Grab our RSS Feed

AND

Chevy Volt Mule Test Drive (Autobloggreen) w/ Video Briefing From Tony Posawatz

April 29th, 2009 | Posted in: Test drive, Video

On Tuesday, several journalists were brought out to GM’s Milford Proving Grounds to test drive the Chevy Volt mules as I had.

Same Abuelsamid from Autobloggreen, a technical editor with a strong engineering background, documented his experience here and offers a video of Volt vehicle line director Tony Posawatz briefing the journalists.

Sam described his drive noting the mules “electrically-assisted steering has a nice heft that should make the production version an entertaining steer.” He thought “power delivery is seamless” and was pleased with the braking options allowing single pedal driving in L which “induces more aggressive lift-off regen, about 0.25-0.30 g of deceleration — equivalent to the braking most drivers regularly perform.”

Finally writes Sam “Overall, the electric drive system in the mules performed as advertised and GM appears to be well on its way to meeting a November 2010 Job 1 date.”

In the video below Tony Posawatz tells journalists the mules are 80% representative of the final Volt driving experience. He says in 29 days GM will begin construction of the first of 75 eventual true Volt prototypes (IVERs), and that starting in early 2010 “a lot” of Volts will start to be assembled at the Detroit-Hamtramck plant. He says the IVERs will be for “testing an validating of production intent design as well as developing software and controls to refine the full vehicle package, including the human machine interface”

He also alludes to the possibility of additional stakeholder incentives besides the $7500 federal tax credit already approved, which could further reduce the final cost of the Volt to own.

[flash http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cde6YexWlKg]

Source (AutoBlogGreen)

Posted by: Lyle

153 Responses to “Chevy Volt Mule Test Drive (Autobloggreen) w/ Video Briefing From Tony Posawatz”

N Riley Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 9:47 am

Great article, Lyle. Another positive story. Better than the “bad” news we have been getting. Keep it up, Lyle.

(Quote)
Lunoir Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 9:49 am

I see what will be the car Lyle will be testing in 29+ days… Hopefully the full E-Rev volt concept/prototype.

And at least Lyle’s test drive was not during a rainy day.
NPNS

(Quote)
ClarksonCote Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 9:49 am

Third!

I read a lot more than I post here, but I think GM is in pretty good shape with the Volt.

I know Statik is concerned about the REV in E-REV, but I think they want to make sure that the transition is quite seamless so as to not discourage people with an “almost there” solution. Even in today’s production hybrids and cylinder shut-off technologies, you can often feel a slight jolt as things turn on and off. If they can eliminate such a feeling altogether, it will solidify the concept that much more.

(Quote)
solo Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 9:50 am

COOL

(Quote)
Texas Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 9:52 am

Nice! When is Lyle going to get to ride the real one? 30 days? Oh yeah!

(Quote)
ArkansasVolt Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 9:53 am

lowering the price… keep it coming! I was planning on getting one anyway.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 9:56 am

He speaks of the volt as if it were a BEV, not a series hybrid. Absolutely no mention of the genset. Nothing, nada, zip, zero, not one word.

(Quote)
Jason Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 9:56 am

How are they going to produce the prototypes when all the plants are shutting down for 3 months? There is a real disconnect from the news coming out of GM and the news coming from the Volt people. Surely the Nov 10 deadline will be pushed into 2011 at the earliest now.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 10:01 am

Was that the charging port on the side of the Cruze they showed close to the end of the video? It had three colored lights at the top. Of course I did not expect it to look like the real thing.

That Cruze is a good looking vehicle. I would be very satisfied with a Voltec Cruze even if the AER was only 30 miles or so. It is a sharp looking car. I will be taking a good look at them when they hit the dealer’s showroom. Especially since I probably won’t be able to get a Volt for a couple of years after they come out.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 10:02 am

Lowering the price is a very positive thing. But we should be careful about getting to excited about this. As I recall, we don’t have a definite price yet for the Volt. If it ends up costing in the high 40’s, will lowering the price a few grand make much difference?

True that it has been indicated it will cost in the high 30’s with a $7500 tax credit, but the high 30’s is not in stone.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 10:03 am

#3 ClarksonCote

Good comment. Statik is worried about a lot of things. He helps to keep the rest of us from spinning out of control. He is our braking system.

(Quote)
JB Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 10:04 am

Hmmm…80% complete and 29 days for the IVER’s…interesting.

(Quote)
Johnny Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 10:05 am

Chevy Volt + My Back Yard + one of these (www.prairieturbines.com) = Awesome.

I cannot wait.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 10:07 am

#10 Rashiid Amul

You are correct there, my friend. We don’t have any idea at all of the final purchase price before any credits are applied. I am sure GM is going to price the Volt in a way as to take advantage of as much credit as they can. I know I would. But, there is a limit to how high they can price it and GM knows that too. We will just have to wait about 15 – 16 months to find out.

(Quote)
MarkinWI Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 10:09 am

Lyle, any idea what he is alluding to by “additional stakeholder incentives?” Sorry if there is some clue in the video. I can’t stream video or audio on my work-breaks.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 10:09 am

#13 Johnny

That prairie turbine looks mighty big for a back yard. Hope you have a lot of room or there is a pasture at the back of your house.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 10:11 am

#15 MarkinWI

No clues in the video, Mark. He said he could not talk about it at this time. Seems to leave the thought about some, though. Maybe from electrical companies or maybe the battery supplier. Who knows at this time. Any more help would be great.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 10:13 am

Frankenstein, Red Herring, Tar Baby.

The NimH EV1 morphed into GM’s Frankenstein and they had to kill it. They thought the murder would go unnoticed but then oil wars and high gas prices brought out the posse. GM offered up “range anxiety” as a red herring but the red herring started to get stinky as soon as the dust from independent BEV builders showed up on the horizon. In a last ditch effort, they the tried to “leap frog” the whole mess with an unproven and doubtful technology PR stunt. This PR stunt may well turn out to be a tar baby for GM.

What happens next, GM? Where is that briar patch?

(Quote)
Gary Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 10:14 am

I wonder what happens to the “a lot” of Volts built starting early 2010. I suppose they are mostly for testing, but I wonder if a number of them could be used for various media exposure. For example, allow a well-respected Hollywood movie star to drive one around for a year before they are available to the general public and give GM feedback on any suggested improvements.

I wonder what happens to them after they are a year or so old? They can’t be sold since they’re only prototypes. I suppose that they are destroyed just like any manufacturer’s cars testing/integration cars so they don’t somehow make their way to a car auction with any bugs they may have? Seems like a shame, but what else can you do with them?

I’ll take one off GM’s hands if I can get one for free! Maybe Lyle can set up a waiting list or lottery for the integration vehicles?

(Quote)
Arlen Spector Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 10:17 am

This car will spend much time running on ICE. Funny how they never mention that. Marketing, the true art of deception at work. No proof that most people (or even most Volt owners) drive less than 40 miles per day. Total marketing spin and junk science. I still like the Volt and it is a move in the right direction. Hopefully other makers will be showing off their EVs by next year and give the Volt some competition and the consumers more choices. In the end its the consumer who will choose the best EV platform, and history has shown that it may not be the one that is “technically” best.

(Quote)
omnimoeish Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 10:17 am

40 miles or more AER? That sounds a lot better than possibly 40.

(Quote)
Todd Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 10:18 am

Does anyone see an aftermarket trunk mounted battery extender to give the Volt another 10 or 15 mile range on pure battery power? They are doing mods to the Prius to make it a plug in. Those mods are running in the 10 grand range and from what the company that’s doing the mods says, they are busy with conversions all the time. Not that I would pay another 10 grand for an upgrade to my Volt. I drive exactly 30 miles round trip for work, so the present Volt will fit my needs perfectly. I just see a market for small companies here. My only wish is that they could bring it to market sooner.

(Quote)
Dave B Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 10:20 am

Markin @ 15…Good question.

What are “stakeholder” incentives? If it’s to the bondholders for forgiveness of the loans or equity to make the deal…GO FOR IT.

Or perhaps it’s to teh shareholders who have lost their asses over the past year. that sounds fair.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 10:28 am

The pictures provided in Sam Abuelsamid’s article did not show a gear shift position for a Low (L) selection. I saw Park (P), Reverse (R), Neutral (N) and Drive (D). Did I miss it?

(Quote)
old man Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 10:33 am

Off topic and to GM

I just went to galleries on this web site to again look at the thirty some Volt pictures and the only thing about the Volt looks that I DO NOT LIKE is the cheap looking white plastic and ESPECIALLY that display that looks like it has been dropped in place till the real one is designed and PROPERLY integrated in.

I would still buy the car even with that after thought display but under personal ,visual distress.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 10:38 am

Good article – can’t believe how much time has passed.

If the UAW and government end up controlling GM, we will see how well communism really works for industry.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 10:44 am

Seems like we’ve moved from making lemonade out of lemons to making lemons out of lemonade. As Lyle suggests, there is a ton of good news here. The biggest of course is that the battery, which is the single biggest issue, is on track, Plus of course the IVERs are going to start rolling off the line on schedule, and the release date is still a “go”.

Rather than just accepting this good news what we have is a lot of chatter concerning the integration of the ICE and wild speculation about what this means, ranging from failing grades on mpg to a total catastrophe in the attempted integration. This is silly. New products are developed in stages. You develop one part while you are developing another part. Then you put them together. This far out from the release date it’s unrealistic to expect that all the parts would be fully integrated, and in fact trying to force the integration earlier than the development cycle requires simply for demonstration purposes would only serve to delay development (if you’ve worked on new product development you’ll instinctively understand this).

In this regard, GM could doubtless have demonstrated a mule that was powered only by the ICE gen set. But then everyone would have been chirping that it really didn’t have the battery propulsion system ready. Plus the ICE propulsion system is not what is exciting about the Volt. The EV is the exciting part of E-REV, and GM is right to demonstrate this capability and to ignore for the moment the ICE propulsion system. The two propulsion systems will be mated soon enough.

