Comments on: More Cadillac Converj Details Emerj

By: Chevy Volt: General Motors’ Savior « Teen Perspective

Chevy Volt: General Motors’ Savior « Teen Perspective — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 04:28:44 +0000

[...] vehicles. This will show that Chevrolet and other General Motors franchises such as Cadillac (Cadillac Converj details) and there are plans in the future to roll out this voltech drive-train to other areas of the [...]

By: The Blog Planet - Soccer Equipment - Buying the Essentials

The Blog Planet - Soccer Equipment - Buying the Essentials — Thu, 28 May 2009 02:29:40 +0000

[...] More Cadillac Converj Details Emerj | GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt … [...]

By: charlie h

charlie h — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:31:34 +0000

#138, detfan,

Who hyped the Prius to get 80-100mpg? No one at Toyota. People who don’t know have speculated on all kinds of crazy things; one reads all kinds of crazy claims about the Volt, too. Toyota is merely building a better Prius. Since it was already the most fuel-efficient vehicle on the road, an improved Prius will really be something to see. And it’s affordable. What more could one want?

By: Detfan

Detfan — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:43:29 +0000

Great stuff. Can’t wait for it all to get here. This Spring, GM launches the 2010 Equinox, the 21st GM vehicle that gets 30 MPG or more. Between then and the Volt/Converj, GM will introduce three vehicles that get at least 40 MPG, the Cruze, Spark, and Orlando. Then the E-Rev revolution begins, with the japanese now doing the chasing on high mileage technology. With all the hype about the next-gen Prius to get 80-100 MPG, how disappointing that they could only increase the mileage to 50 MPG. And the Insight is rated at 40/43 MPG? Not good enough!! GM is certainly in the middle of a renaissance at all levels, and the E-Rev revolution will be exciting to watch as it unfolds.

By: Carlos

Carlos — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 03:09:44 +0000

anyone else done with fake cars. Perhaps stop spending money on concepts and just show us cars that llok somewhat close to what can and will be built.
Concept Cars = BS.

By: MikeD

MikeD — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:51:38 +0000

I like the styling, better than the volt (either version). But the interior has got to go. This futuristic obsession will pass, and hopefully quickly.

By: Jeffhre

Jeffhre — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:47:46 +0000

Uranium is not limitless. It is becoming more difficult and expensive to extract, much like any other subsurface energy source. Using up the highest quality and cheapest to extract sources first indicates we could be subject to forms of shortage and we can be held hostage to the import requirements of uranium putting us ultimately in the same unstable position as oil dependence does now. Lots of folks indicate how France gets so much of their energy from nukes and we in the US are just incompetent for not taking advantage.

T. Boone has a few good friends that are planning new nuclear sites adjacent to his proposed transmission line development. If this happens T. Boones lines will make him money with or without, 1) changes in water rights 2) Development of new wind corridors.

NUKE PLANT TOTAL (give or take 1or 2)
___________
France—–56

USA——–110

By: Dave G

Dave G — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:45:25 +0000

#72 RB Says: “Other news reports today say that GM/Wagoner has shifted to supporting higher gas taxes, …”
————————————————————————————–
#96 David Says: “I think the government needs to give the electric auto future a positive shock by taxing fossil fuel and decreasing the same amount from income tax…”
————————————————————————————–

Raising gas taxes works when gas prices are cheap, but those same taxes become burdensome and unnecessary when gas prices are high.

Also, since U.S. oil consumption is only 44% gasoline, a gas tax wouldn’t encourage alternatives for the majority of our oil consumption.

I propose that the U.S. set a minimum price on oil of $65 / barrel. If oil prices fall below that, import tariffs would be raised just enough to meet the minimum price.

By: Shawn Marshall

Shawn Marshall — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:17:24 +0000

If anything In the USA should be subsidized with our money( beyond the development of EVs and batteries) it is nuclear power. A limitless supply of electric power for business and industry would give the USA a huge competitive lift; electricity costs for malls, factories & etc are huge. The price of coal always comes up with oil and the stack emissions equipment on coal plants are causing huge rate increases with little benefit). A prevalence of nuke power in small plants would eliminate the need for global warming discussions(what a headache); it would stabilize the costs of oil and coal; it could ( with small plants located near loads) eliminate the need for new transmission lines ( which, by the way T. Boone, are length limited); it could displace home heating oil as well and maybe some diesel usage. So the only feasible alternative we have today for rapid and dependable and safe alternative energy is nuclear. Nobody argues against the alternatives but we need to make a move now, it’s already 30 years behind schedule.

By: Dave G

Dave G — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:40:17 +0000

#130 Dave K.,

Have you ever flown with wireless video, like this?
http://www.rangevideo.com/