his analysis. Interesting that he makes the environmental statements, obviously intended to be in the voice of those that he was referring to, but he even restated something to the effect of ‘because I care about the earth and future generations’ when he could have left it shorter. He could have continued to say that Hummer customers are all saying ‘global warming is a crock of sh*t’. I happen to agree with him and the Hummer customers, so oil independence is my motive; fortunately the Volt appeals to many motives.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
#104 Keith Says: “Don’t be surprised when you see them (BYD) advertised as available in a few months (spring) , long before the Volt.”
————————————————————————————–
That would be a nice surprise. Lets see if it comes true.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
#104 Keith Says: “Didn’t you hear about the Volt gen-set is going to be built in the Cruze engine factory, not that the Cruze engine is going to be built in the Volt gen-set factory.”
————————————————————————————–
Actually, it’s neither. The engine that will be used in the Volt is already being produced in Germany for Opel cars. Since the new engine plant in Michigan might not be ready by 2010, the first Volt engines will probably built in Germany. The point is that it’s an international GM engine design that’s being used first in Europe, and then brought to America. After all, gas prices in Europe have been over $4/gallon for many years.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
#71 JeffM
Fair Point. I’ll go into more detail on the breakeven point for a hybrid. Assuming they cost $3,500 more over a “similar” car, and get 10 mpg better, with gas at $3.50, you’ll have to drive 157,500 miles before you make back the money in gas savings. At 12,000 miles / year, that’s 13 years to breakeven. Obviously like you said, if you drive more, it’ll payoff sooner.
This neglects any extra maintenance costs from a hybrid, depreciation differences, time value of money, etc, so you can definitely go into more detail on the cost analysis.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:22 am
#111 Cautious Fan
#71 JeffM
Fair Point. I’ll go into more detail on the breakeven point for a hybrid. Assuming they cost $3,500 more over a “similar” car, and get 10 mpg better, with gas at $3.50, you’ll have to drive 157,500 miles before you make back the money in gas savings. At 12,000 miles / year, that’s 13 years to breakeven. Obviously like you said, if you drive more, it’ll payoff sooner.
This neglects any extra maintenance costs from a hybrid, depreciation differences, time value of money, etc, so you can definitely go into more detail on the cost analysis.
————————————————
From my experience, when trying to look at any vehicle purchase from a costing standpoint, the checklist usually is in this order:
1.) Initial Price
2.) Residual Price
3.) MPG
4.) Maintenance
When any two cars are simlar in one of those factors, you generally just delete that criteria. There are of course some exceptions to this rule.
Longevity of ownership certainly skewers it the most. We are always tempted to push the ‘math’ out many, many years too far…sometimes over a decade. Generally new car buyers…like new cars and don’t buy and hold. For myself, I always say I will do something, but I am forced to allow for my past actions dictating future results.
The cardinal rule is always right though: “A car is always a bad investment” Hehe.
October 16th, 2008 at 11:18 am
#111, Cautious Fan,
Where did you get the $3500 figure?
October 16th, 2008 at 11:22 am
#112 Static
I agree that cars are a depreciating asset and so, ignoring the utility you get from it, is a bad investment.
Running a cost analysis is useful for comparing alternatives though. A new Prius or a new Corolla are both bad investments, but which is a worse investment? From what I ran, the Prius is much worse.
October 16th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
#111 (Cautious Fan)
I’m a little confused because your first post seemed to imply you did the math comparing the Prius to another car that you did end up buying, not a hypothetical vehicle?
Your last statement you are stating that the Prius (or all hybrids) has/have higher maintenance costs…. that’s a bad assumption and I’ve actually heard the data shows less maintenance. Keep in mind that the internal combustion engine (ICE) in the Prius is running some percentage less of the time than in a conventional vehicle where the ICE runs 100% of the time.
October 16th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
#114 (Cautious Fan) “… from what I ran …”
If you ran the numbers, then you had to have run them against a specific vehicle…. you mention the Corolla in this post, is that the vehicle you compared it to? The Corolla really isn’t similar to a Prius… they are in very different size categories, unless they are much bigger now than my parents model year.
And like #113 (dagwood55)… I also don’t see how you arrived at the numbers you computed and the payback period.
October 16th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
#114 (Cautious Fan)
Ok, I did some research and ran some numbers…. the Prius is classified by the EPA as a mid-size car… the Corolla is classified as a compact, so those can’t really be compared. The non-hybrid Toyota make that is comparable and in the same EPA classification is the Camry.
The MSRP for the 2008 standard Prius is $22,220. It’s rated 48 city and 45 highway (though my girlfriends coworker in real world just got an average 52 highway roundtrip between Boston MA and Montreal Canada with her Prius and 3 adult women w/lots of luggage to boot).
The MSRP for the 2008 base Camry with automatic 5-speed transmission (since the Prius is auto) is $20,340 and is rated 21 city, 31 highway.
That’s a price difference of $1,880. With the assumption of 15,000 miles driven/year (GM assumes this w/the Volt as an average)
…. if you drive all city driving you will save 401.79 gallons/year. At $3.50 gas payback is 1.33 years, at $4 gas it’s 1.17 years, and at $5 gas (very possible once worldwide economy turns around) only 0.94 of a year.
…. if you drive all highway driving the fuel savings is 150.53 gallons/year. Payback period at $3.50 gas is 3.5 years, at $4 gas it’s 3.12 years, and at $5 would be 2.5 years.
Most folks are probably somewhere in between the two for city vs. highway, and I don’t know what the combined cycle EPA rating is for either car.
I won’t give all the numbers, but I did run it against the Corolla as well, even though it’s a significantly smaller car. At a $6,295 price difference…. all City miles drivers would take 6 years at $4 gas, all Highway miles drivers would take 16.5 years. But if I was interested in a car the size of the Prius… I wo