(Quote)
old man Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 10:49 am

Forgive me posters

but I have to say this one more time to GM. If that white dropped in display was in any car other than a voltec type it would be a deal killer.

I PROMISE THIS IS MY LAST POST ON THAT SUBJECT

I wish I hadn’t gone to the galleries section!!!

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 10:50 am

#26 Jason M Hendler

I can not imagine myself buying a vehicle from GM if the government and the UAW ends up owing majority ownership. I don’t mind the government extending “loans” to help GM pay off debts, including to the union, but I disagree completely with the idea of letting the government and/or the union receive stock with voting rights in GM. I would rather see the company go through a complete melt-down and C11 first.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 10:52 am

#20 says ” No proof that most people (or even most Volt owners) drive less than 40 miles per day.”

Very funny. Depending on the study, somewhere between 78% and 80% of drivers go less than 40 miles a day. If you’re interested you can do a Google search. Look for a DOE study and the Southern California Association of Governments study. The latter is particularly good because it’s based on actual physical measurements not only of the distance but also the energy usage.

Note that range is not determinative since the question is one of energy usage. You can use more energy going a short distance than a longer one.

(Quote)
Jerome Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 11:03 am

#20

40 x 365 = 14,600 miles/year….MIT’s study has average miles per year at less than 13,000

40 looks pretty reasonable to me.

(Quote)
statik Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 11:05 am

#3 ClarksonCote Says:

I know Statik is concerned about the REV in E-REV….
——-
#11 N Riley Says:

Good comment. Statik is worried about a lot of things. He helps to keep the rest of us from spinning out of control. He is our braking system.
———–

Actually, that was a misplaced quotation mark from me, lol (my bad)

…I was concerned about how far along the development of ‘ER’ in ‘EREV’ should be now.

(Quote)
StevePA Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 11:07 am

#20 Arlen Spector

Is the choice of moniker motivated by the good PA Senator’s switch from Republican to Democrat, in order to present an adverse view on GM and the Volt’s planned AER of 40 miles?

I applaud the independent thinking Spector’s courage in switching from what used to be a Grand Old Party, today hijacked by a dwindling number of litmus-test-only fringe rightwingers. What evidence have you to throw doubt on GM’s planned Volt AER of 40 miles for most folks in everyday driving?

(Quote)
statik Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 11:09 am

Actually, I looked at this review earlier this morning and thought it was really good…and unknowlingly that Lyle did too, I tried to hotlink it here.

You are doing yourself a disservice if you don’t go to the original source article. Lots of good pics, plug/recepticle, interiors…that sort of thing.

Here it is the link again:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/04/28/first-drive-chevrolet-volt-powertrain-mule/

(Quote)
k-dawg Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 11:10 am

from the article “He also alludes to the possibility of additional stakeholder incentives besides the $7500 federal tax credit already approved, which could further reduce the final cost of the Volt to own.”

I know in Michigan some there is talk about passing a $3000 tax credit for ANY new car sold.

So we have $37,500 for the Volt – $7500 from the Fed – $3000 from Michigan – $5000 trade in for Cash for Clunkers = $22,000 for my Volt.

(Quote)
statik Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 11:11 am

Actually, I looked at this review earlier this morning and thought it was really good…and unknowlingly that Lyle did too, I tried to hotlink it here.

You are doing yourself a disservice if you don’t go to the original thread. Lots of good pics, plug/recepticle, interiors…that sort of thing.

(check the link at the bottom of Lyle’s post)

Side note: I think Lyle is saving all kinds of pics for later threads so he doesn’t have to keep photoshopping. (=

(Quote)
statik Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 11:15 am

#35 k-dawg says:

from the article “He also alludes to the possibility of additional stakeholder incentives besides the $7500 federal tax credit already approved, which could further reduce the final cost of the Volt to own.”

I know in Michigan some there is talk about passing a $3000 tax credit for ANY new car sold.

So we have $37,500 for the Volt – $7500 from the Fed – $3000 from Michigan – $5000 trade in for Cash for Clunkers = $22,000 for my Volt.
====================

Great if you want a Volt…shameful if you care about the future cost of all these ’stimulus’ programs on our future.

(Especially heinous is the cash for clunker programs…most of them don’t even promote new/cleaner/better tech, just buying another car)

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 11:16 am

#27 DonC

You are correct in your comments. If you had a group of people in a life boat some of them would be complaining about the boat sinking while others would be complaining about being too crowded. You can’t satisfy everyone. GM is working to their own schedule and they are not paying much attention to what the “crowd” is saying. When they get the IVERs out and start letting the media drive them they will be able to see the ICE running. It may not occur right away. It may even be close to the end of the year, but at some point this year I suspect Lyle will get the full treatment test drive.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 11:17 am

Im having a vision……
—–
—–
Volt will be $39,500.00
—–
—–
Tax incentives will/are $7500.00…..
—–
—–
Cash for Clunkers will be $5000.00…..
—–
—–
The selling claim will be “Below $40K”

(Quote)
Dave K. Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 11:18 am

DonC #30

40 miles per day?

For most, a normal driving pattern is 40 miles per day. Add 20 to this to account for “showing off my new car” cruising.

first 40 at $1

next 20 at $1

60 miles for $2 @ $3.33 per gallon = 100 miles per gallon

Acceleration and torque included.

=D~

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 11:19 am

#32 Statik

“I was concerned about how far along the development of ‘ER’ in ‘EREV’ should be now.”
———————-

As are we all. That is the $64,000 question. Answer coming later this year. IMO.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 11:21 am

@k-dawg 34

“So we have $37,500 for the Volt – $7500 from the Fed – $3000 from Michigan – $5000 trade in for Cash for Clunkers = $22,000 for my Volt.”

I think Greed will make the starting price of the volt at least $39,500. After every announcement of additional incentives, the starting price shoots up. Think about it. What was the price GM announced $30K then the incentive and now mid to upper 30’s, now the cash for clunkers and other. Expect the price to creep.
That’s just IMHO.

(Quote)
ziv Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 11:26 am

I keep tax records of my cars mileage, and I exceed 40 miles just 2 or 3 times a month while driving about 1,000 miles monthly. If I was driving a Volt for 2008, I would have used just over 2 gallons of gas a month, and my electricity bill would have been $18 a month for 180 kWh. With a Volt my gasoline bill would go from $85 a month to a combined energy bill of $4 for the gas and $18 for the electricity. But saving $63 a month, or $750 a year isn’t the reason for me to buy the Volt. The incredibly high resale value the Volt will enjoy helps me make the decision, too, but the real reason I want the Volt in my driveway is that then I will be able to drive around using domestically produced electricity instead of relying on oil that is imported from countries that use our money to oppress their people.
I realise a lot of our oil comes from Canada, but the international oil trade is predominately composed of nations like Saudi Arabia, Russia, Nigeria, Venezuela, the UAE that are no friends of freedom, or the US. Canada can survive a drop in oil prices resulting from a decline in demand. Hugo, Putin, Saud, Ahmadinejad might not.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 11:27 am

I suspect the price of the Volt will be more around the $42,500 mark, maybe even close to $45,000. Over the next 18 months the cost of everything is expected to increase quite a bit due to the economy busting budgets being passed and the spiraling spending programs. Inflation will kick in and add some to the cost. I just don’t think speculating on prices at this point makes any sense. But don’t look for a good price. Get ready to pay to drive electrically.

(Quote)
Tex-Arl Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 11:36 am

Re 29 days.

Don’t expect to see a PROTOTYPE in thirty days. This is a very slow process and the vehicles are hand built to prove the planning of the assembly process. I would expect around 50-100 units being driven, crashed, taken apart, put back together etc.

The plant people will be visiting to assist in their knowledge.

Around Jan we can expect 100-250
PREPRODUCTION units to be built off production tools and process.

Then about August you guys will see some PRODUCTION units being built. Happy days!!!!!!!!!!

(Quote)
k-dawg Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 11:43 am

37 statik Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 11:15 am .#35 k-dawg says:

from the article “He also alludes to the possibility of additional stakeholder incentives besides the $7500 federal tax credit already approved, which could further reduce the final cost of the Volt to own.”

I know in Michigan some there is talk about passing a $3000 tax credit for ANY new car sold.

So we have $37,500 for the Volt – $7500 from the Fed – $3000 from Michigan – $5000 trade in for Cash for Clunkers = $22,000 for my Volt.
====================

Great if you want a Volt…shameful if you care about the future cost of all these ’stimulus’ programs on our future.

(Especially heinous is the cash for clunker programs…most of them don’t even promote new/cleaner/better tech, just buying another car)
=========

From what i’ve read there are 2 groups pushing for the “cash for clunkers” and they are 90% in agreement. They also say the new cars have to meet certain critiria, and that the trade in cars have to meet certain criteria. I can look for some links on this. I think its a good thing.

I also think the the 7500 tax credit for electric cars is good, for all the reasons of going to electric as a society is good.

The additional 3000 in Michigan is good because it will increase our economy. We make cars.

(Quote)
k-dawg Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 11:52 am

NRiley, I like the LCD in the Cruze better too. Hopefully Gen 2 will have it inset in the dash, vs. the thing sticking up in the Volt now.

(Quote)
vincent Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 11:56 am

Bravo!
Don’t forget the CONVERJ
and the “Boost Mode”

(Quote)
statik Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 12:03 pm

#46 k-dawg said:

From what i’ve read there are 2 groups pushing for the “cash for clunkers” and they are 90% in agreement. They also say the new cars have to meet certain critiria, and that the trade in cars have to meet certain criteria. I can look for some links on this. I think its a good thing.

I also think the the 7500 tax credit for electric cars is good, for all the reasons of going to electric as a society is good.

The additional 3000 in Michigan is good because it will increase our economy. We make cars.
=====================

I personally support the $7,500 for electric cars 100%. I think it is the right thing to do…for the right reasons. It is one of the things that governments are there to do…look after the future interests of its people.

The EV rebate facilitates a market shift to a better (for a lot of reasons) product, that might otherwise haven taken many more years for adoption…with the side bonus of stimulating a little economic activity.

As for $5,000 (or w/e) for clunkers or $3,000 rebate in Michigan…not so much. To me, it is misguided short term stimulus, that at best only achieves a delay in ripping off the band-aid…or good money being thrown at a bad situation…or pushing a catastrophe a little farther down the road and making it bigger along the way. (whichever of those analogies you like, lol).

More than that, it basically it makes the car business a gov’t subsidized sector…and that can’t end well. ie) when the gov’t stops subsidizing

(just my opinion though).

(Quote)
tom Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 12:06 pm

#45,
Meanwhile, in the 2 years before anyone can actually buy a volt,,,there will be many breakthroughs in battery technology, and no one will want to buy the Gen 1 Volt because the batteries will be inferior to the batteries that will be seen coming within the next year or so. So GM will have no choice but to lower the price further on Gen 1, because folks won’t want to pay $10,000 for 400 pound batteries, when they know within 2 years the same performance will cost $5,000 and weigh 200 pounds.

Of course thats the purpose of a $7500 rebate.

Bottom line is I am believing that Moore’s law will apply to BEV batteries. Technology and manufacturing improvements will cut the size weight and cost in half every 2 years. So by 2015 it will make absolutely no sense to make anything but BEV and EREV.

(Quote)
Dave B Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 12:17 pm

N Riley,

I hate the idea of government-owned GM, but what’s the alternative? Bankruptcy? Yeah, let’s screw the shareholders and bondholders as well as the UAW and everyone in between (including the parts makers, etc.). What has to happen is non-voting shares. Period.

Communism sucks, but screwing shareholders and bondholders will hurt GM worse.

(Quote)
Lektriktadpole Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 12:20 pm

#18 carcus1 said:

Frankenstein, Red Herring, Tar Baby.

The NimH EV1 morphed into GM’s Frankenstein and they had to kill it. They thought the murder would go unnoticed but then oil wars and high gas prices brought out the posse. GM offered up “range anxiety” as a red herring but the red herring started to get stinky as soon as the dust from independent BEV builders showed up on the horizon. In a last ditch effort, they the tried to “leap frog” the whole mess with an unproven and doubtful technology PR stunt. This PR stunt may well turn out to be a tar baby for GM.

What happens next, GM? Where is that briar patch?
unquote”
Man am I tired of hearing BS from people with no actual experience operating actual EVs. Range anxiety is an everyday part of life with real world BEVs. With 50+ years doing it, I know. From always having to have carts in reserve and tow carts to bring run down golf carts back in on my Dad’s golf courses to many episodes of pushing home electric scooters with dying batteries from old age or from failed chargers with inadequate state-of-charge indicators, I can speak from experience. The EREV is a true design revolution, even if the origins are more than 100 years old (Lohner-Porsche Mixte Hybrid). Pure BEVs are a PITA and only true believers like myself will mess with them. Joe Average is used to only worrying about his “gas tank” about once a week. EVers spend more time watching their state-of-charge meter than their speedometer. BEVs, even with current Li batts, will only make money for psychiatrists peddling anxiolytics. Been there, done that, still doing it, I want a Volt like REALLY, REALLY BAD.

Just spent four days relegated back to my E85 burning car (converted with FuelFlexInternational box) because my batteries on my electric motorcycle are dying at about one third of their original projected lifespan. They now have about one third of their original range now after only 14 months of use with less than 4000 miles on them. So, now if I have to replace a $500 dollar pack of lead acid batteries every 4000 miles that will be only cost me $18,750 for batteries to go 150,000 miles. This on a 300 lb. motorscooter with a top speed of 43 mph., no air bags or seat belt, no heat, no air, no trunk, no passenger capacity, no radio or ipod dock, etc. I will cut that about in half by going to better quality batteries when I replace them. GM has done their homework, they know what the issues with real world EVs are and have been. They know how good the modern ICE car is. The Volt will be the first electric vehicle that can actually compete in functionality, reliability and quality with conventional vehicles.

Real world experience is what makes the difference between speculation and engineering.

(Quote)
statik Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 12:20 pm

#50 Tom Says:

Meanwhile, in the 2 years before anyone can actually buy a volt,,,there will be many breakthroughs in battery technology, and no one will want to buy the Gen 1 Volt because the batteries will be inferior to the batteries that will be seen coming within the next year or so. So GM will have no choice but to lower the price further on Gen 1, because folks won’t want to pay $10,000 for 400 pound batteries, when they know within 2 years the same performance will cost $5,000 and weigh 200 pounds.
————————–
There may very well be a breakthrough (I expect many in this sector myself), however GM won’t have to lower the price on Gen1 because of it. Breakthroughs are sure to happen, but there is a considerable lag from the ‘breakthrough’ moment to ‘commercially available’

For instance the battery tech in the Volt now was a breakthrough several years ago…but still there is no example of it in widespread use in anything (except some power tools and Segways, lol).

No one (especially early adopters) are going to wait around a extra 2, 3 or 5 years, watching other EVs zip around on the roads because something better is coming that might save them a few thousand dollars.

/something better is always coming

Also, the cost of the battery (while intrusive to be sure), is not the only thing that is keeping the price high…there is a product premium at work here also. We have a huge demand, that has been building over the past decade for a electric car versus a very, very miniscule supply side…a situation that is not going to correct itself anytime soon (at least until probably 2014-2015).

(Quote)
Red HHR Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 12:23 pm

In my opinion, the hesitancy of GM to “release” the ER portion of the Volt experience is…..

Consider a small portion of those that will review the Volt will be Supercritical. Now in Lyles Video (yesterday) the fellow said the ICE engine speed and the speed of the vehicle will not be linked. Even for the best of us, it could be subliminally unnerving. Let’s say I want to slow down and lift my foot off the gas, and at the same time the ICE speeds up… Would my mind flashback 40 years to when the throttle return spring broke on the Hudson River Parkway in the Jag E-Type? (quick reactions and a rubber band solved that problem)

Anyway what I am trying to say is we are totally conditioned to having the engine speed and the car speed being in some sort of ratio. I do not think the “clunk” of the ICE startup would be as unnerving as the loss of aural ratio to speed. IF you want to go faster and the engine slows down, would you press harder on the gas and end up faster than you want to be???

(Quote)
LauraM Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 12:23 pm

#27 DonC

I completely agree. GM doesn’t usually allow anyone to test even this much this far out. One thing at a time.

#46 k-dawg

I doubt any cash for clunker program will still be in effect in 2011. I think it’s a really bad idea anyway. All you’re doing is shifting demand from the future to the present at the taxpayer’s expense.

(Quote)
k-dawg Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 12:32 pm

@49 Statik (& 55 Laura)

I think the rebates are good for getting guzzlers off the road and also stimulating people to buy new cars. The $3000 in Michigan is a 1 time cost. The state will get 6% in sales taxes back, the people making the cars keep their jobs (income tax), the workers don’t collect unemployment, people dont lose their homes, families dont leave the state… etc. I think a 3K investment is worth it right now. In the long run it works out for the State. I know some of the quibbling between the groups is which car manufacturer you buy from. Obviously if everyone went out and bought Mercedes, it wouldnt help the Michigan economy much.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 12:41 pm

I think the Cash for Clunkers needs to be held back till the Volt release. Then the rule should state that the vouchers be used for Hybrid/Alternative fuel NEW vehicles.

Here’s my thought on why th ER was not allowed. IMHO there is still work to make the ER operation completely seamless to the point where the driver does not know it is on and can’t heal or feel the ICE as it ramps in RPM. This is so the driver doesn’t correlate the ICE rpm to response of the car. This is a tricky thing GM will have to pull off and I think is more of a challenge than the Battery pack itself, It’s going to require a lot of rubber egine mounts and boots to isolate any vibration of the Genset.

(Quote)
RB Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 12:45 pm

#27 DonC chastises us and then says New products are developed in stages. You develop one part while you are developing another part. Then you put them together. This far out from the release date it’s unrealistic to expect that all the parts would be fully integrated, and in fact trying to force the integration earlier than the development cycle requires simply for demonstration purposes would only serve to delay development (if you’ve worked on new product development you’ll instinctively understand this).
——————————————————————-

Well yes and no. We see the good parts and say so, and we see the not-so-good parts and say so. It is what makes the blog interesting and adds to the excitement of your day

Now as to what I understand your core argument to be, it is that as of now “it’s unrealistic to expect that all the parts would be fully integrated,”

No one here has commented from the viewpoint that all parts would be expected to be fully integrated at this time, as many parts are like those in the dashboard display — critical but not yet even in the mule, though presumably they are in development somewhere else. But as for expecting the integration of “E-R” with “EV” to make “E-REV”, yes I was expecting that to be done by now. Both ICE and electric are a part of the original design concept and in the present mule. The function of the present mule is to develop, integrate, and verify all these powertrain components working together as a whole. So the fact that a core capability of the E-REV powertrain has not been demonstrated after 2+ years (not 2+ weeks mind you) is a significant deficiency.

But you go too far in saying the comments are judgments “ranging from failing grades on mpg to a total catastrophe”. The actual comments I’ve read are mostly speculations on what the nature of the problems are and recognition of the difficulties associated with making a smooth transition back and forth from battery to generator power. No, it is not easy to make the transitions smooth. But yes, they have been working on the ICE/electric aspects for quite a while, so one would imagine it would be working well by now.

And, powertrain development needs to be done now, so that it can go into the next generation of cars as a working unit to be integrated with the rest of the car. After all, it won’t be too long (I hope) until the issues are no longer development of anything, but rather are issues of procurement, mass production, and training, together with their associated costs, which are huge issues in themselves once the final car design is frozen.

(Quote)
MarkinWI Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 12:53 pm

Dave B @#51 and N Riley – I understand (and don’t disagree with) the objection to government ownership. The sooner GM and the banks and everyone else pays back the government (or as you might put it, the taxpayers) the better.

I don’t agree with the objection to “UAW ownership.” The UAW’s stake is to cover GM’s obligations to workers and retirees. Giving workers an ownership stake is an excellent motivator. We own a large stake in my wife’s company, and it is something we remember everytime work gets too hectic. It’s not communism if employees have a stake in the success of their company, it is just good business sense.

Retirees are done working, granted. But I’d much rather buy a GM knowing part of the profits are going to help pay for the healthcare of the retired guy down the block than the alternatives.

(Quote)
David K (CT) Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 12:54 pm

Capt @ #57 & Red HHR @54…

I think you guys are correct in the aspects of the ICE/Gen set RPM noise while slowing down thingy.

People will be slamming on their brakes while approaching a red light if the Range Extender comes on at an inopportune time.

Why can’t GM simply put in some computer stuff that will delay this momentarily as to not startle the driver? After all won’t we still have 30% battery capacity at that point, plus maybe the Extender would never have to start while slowing down (regen brakes and all).

(Quote)
Jason Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 12:59 pm

“So we have $37,500 for the Volt – $7500 from the Fed – $3000 from Michigan – $5000 trade in for Cash for Clunkers”

I don’t want to finance other people buying cars dammit. These free money credits are coming from me and other taxpayers. It is insane that our money is going to another persons consumer product purchase. Its not like food or shelter, cars are a voluntary consumer product, NOT something we should be taxed for other people to buy. Use you own money to buy your car, not mine.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 1:11 pm

@Jason 61

Yeah, it sucks, I know. We’re part owners of GM already and we still have to pay full price for the car when it comes out.

(Quote)
Adrian Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 1:22 pm

#33, you statement about Spector is silly. The Republican party was taken over by moderates over the 12 years. They proceeded to flush the party in the toilet. A p[arty based on conservative principles wins. See Reagan in ‘80. Republican take over in ‘94. W Bush running as a conservative in voice only (truly a moderate in action).

Get the facts right. Spector has drifted left. Republicans and conservatives are p***ed off he voted for the big government spending bills.

(Quote)
Adrian Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 1:25 pm

#61, I completely agree. Stop lowering the price by giving away tax payers money. Sell the car to the segment that afford it. Bling the car out, and sell it as a Buick or Caddy. This is why GM’s strategy is stupid and shows the future is dim for GM while the government runs the company.

(Quote)
Adrian Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 1:27 pm

After the few government posts, I have to say I like the engineering approach and could be a very well designed car. I am just sad it is attached to a car company afraid to make the tough decisions.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 1:30 pm

Now now…..
We all know the Government is not here to “Make Money”. we all know Government is only around to “Spend Money”.
When has the Govt ever made money? Other than print it or fabricate of course.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 1:34 pm

Personally I think GM should sell a Non Genset version based only on the batt pack and open the rest of the capacity for a 60 AER. Minus the Genset and crap required for it makes the car lighter and will allow for maybe an additional 8-10 miles AER. Also ommit the extra creature comforts. At his moment in time the car will still sell. Especially if they can have the option to drop in a Genset later. Of course this is just my sell to try and get around the dang Smog Cert requirements…..lol

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 1:37 pm

Oh yeah, get rid of all that stupid OnStar crap/garbage/crap/garbage/….

(Quote)
Jim in PA Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 1:41 pm

#26 Jason M Hendler – How is the UAW owning a majority of GM communism? Obviously you are unfamiliar with the concept of an employee-owned company. They are quite common, competitive and successful; even on a large scale. Here’s a list of the top 100 companies with employee ownership programs: http://www.nceo.org/library/eo100.html

You’ll notice many engineering companies on that list, where employee knowledge is key to the company’s success. Time to turn off your AM radio, good sir, before your critical thought skills take a back seat to ideology. When a tiny portion of the population owns all the business that is not called capitalism; it is called feudalism.

Go Volt, Go GM, Go UAW.

(Quote)
LauraM Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 1:42 pm

#59 MarkinWI

I have several problems with the UAW owning GM and Chrysler. The first is Ford. Will the UAW leadership decide that Ford is expendable since that will make its ownership stake in GM and Chrysler that much more valuable?

Second, its a public relations disaster. Many people blame the UAW for the auto companies being in this situation. And a lot of them won’t buy cars from a company owned by the UAW. (Yes, I know right now the UAW workers could work for free and it wouldn’t render GM profitable. But the UAW is the reason GM had to borrow so much money. The money from the bond sales went directly into the UAW pension fund.)

Third, the current allocation of ownership is unfair to both the GM bondholders and the taxpayer. I do think that the Chrysler bondholders are getting a very good deal. Since they are secured, the government couldn’t ignore them without serious consequences for the bankruptcy code. (Although it’s not yet a done deal.)

The taxpayer on the other hand? We’re getting 10% equity in the new Chrysler in exchange for $4.5 billion debt. And, we’re loaning them another $6 billion. The UAW is getting 55% of the new company in exchange for $5 billion of it’s Veba debt. And they get to keep $5 billion as debt. (And, by the way, screwing the taxpayer doesn’t make for good public relations.)

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2009/04/29/mean-street-mr-blooms-magnificent-chrysler-deal/

And here’s what the GM bondholders had to say about their deal:

http://blogs.wsj.com/autoshow/2009/04/27/statement-from-gm-bondholder-commitees-advisers/

(Quote)
k-dawg Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 1:45 pm

59 MarkinWI

Correct. There are lots of employee-owned companies. Its a good motivator to work hard and make good business decisions when you own your own company.

(Quote)
Jim in PA Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 1:50 pm

#67 JackSparrow

By my estimates, eliminating the car seats and replacing them with milk crates will add another 0.5 AER. You may have to get that modified after-market, though. I don’t see GM buying into that. (kidding, actually)

With regard to #66 – Doesn’t the government make money every time it sells T Bills and Bonds? These are investments that people buy into rather than competing financial products from shaky private institutions. Also, the US Postal Service is profitable. And finally, the government makes money via taxation. The government sells a product (US citizenship) that people choose to buy by living here; just like paying rent to a landlord.

(Quote)
k-dawg Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 1:53 pm

Laura – what would be fair in your opinion as an economist?

(Quote)
Jim in PA Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 1:55 pm

I don’t understand the mindset here that people won’t pay $35,000 for a Volt because “it’s a Chevy.” So is a Silverado, So is a Corvette. And consumers pay for them. The premium that people will pay for a car depends more on the specific model than the general badge name. Will people not buy the new Camaro because it’s a Chevy? Actually, they’ll buy it BECAUSE it’s a Chevy.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 2:01 pm

@Jim in PA

“With regard to #66 – Doesn’t the government make money every time it sells T Bills and Bonds?…..”

Then where’s my share of the $$$ inflow? Any reduction in taxes would suffice, so far all I see are increases despite the inflow you mention. The Govt is not designed to make money. It is designed to spend it. Just look at how much was spent in the past 100 days. Record setting ammount. How many Tbills will need to be sold? How many immigrants will need to come into the country to pay any of this off in taxes or in any way shap or form. My point is the Government has no business in manufacturing and the sale of commodities. They don’t know how to make money and going further into debt is not considered “Making Money”.

So, in my oppinion, whatever the Govt wants to susidize is really out of my control and being a bottom feeder “Trailer Park Maggot”, I will take whatever I can get.
=oD

(Quote)
LauraM Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 2:02 pm

#69 Jim in PA

I have no problem with the engineers owning the company. I have a big problem with the bondholders and taxpayers getting the raw end of a deal. Not to mention the former shareholders.

I’m not saying that taxpayer money shouldn’t be used to help keep American industry alive. We need a healthy manufacturing sector. However, that doesn’t justify enriching a (relatively wealthy) minority of the population at the taxpayer’s expense.

And, yes, this applies to the bankers too. That’s why there was so much outrage about the bonuses and CEO salaries. And, yes, I know that the UAW workers make less than bankers and CEOs. But they make considerably more than the average American. (Median American household income was $50,233 in 2007. That includes two wages earners, and probably benefits).

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/012528.html

(Quote)
Jim in PA Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 2:04 pm

#28 Old Man – You are soooo right about the dreadful white display. Not only does it look awful in its own right, but it also says “Hey, weren’t white iPods cool 2 years ago?”

(Quote)
MuddyRoverRob Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 2:12 pm

#27 DonC
Right on the money, this is a sensible development cycle.
Test the hell out of the new technology first. GM has built a few ICE’s over the years, they already know how to make those.

The mules are about testing the electric drive components. Were I involved with this project, I wouldn’t bother much with the known technology at this point either. They are focusing on the stuff that could catch them.

This seems to be a well planned and thought out project.

(Quote)
Bruce Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 2:13 pm

“Will people not buy the new Camaro because it’s a Chevy? ”

There’s a very small, specialized market who would purchase a Camaro. There’s only so many mullet haircut, 40oz drinkin, no shirt wearin guys left in today’s society.

Sorry, had to go there.

(Quote)
David K (CT) Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 2:20 pm

I’d be ecstatic if the Volt looked like a Camaro, or better yet the new Mustang.

But that’s just me (50 y.o).

Apparently the Coef. of Drag would be no good.

(Quote)
k-dawg Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 2:29 pm

80 David – i think the Cd in a Vette would be acceptable. For the performance however, you talking a big battery & motor.. and getting up to Tesla prices. At that point, who cares about Cd. Maybe they could try it and price it 20K under a Tesla, since they have a back order of those already.

(Quote)
David K (CT) Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 2:35 pm

Not willing to spend the money on a Vette.

I’m just sayin’, if I wasn’t waiting for the Volt I might look into a Camaro. They like pretty good to me (JMO though).

(Quote)
k-dawg Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 3:13 pm

David – I like the new Camaro. My neighbor has one. I drive a Pontiac Trans Am now. Lots of fun, except for the winter. If I had the cash, I’d buy the Converj when(if) it comes out.

(Quote)
solo2500nt Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 3:27 pm

Everybody hoping for 5 grand for their ‘clunker’ better keep hoping. I just looked up and read some of the proposed legislation.

1: There are several proposals by several socialists and each defines a clunker in their own way. My guess, reading the various qualificaitons, few here reading this web sight will qualify. You almost have to be driving a Big Old Truck or Big SUV. Very few passenger cars would qualify because they have to have a combined city/highway rating of 18, 19, or 20 mpg (Depending on what socialist you are talking to).. Most cars, except maybe a Lincoln or Crown Vic exceed those numbers.

2. The actual rebate depends on a lot of factors (again depending on which socialist proposal winds up winning). You get less for a used car than a new one, you get less if your clunker is not a big gas hog, only a mild gas hog, etc. etc.

3. The highest award was $4,500 for the lucky few.

4. The rebate may only apply to people buying north american built vehicles. Prius wanna bees will be screaming bloody murder.

I bet some sort of clunker bill will pass(Socialist government and all), but it won’t be worth $5000.00 to most.

I find it ironic that the legislators are targeting the poorest of society who drive the oldest cars, because they are the most likely NOT to be able to afford a NEW car anyway.

Here is the backlash to the legislation as far as I see. The value of older vehicles will be artificially inflated, making it even harder for the poor to even buy a vehicle.

(Quote)
Van Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 3:29 pm

Off Topic

I see where a 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid got better than 80 miles per gallon during a three day trip of about 1400 miles. How would the Volt do on such a trip?

Read all about it: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/04/fusion-1000-20090428.html#more

(Quote)
CorvetteGuy Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 3:33 pm

#48 Vincent
Didn’t KITT have a “Boost Mode”?
Or was it the Batmobile?

#79 Bruce
“There’s a very small, specialized market who would purchase a Camaro. There’s only so many mullet haircut, 40oz drinkin, no shirt wearin guys left in today’s society.”

———————-

First Camaro to leave our showroom went to a nice black couple. I would say the husband’s style was more like “John Shaft” than “Billy Ray Cyrus”. Camaro (so far) has had a much broader appeal than you would think. Drive one yourself. You might give up on this whole VOLT idea.

#82 David K
I’m with you. An electrified Camaro would be very cool. Call it the Camaro-V.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 3:40 pm

@solo2500nt 84
“Here is the backlash to the legislation as far as I see. The value of older vehicles will be artificially inflated, making it even harder for the poor to even buy a vehicle.”

D@mn YOU!!!
That was my plan all along. I was going to go buy an old big pickup for $500.00 and use it for the clunker voucher. But Noooo….you had to spill the beans and thy’ll probably ask for a lot more.

lol……

(Quote)
Electric Vehicle Owner Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 3:41 pm

@ Lektriktadpole 52
Lektriktadpole said “They [my batteries on my electric motorcycle] now have about one third of their original range now.”

Trying to get 150,000 miles out of a low speed scooter is ridiculous, electric or not. Every sentient being would trade up to a proper maxi-scooter or motorcycle, just as efficient or more so, within a couple of years at most, once they got the skills under their belt (take a MSF training course, pass the test, get your drivers license endorsed for motorcycles).

Don’t forget to sell your batteries to your local utility for one-third their retail price (less 40% to back out the markup). They could use the extra cheap storage and it’ll give you a downpayment on a more modern power pack. Better yet, sell your existing electric scooter as is (someone will be just fine with the existing range and performance) for a more modern electric motorcycle (there are quite a few to choose from these days) with a higher top speed once you get that training, pass the test and get your M endorsement on your license.

(Quote)
Jeff Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 3:42 pm

Call me ” old school”…but I like the Cruze dashboard more than the Volt.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 3:44 pm

@CorvetteGuy 86

I loved the Camaro in the Transformers movie. It almost made me want to buy one.
Does “Mikaela” come with the car or an equvalent?

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 3:48 pm

@Jeff 89

you know, after looking at for a while, the cruze body looks really nice on it. The more I see it the better I like it.

(Quote)
David K (CT) Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 3:54 pm

Jack @ 91

Ya, it doesn’t look bad.

But still no hup caps!

What’s up wit dat?

(Quote)
LauraM Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 3:56 pm

#73 k-dawg

First of all, I should say that I’m not a practicing economist–that’s my background, and I use it in my job, but I’m not in academia. And I’m not an expert on the auto industry. With that in mind–fair is a hard (and very subjective) question, and there really are no easy answers at this point.

Basically, the American economy needs a viable manufacturing sector. Just like we need a healthy financial system. And,both are a valid use of taxpayer money. I’m actually very impressed that Chrysler seems to have an actual shot at survival. And, it’s going to remain an American company. It’s still a long shot, but I think it’s worth a chance. There are things that I think the US government should do to increase their chances, and GM’s, but that’s another issue.

The problem is that when you support one sector as the expense of another, you’re helping employees in that sector at the expense of everyone else. To some extent that’s unavoidable. But these particular deals seem weighted too much in favor of one, very politically influential, party.

I understand that the UAW workers and retirees are losing a great deal. In fact, they’re losing more on an individual basis than any individual taxpayer, and most of the bondholders. But that’s what happens to employees when the company they work for goes out of business. Most of them are getting to keep their jobs due to government intervention. And retirees are going to keep their pensions relatively intact. They should happy about that. But, instead, they’re still negotiating the details.

At this point, we should see “equal sacrifice” by all parties. With Chrysler–100% of their VEBA contribution should be in new equity. Then the government and the UAW should get 32.5% each. Only the government’s shares should be in preferred stock, so that they get priority in an actual liquidation. Even that’s giving priority to the UAW since the government is actually putting in new capital.

With GM–the government’s getting 55%. It’s not really enough since they’re putting in new capital. But it’s OK. Then, they’re leaving a token 1% for the shareholders. (Which is also problematic, but it is only 1%) But then the UAW, and the bondholders should split the remaining 44% by debt owed. This means the bondholders would get roughly 25%. And the UAW would get 14%. (And again, they should have to swap all their VEBA debt for the equity.) If the UAW is allowed to keep a percentage as debt, the bondholders should be allowed to keep the same percentage as debt.

Also, the UAW already has separate divisions for each company. They should divide the union accordingly. The workers at each company do not need to be able to coordinate. UAW workers at Ford should have not have an interest in GM’s success, or vice versa. That, or they should be required to sell the stock of each company, within a certain time frame.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 3:57 pm

#72 Jim in PA

If the post office is profitable, then why did they announce last month that they were running a billion or so in the red and would have to stop delivering mail on one day per week plus increase postage fees and cut hours? You need to get out of blue PA and smell the roses. Government is not the efficient, hard working entity you apparently think it is. I want the government involved in my day to day life as little as possible. I want government to be as little as possible. In my opinion, and in the opinion of millions more, government is too big, to unwieldy, too untrustworthy and is most of the problem weighing down the economy. I don’t know of a congressman or senator or administration official (including Obama) that I would trust to baby sit one of my grand children.

(Quote)
Mike-o-Matic Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 4:06 pm

#92 David K (CT),

>> But still no hup caps!
>> What’s up wit dat?

This is just my guess, but they likely have to take the wheels off frequently to make adjustments more easily done through the wheel-wells, check regen-braking components, etc. It’s probably easier to just leave them off.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 4:07 pm

When the new Camaro convertible comes out I am going to be looking very hard at it. If the Volt looked like the Camaro, it would sell even more than it will. I think GM will have a winner on their hands.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 4:24 pm

#69, Jim in PA,

Nice spin trying to call it employee owned, when only the UAW itself will hold and control those shares. It will be union owned.

NO GM engineers will get a stake in the company, so again, don’t compare the two concepts. I am happy now that many foreign auto makers are pursuing E-REV’s. It will happen with or without GM.

THIS is why Lutz left, and so will the rest of the talented non-union workers.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 4:40 pm

I predict GM and Chrysler will not last much past 5 years (if that much) with majority ownership by the government and the UAW. If ownership was employee based and the salaried people (engineers, managers, supervisors, etc) had a stake in the companies, I could see where it would be a success. But, the UAW is a branch of the Democrat party and will suck the company (and its union membership) dry to keep their political bed fellows elected. I just don’t see how this is going to work. I see no future for the new GM and Chrysler under this type of management. None at all.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 4:48 pm

If this is the result of the Auto Task Force, stick a fork in GM and Chrysler because they are done for. Just my opinion. Hate to rain on anyone’s parade, but anyone is welcome to present a different end to this mess. Straight out loans to the two companies to pay off debts, including the debt to the unions, I was supportive of that. Loans can and will be paid back. But government and UAW ownership is permanent and can not be undone without their agreement. Neither the government or the union is going to agree to sell back their ownership. The government (democrats, who now control all of government) is guaranteeing a continued union labor force paying large union dues to the UAW which in turn gives large amounts to support democrat office seekers. If the new GM or Chrysler needs more money, the stupid taxpayers will just have to pay up. Government (democrats, who now control all of government- need I say it again?) will pass budget spending bills (needing only 51 votes) that will “buy” more shares of the companies. This is not a good solution to our auto company problems, people. We all will see the day we regret this type of solution. IMO.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 4:53 pm

@N Riley 99

So GM and Chrysler has been assimilated into the BORG.

(B)ad
(O)rganizationally
(R)un
(G)overnment

(Quote)
kent beuchert Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 5:06 pm

Arlen Spector was never much of a Republican to begin with. He stayed with the party only as long as it was in the clear majority.
I have a strong opinion about people like Specter, who I believe was one of the few Republicans to vote for brainless Obama’s non-stimulating stimulus package, a package which that liar originally claimed was needed to avoid “economic catastrophe,” only to say three days after the bill was passed that the “economy didn’t look all that bad.” Reminescent of his change of tune about Iraq, once he got into offcie and decided not only that the Iraqi war was to continue, but that the war in Afghanistan need to be expanded. Only the Dems are capable of hearing stuff like this and keeping their
tongue in place.

(Quote)
LauraM Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 5:08 pm

#98/99 N. Riley

I agree that government and UAW majority ownership is not a good idea. The problem is that there is no alternative at this point. Both companies had an unsustainable debt burden. The only real solution is for both parties to sell some of their interest ASAP. (Or give it out to the salaried employees.) The US taxpayer will have to take a substantial loss, but we knew that going in. It’s worth it if it means we have a functioning domestic auto industry.

But I don’t think it’s a bad idea for the UAW to own a minority stake in each of the auto companies. As long as it’s equal amounts of all three. If they have a vested interest in the companies’ success, it would a) improve management worker relations, b) eliminate the incentive for bizarre uncompetitive work rules, and c)motivate workers to do a good job.

One of my main complaints about unions is that they prefer the seniority system of promotion, and are against merit bonuses. They want workers to have zero incentive to actually do a good job. And quality suffers as a result. I know that some of the poor quality in the 80s and 90s was a result of management decisions, but these policies also had something to do with it. Yes, I know they eventually gave in on both counts, but a UAW stake in the company could only help.

(Quote)
Jim I Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 5:10 pm

Some of you are really grumpy today…..

Here is another point of view for your consideration about why GM has not shown the RE part of the E-REV:

I think that a lot of it is all marketing.

Why show the whole world and all your competition that you have really figured it out this soon? You want to own as much of this market as you can, for as long as you can.

Toyota and Honda still publicly state that they think the E-REV design will not work. So let them think that right up until the last possible moment. Then, just a few months before the cars are in the showrooms, take Lyle and a big crown of journalists out for a nice long ride in group of production Volts. Let the ICE kick on and off a few times, nice and smooth. Just mention in passing that you actually got 45 miles AER, instead of the promised 40. And then, move up the introduction date by a few months, because the engineering and assembly went so much better than you expected. Oh, and that idea of only selling 10K cars the first year? HAHAHAHA – Gotcha!!! We are ramping up three full shifts to put out as many as we can.

GM will have the “WOW” factor and a new market all to themselves for at least two years while everyone else tries to play catch up… And by then , GM has new models already in the showrooms.

That is the GM vehicle I want to be proud to say I own!!

Come on GM – Show the world what you can do, when you decide to do it right…

JMHO

(Quote)
LauraM Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 5:32 pm

#101 kent beuchert

Personally, I’m not sure this is the place to discuss this, but:

Arlen Specter left the Republican party because the Republicans basically forced him out. He was going to lose the Republican nomination for the next election–even though his opponent would have zero chance in the general election.

Basically, as far as I can tell, the Republican party no longer has any room for moderates. Olympia Snowe said as much in the New York Times. They chose “purity” over moderation, and in the process lost any leverage they still had in the senate.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 5:33 pm

Tax credits and deductions have been used to incentivize public policy goals since the dawn of taxation. How about the oil depletion allowance, which many decry as a huge subsidy to oil companies? How about the home mortgage interest deduction, which clearly subsidizes homeowners? Any of you homeowners complaining about that? How about the ability to depreciate a vehicle of over 6000# GVW in one year, which has been in effect in recent years? My wife is an RN, and she LOL at the number of doctor’s wives driving Hummers and Suburbans. A direct incentive to buy LOW mileage vehicles, LMAO. How about the expense accounts of corporate fat cats, and their 3 martini lunches? And the list goes on forever.

My understanding of the “cash for clunkers” program is that it would give tax breaks on a sliding scale, depending on the mileage of the junked car and the mileage of the new car. A direct incentive to buy HIGH mileage vehicles.

I would a lot rather that my tax dollars were spent to incentivize saving oil than to have them spent to incentivize Hummers or MRAPs or F-22s.

Someone above wrote a good comment on our non-friends in OPEC, et al. If we can reduce oil consumption, we will save the cost back many times over in our balance of payments defecit, the “War on Terror”, the health impacts of air pollution, unemploymnet compensation in the devastated auto producing states, and many more benefits too numerous to mention.

Good public policy, and a wise use of taxpayers’ resources, IMHO.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 5:36 pm

Toyota and Honda still publicly state that they think the E-REV design will not work.
______________________

Selling them at a COMPETITIVE PRICE is what was stated.

What do you think “will not work” actually means?

(Quote)
Mark Z Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 5:39 pm

The concern some have made the past two days about the generator not running brought back the memory of noise comments from Lutz. Perhaps GM doesn’t want the test drivers to experience noise levels that will be corrected in the production version.

A link to the Lutz test drive almost one year ago with NO generator running then (see paragraph above his signature):

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/gm-chevy-volt-plug-in-hybrid-bob-lutz.php

A link to the Lutz generator noise comment and that they had 18 months to fix the problem (5th paragraph from the end):

http://www.wheels.ca/article/261324

Remember the fixed RPM news?

http://gm-volt.com/2008/08/26/the-chevy-volt-generator-will-run-at-one-of-several-fixed-rpms/

(Quote)
noel park Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 5:41 pm

#104 LauraM:

It probably isn’t the place to discuss it, but I agree anyway, hehehe.

I love it!

(Quote)
CorvetteGuy Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 5:41 pm

Could someone define “clunker” in Obama’s plan?

That’s a very vague description.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 5:52 pm

@CorvetteGuy 109

“Could someone define “clunker” in Obama’s plan?”

It’s still just a proposal. Nothing has been ironed out or decided yet. No criterias available. Some say an older car that gets less than 27mpg. My plan is to go buy an older something that meets that criteria the moment a crtieria is established and use that clunker for whatever voucher or something towards a new car. I am hoping this gets ironed out just before the Volt is released for sale to the GP.

(Quote)
Bruce Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 6:12 pm

#86″First Camaro to leave our showroom went to a nice black couple. I would say the husband’s style was more like “John Shaft” than “Billy Ray Cyrus”. Camaro (so far) has had a much broader appeal than you would think. Drive one yourself. You might give up on this whole VOLT idea.”

I’ve checked one out up close, not my thing though. If I was going to give up on the whole EV thing for my next car I’d be much more likely to get a 370z. Thats the car that gets me excited.

(Quote)
James T Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 6:30 pm

Mind blowing marketing for the Honda Insight. This is a textbook example of viral marketing on the Internet and how to launch a product in 2009. I would hire these guys for your Volt launch GM. You’ll really need to steup it up to compete with this stuff.

http://vimeo.com/4281939

(Quote)
LauraM Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 6:34 pm

#105 Noel Park

Absolutely, the government uses tax deductions and credits to influence the market. And, often to good effect. Although, I personally hate the mortgage deduction. It’s transfer of wealth from me (as a renter) to home owners. And as a group, home owners are wealthier than renters.

But the cash for clunker bill does not help the environment. First of all, a lot of people will turn in cars that wouldn’t have been used very much anyway. Second, even if it does work as advertised, the energy and emissions advantages of a new car does not compensate for the energy and emissions involved in manufacturing it.

Economically, all we’re doing increasing demand now at the expense of future demand (and, incidentally, increasing the value of certain used cars). It would be a lot more efficient to just give the money to the relevant companies. Especially since there’s going to be a lot of pressure to include imports and spend American taxpayer dollars to stimulate the Japanese and Korean economies. Which is not something I think we can afford to do right now.

(Quote)
CS Guy Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 6:35 pm

quote: “No proof that most people (or even most Volt owners) drive less than 40 miles per day”

Wow.

Personally, I don’t want a gas engine (or gas anything) in my Volt. I’m holding out for an all-electric model. If GM doesn’t offer that option I’ll just go with one of the many competitors like Aptera, Tesla Type S, Mitsu iMiev, (whatever comes with a functioning EESTOR battery, heheh =) etc.

As for the sound of the range extender, I’ll bet GM will have an option in the control software to emulate a standard ICE engine noise at certain times, like acceleration/deceleration, driving at slow speeds (so pedestrians don’t step right out in front of you), etc. I’d like the option to choose the sound (motorcycle, ‘68 Camaro, turbocharged, porsche, 4-barrel carb, turbine engine, UFO?).

(Quote)
CorvetteGuy Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 6:37 pm

111 Bruce
Nissan makes a great car. I’ve owned 260-Z and 280-Z… But they’ve become a little odd looking over the years. Definitely for the under 30 crowd.

Gimme an ol’ school V8 with tons-o-torque!!!
Now that’s American!

(Quote)
Koz Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 6:57 pm

Tesla’s car designer that came from Mazda and spearheaded the Model S design from scratch to prototype in 8 months wrote this interesting post on Tesla’s blog:

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog2/

(Quote)
old man Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 7:25 pm

#110 CaptJack

If I understaand the cash for clunkers program correctly your plan wont work. I think you will have to have owned and had the clunker tagged for at least a year in order to participate. Sounds like somebody else thought of that plan. Dang!!!

(Quote)
statik Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 8:01 pm

#103 JIm I said:

Toyota and Honda still publicly state that they think the E-REV design will not work. So let them think that right up until the last possible moment. Then, just a few months before the cars are in the showrooms, take Lyle and a big crown of journalists out for a nice long ride in group of production Volts. Let the ICE kick on and off a few times, nice and smooth. Just mention in passing that you actually got 45 miles AER, instead of the promised 40. And then, move up the introduction date by a few months, because the engineering and assembly went so much better than you expected. Oh, and that idea of only selling 10K cars the first year? HAHAHAHA – Gotcha!!! We are ramping up three full shifts to put out as many as we can.

GM will have the “WOW” factor and a new market all to themselves for at least two years while everyone else tries to play catch up… And by then , GM has new models already in the showrooms.
=========

Of course the batteries for all of these cars would be delivered by magical unicorns that come out of the ocean at only GM’s call….like Godzilla does when that Japanese chick sings.

(Quote)
JEC Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 8:14 pm

So, in the video, he alludes to the battery actually having some life left in it after 10 years. And you could use it as a storeage device or somehow tie it to the grid. (connect it to your laptop!)

I would say that in 10 years the battery will be so obsolete, that you are not likely to use it for anything other than a boat anchor.

With the expected advances in battery technology, I cannot imagine that this first generation battery will be useful in 10 years. More likely, you will be buying that “battery upgrade” or “booster pack” for your Volt after 6 or 7 years, and your old battery will go to the recycling bin.

JMHO, of course

(Quote)
Red HHR Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 8:49 pm

@ #60 David K (CT)
I am sure they are working on it, however some folks will be hypercritical, and armed with lawyers! OF course they will try and make it as quite as possible. I suspect that the electric motor will somehow make more noise than the ICE. When the range extender kicks in it will seem more like a clunky AC or something. It is possible that they could not “triple insulate” the ICE in the Cruze shell. So as most say, it is not ready for prime time.

I really do not think it will sound like a Colman generator kicking in.

@ #107 Mark Z
Even of the ICE generator speed is constant, if you are thinking about slowing down and the aural engine speed does not change, would you apply the brakes harder? Conversely if you want to go faster and there is no corresponding increase in revs, would you think you are driving a dog? Some people are super sensitive to such things and they would NOT understand that the ICE and the propulsion system are not linked. This says nothing of the times the ICE would change speeds.

I can envision some people not liking the transition at all!

My guess is there would be warning lights and a artificial sound that mimics the speed of the car when the ICE kicks in….

(Quote)
koz Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 9:04 pm

JEC #119

What do you think a 11.5KWh battery is worth today? Yes, batteries wil continue to improve and IMO the improvements will accellerate as today’s investments bear fruit. However, there will still be reasonable value in a well cared for 11.6KWHish battery and if it is just recycle value that will mean batteries will have come down to a fraction of today’s cost. That will be a very good thing. Think about how cheap the replacement battery will be and how much more the used Volt will be worth compared to its ICE contemporaries.

(Quote)
Red HHR Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 9:06 pm

NVH.
To continue my previous comments….
Noise Vibration and Harshness. I think GM has a whole engineering division devoted to such things. So I am sure they will do a great job. It must be quite the challenge though. They spend a lot of time tuning the sound of an air filter to get it just right. Now with a quiet car, the challenges must be multifold. However GM has much experience in NVH.

As for the unicorns and batteries, what are they doing in Korea? Any salt laden vessels in port?

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 9:16 pm

Test Ride: Even in New York, the Aptera Stops Traffic
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/03/the-aptera-2e-i/

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 9:19 pm

Mitsubishi Motors Doubles Output Target for i MiEV, Nikkei Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=alvI..gZFJ8k&refer=japan

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 9:25 pm

With an Electric Ford Focus, Why Do We Need the Volt?
http://www.cargurus.com/blog/2009/03/25/with-an-electric-ford-focus-why-do-we-need-the-volt/

(or, the opposite of tar baby)

From the article:
GM has spent years and untold amounts of money developing their electric Volt concept./
Ford’s electric Focus has been developed almost entirely by outside supplier Magna International (which has built cars for BMW, Mercedes-Benz, GM, and Chrysler, so don’t write them off)./
The one drawback for Ford, if it can be called a drawback, is that Magna is free to sell the same technology to other automakers. Ford doesn’t seem to mind, though, because the more successful Magna is, the more the price of their technology will drop. Ultimately, that’s beneficial for Magna, for Ford, and for anyone buying an electric car./

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 9:46 pm

#125 Add,

“Magna’s agreement with Ford isn’t exclusive. Magna plans to sell the system to other carmakers besides Ford and, said Gioia, Ford has no problem with that.

“In fact, we encourage it,” she said. “We want Magna to be successful.”

For Ford, the strategy is similar to the approach taken with the carmakers’ popular Sync in-car entertainment system. That system, which Ford credits with boosting sales of its current Focus compact car, was developed in partnership with Microsoft and the software giant retains the right to sell it to other automakers.

If Ford had insisted on exclusive rights to use these systems, Microsoft and Magna would have had to charge much higher fees to cover their costs. That would have erased the financial benefit of having an outside company develop the systems.”

http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/20/autos/ford_electric/

(Quote)
LauraM Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 9:47 pm

In case anyone else is following Chrysler–the US government increased the offer to the Chrysler bondholders to 29 cents on the dollar (cash), but the deal might fall through anyway.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aDJS94V_Uzgc&refer=home

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124102375931669205.html

(Quote)
koz Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 9:56 pm

Just watched the video and have some comments:

-”Other stakeholders incentives” certainly refers to potential state level incentives as mentioned by others but may mean utility incentives as well.

-Mr. Posawatz mentions that all GEN1 Volts will qualify for the full $7500 incentive as the rebate is in full effect for the first 200k vehicles. While the fact that they only plan on <200k Gen1 Volts doesn’t bother me, this indicates that they probably don’t have plans to build other Voltec vehicles in significant qty for some time. On the flip side, it could mean gen 2 Voltec is not far off.

-Mr. Posawatz was also very direct and strongly asserted GM’s plan to build a lot of Volts at the Hammertrack facility starting early in 2010. I believe they must be moving at the plant in order to do this in early ‘10.

(Quote)
Red HHR Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 10:08 pm

Seems Obama will announce the GSB of Chrysler tomorrow,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a97rZxZqE4S8&refer=worldwide
Could it be a test to see if it will work for GM???

Good Day, Statik.

(Quote)
Ron Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 10:16 pm

Will the brake lights illuminate when it’s on regen braking?

(Quote)
Red HHR Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 10:41 pm

#130 Ron
Depends, if you use the brake pedal for regenerative braking yes. If you just let up on the accelerator pedal, in low or otherwise, I doubt it. Do the brake lights go on when you downshift? IMHO

(Quote)
Auto braker Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 10:51 pm

Breaking News:

Talk between Chrysler and bonder holder falls apart, Chapter 11 filing expected on Thursday in New York. According to NY Times, WSJ and Washington Post.

(Quote)
LauraM Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 11:19 pm

GM’s bondholders have planned a counteroffer. Honestly, it looks like the best solution to me. GM could stay in private hands (at least the majority of GM), and the government might actually be paid back. I still think that this amount of debt is unsustainable, but it could work.

Of course, this is just an opening offer…

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aii30linNPgs&refer=home

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124105121817871157.html#mod%3Darticle-outset-box%26articleTabs%3Darticle

(Quote)
J Man Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 11:24 pm

Lyle,

If you can get a copy of it the head of Tesla is on Letterman. Letterman is bashing the Volt for only having a 40 mile electric range and making it seem inferior to the Tesla. There is no discussion of the extended range of the Volt. They are making it seem like tyou get the 40 miles and that is it.

Everyone needs to write the Letterman show and complain about his ignorance of the Volt!!!!!

(Quote)
Jim I Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 11:53 pm

john1701a # 103: “Selling them at a COMPETITIVE PRICE is what was stated.”
============
Sorry, that one does not hold up. How many threads have there been on this site, where Toyota and Honda reps have said L/I batteries are not ready for automotive use, and that plug in hybrids are not going to be popular? And now they have back tracked and changed their position. That had nothing to do with price.

You can’t have it both ways. After all, it is you that keeps saying the the Prius and the Volt are so different in their designs. Yet all you keep doing is discussing price. If that is the case, then I also think the the Prius is overpriced, compared to a KIA Rio. Is that comparison fair? No. And neither is your price comparison of a Gen1 Volt and a Gen3 Prius. Especially when no one really knows what the price of the Volt will be!!!

If you want to compare pricing, it should be on vehicles of similar design. The only true Volt competition would be another Serial hybrid. How many other models of that type are this close to production?

Finally, as I recall, you said your new Prius is a model IV with the solar roof option. So that car will come in at just around $30K, correct? For a few thousand more I will take a Volt, thank you.

(Quote)
James T Says:
April 30th, 2009 at 12:18 am

“If you can get a copy of it the head of Tesla is on Letterman. Letterman is bashing the Volt for only having a 40 mile electric range and making it seem inferior to the Tesla. There is no discussion of the extended range of the Volt. They are making it seem like tyou get the 40 miles and that is it. ”

Have you seen the Tesla S??? I’m all for the Volt man, but lets be honest, its not anywhere in the same league as the Tesla. That’s like comparing a GEO metro to a 7 series BMW.

I thought the show was awesome!

(Quote)
Auto braker Says:
April 30th, 2009 at 12:30 am

I was outside the conference room where the vote was casted among Chrysler bond holders. Most of them rejected the latest offer. Some of the private bond holder even cursed in a unprofessional manner. Pictures will be posted tomorrow!

(Quote)
Jim I Says:
April 30th, 2009 at 1:22 am

Statik # 123: “Of course the batteries for all of these cars would be delivered by magical unicorns that come out of the ocean at only GM’s call….like Godzilla does when that Japanese chick sings.”
============
My response to that is from Lyle’s thread from a few days ago about the plant being constructed for the LG battery pack:

“LG is currently capable of producing 40 million cells per month. Each Volt pack has between 200 and 300 cells. Eventually a US factory is expected.”

So why is it so unbelieveable to you that GM could not get 100K packs for 2010/2011? 300 cells times 100,000 packs is 30 million cells, less than one MONTH of the current production run for LG! They may have to be shipped here, but there is no real reason it could not be done.

Statik, sometimes your negativity holds you back from what CAN be accomplished. How many times have we been told by the experts and the bean counters that something is impossible, only to be proven wrong when others look past the balance sheets and just decide to make it happen.

You always want a few examples. OK. How about:

Lord Kelvin, the President of the Royal Society of England made a forceful declaration. “Heavier than air flying machines are impossible,” said this very powerful man of science….Rumor has it Lord Kelvin was slightly in error.

There had been speculation in the late 1940s that it might be impossible to break the sound barrier.

In 1943, Thomas J Watson, President of IBM, supposedly said “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.

Television won’t be able to hold on to any market it captures after the first six months. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night. – Darryl F. Zanuck, head of 20th Century-Fox, 1946.

There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home. – Kenneth Olsen, president and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977.

This one is especially applicable:

That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is suggested by the fact that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced. – Scientific American, Jan. 2, 1909.

And my personal favorite:

If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can’t be done. – Peter Ustinov

You can be Mr. Negative. But I think I will stick with the more optimistic viewpoint. It usually gets more things done….

Go GM! – Go GM Volt Team!!

(Quote)
MaynardKeenan Says:
April 30th, 2009 at 4:33 am

So it seems Chrysler will go into Chapter 11…

Statik, LauraM: Please keep us informed!

(Quote)
Herm Says:
April 30th, 2009 at 5:13 am

do the brake lights go on when you downshift to do engine braking?.. Like when you are going down a mountain..

I wish GM would put in a rotary knob so you could dial in the regen brake setting.. probably too confusing to most people.

……………………….

#130 Ron Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Will the brake lights illuminate when it’s on regen braking?

(Quote)
statik Says:
April 30th, 2009 at 6:43 am

I’ll put this in a old thread, so as not to disturb the fresh one:

GM Bondholders have a offer back for GM…they want 58% of the new GM, hehe.

—————–
GM bondholders propose debt-for-stock swap plan

LONDON (MarketWatch) — A group of General Motors bondholders announced a plan that they say would help GM avoid bankruptcy and save U.S. taxpayers $10 billion in cash. The proposal involves allocating new GM equity equally across the board to union VEBA and GM bondholders, pro rata to the level of financial obligation owed to each by GM. The union VEBA, based on the current $20 billion in health benefits obligations it owes to retirees, would own 41% of the new GM. Bondholders, as a result of their $27 billion of notes outstanding, would own 58% of the new GM. Current shareholders would retain 1% of the equity of the new GM.

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7bF5051978-B87F-49F2-9FFD-64A4E17B7FF3%7d&siteid=yhoof2

(Quote)
k-dawg Says:
April 30th, 2009 at 7:07 am

110 CaptJackSparrow Says:

I was wondering about that too. How are they going to handle that? Maybe you have to have owned the car for x amount of years. Or maybe they dont care, and the goal is to just get those cars off the road?

(Quote)
k-dawg Says:
April 30th, 2009 at 7:08 am

93 LauraM

Thanks. I see better where you stand now.

(Quote)
k-dawg Says:
April 30th, 2009 at 7:44 am

LauraM – so your # was 55% for the bondholders, the Fed/GM offererd 10%, and the bondholders counter-offered 58%.

So what if we just end up at 33% or 1/3 for each party? Is this where we are heading? Lets just skip the game and get right to the end.

(Quote)
statik Says:
April 30th, 2009 at 8:05 am

#138 Jim I

/EDIT

I did read your retort…and I wrote up a long ditty. But I figured we don’t really need the drama of bringing up endless examples of people who said things that were right or wrong, lol.

/I’ll see you in the next thread

(Quote)
k-dawg Says:
April 30th, 2009 at 8:26 am

Before the edit Statik, i was about to post “Harsh!”

(Quote)
statik Says:
April 30th, 2009 at 9:19 am

#146 k-dawg

Before the edit Statik, i was about to post “Harsh!”
=====================

I thought so too, so I backed off.

Sometimes it is better to say nothing and just move on, even if you have to sit on your hands…the end result would have been meaningless, so I decided to go with keeping the good ‘joo-joo’

(=

(Quote)
Jim I Says:
April 30th, 2009 at 10:03 am

Darn. I missed the post….

OK – agreed – let’s go to the next thread.

<—<< Smiley, – Not Frowney!

HAHAHAHAHA

(Quote)
LauraM Says:
April 30th, 2009 at 10:45 am

#144 k-dawg

I’m not sure of the etiquette here–should i post this in the new thread?

But anyway, the bondholders counter-offer preserves the government’s debt as debt. The UAW and the bondholders will wind up with the company. (And the original shareholders get to keep the same 1%)

I think that’s good for GM (it won’t be run by the government), and it’s good for the government and the taxpayer (we’re more likely to get our money back.) I didn’t think the bondholders (or the UAW) would be OK with that, but I’m all for it.

The bondholders should get a higher percentage of the new GM for several reasons.

1)GM owes them more money. (Which means under the bankruptcy code and the law of this country as written, they’d get more)

2) it’s much better for PR–a lot of people won’t buy from a company majority owned by the UAW.

3)I hope that the UAW’s stake will encourage them to make decisions that are in the best interest of keeping GM intact. But there’s no guarantee of that.

By the way, my interest here is a functioning healthy domestic auto industry. And I want the bankruptcy code, the credit markets, and the rule of law in this country to stay intact. And I’d like the taxpayer to be paid back as much as possible. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.

(Quote)
Lektriktadpole Says:
April 30th, 2009 at 1:13 pm

#88 Electric Vehicle Owner said:
Trying to get 150,000 miles out of a low speed scooter is ridiculous, electric or not. Every sentient being would trade up to a proper maxi-scooter or motorcycle, just as efficient or more so, within a couple of years at most, once they got the skills under their belt (take a MSF training course, pass the test, get your drivers license endorsed for motorcycles).

Don’t forget to sell your batteries to your local utility for one-third their retail price (less 40% to back out the markup). They could use the extra cheap storage and it’ll give you a downpayment on a more modern power pack. Better yet, sell your existing electric scooter as is (someone will be just fine with the existing range and performance) for a more modern electric motorcycle (there are quite a few to choose from these days) with a higher top speed once you get that training, pass the test and get your M endorsement on your license.”

Hey dude, been there, done that. In my jurisdiction my existing ride is legally a motorcycle and requires an M endorsement, which I have. I bought the right vehicle for my intended use pattern. Not for yours. 40 mph is good for my daily “commute”. My scooter cost me $2K. Show me a true electric motorcycle I can buy for 2 grand and you will have a sale. But it won’t be more efficient. At highway speed it is all about wind resistance and energy consumption per unit distance goes by the square of the velocity. The faster you go, the more its gonna cost ya.

My bike uses U1 size lead acid batts. When they are done, they are done for. My utility isn’t stupid enough to buy old dead batteries for $30 bucks when they sell their own old dead batteries at their recycling yard for 50 cents each.

No I don’t expect to do 150,000 miles on my scooter. Just calculating a number to compare to the Volt spec for its battery lifetime so people can better understand what they are b***hing about when they complain about the Volt battery costing somewhere around $10K.

P.S. Sell your Harley and buy a Civic. It gets the same gas mileage and will keep your head dry so you won’t suffer from so many rust impaired neurons.

(Quote)
fas Says:
April 30th, 2009 at 2:17 pm

Finally we get a better test drive review of the Volt. Can’t wait to get my hands on one.

(Quote)
BobbyG Says:
April 30th, 2009 at 9:14 pm

The only meaningful stakeholder is the battery cell manufacturer, LG Chem. By guaranteeing the life of the batteries, they can remove $10,000 from the original cost estimate which assumed that the entire battery would have to be replaced once on the average over ten years or 150,000 miles. With that kind of price reduction, the car could sell in the low 20’s after rebate, but with all of GM’s financial problems, they may very well add some additional profit as they will not be producing that many first generation cars and they probably can easily sell all of them at $29,900 after rebate.

I don’t know of any project in history that succeeded if the people working on it were negative thinkers. Hey you guys, how about getting a life as well as a new ‘tude. Glad you weren’t in the control room for Apollo 13.

(Quote)
dedpress Says:
May 4th, 2009 at 6:36 pm

Jason Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 9:56 am

Jason. Only a fool believes what they read in the “press” these days. The demise of this, that, and the other thing is the ranting from our deeper disturbed cousin – the main stream media. It’s sittin’ in a rocking chair out on the back porch – writin’ and rockin’ and dabbin’ at the drool on its chin.

(Quote)

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009
November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]
srschrier
New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009
From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]
srschrier
Th!nk picks Indiana for U.S. factory November 18, 2009
Th!nk picks Indiana for U.S. factory: _Link_ (http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1038564_thnk-picks-indiana-for-u-s-factory) […]
Jason M. Hendler
FIRST ALL-ELECTRIC APTERA 2e PUSHED BACK TO 2010 November 18, 2009
FIRST ALL-ELECTRIC APTERA 2e PUSHED BACK TO 2010: _Link_... […]
Jason M. Hendler
Any news about the NiMH battery? November 18, 2009
Now that there are new owners of the patent, is there any indication that they will allow its use for electric cars? Like many others, I believe that... […]
Desertstraw
energy requirments of modern electric vehicles November 18, 2009
does anyone know any credible sources of information concerning the electricity requirements of modern electric vehicles per mile of travel and the... […]
crubkings
30% reduction November 18, 2009
The Belgian governement decided that if you buy a car with less then 60g/km emmision you get a 15% tax reduction and you can write it off for 100% if... […]
filiep

Chevy Volt Mule Test Drive (Autobloggreen) w/ Video Briefing From Tony Posawatz

153 Responses to “Chevy Volt Mule Test Drive (Autobloggreen) w/ Video Briefing From Tony Posawatz”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts