Grab our RSS Feed

AND

Cash For Clunkers Bill Passes Congress but Volt Could Arrive Too Late

June 19th, 2009 | Posted in: Financial, General

The value proposition of the Chevy Volt could change further. People tend to be fixated on its sticker price, but the complex nature of the vehicle and its interaction with the national economy, government, and natural resources really have created a moving target for the Volt’s price.

GM will not confirm pricing until May 2010 primarily because of the changing landscape of these facts, but most estimates place it around 40-ish or so.

That value became lower by $7500 when the tax credit for plugin-cars was legislated, which allows the first 250,000 buyers of the Chevy Volt (in the US) to receive a $7500 direct credit, thereby putting the effective price tag close to $30,000.

On Thursday the Congress passed a $1 billion “Cash for Clunkers” bill. This legislation provides up to $4500 in vouchers to anyone who trades in their old inefficient car for a new fuel efficient vehicle.

The requirements are that the old car get less than 18 mpg, and the new one more than 22 mpg. A difference of 4 mpg is worth $3500, if the difference in more than 10 mpg than its worth $4500. For trucks the new one needs at least 18 mpg and be 2 mpg greater than the old one for $3500, if its 4 mpg the voucher is worth $4500.

To see if you vehicle qualifies check here: FuelEconomy.gov

The plan will take effect 30 days after Obama signs it into law and could stimulate up to 250,000 vehicle sales.

If this voucher were applied to the Volt it could cost you $12,000 less than sticker if you have an old gas guzzler to trade in for it. Once catch though. The program expires in November, a year too soon for the Volt.

Don’t give up hope though. Some members of Congress are already trying to get the bill extended for another year, and that would cover the Volt launch.

Or better yet, maybe we should propose a new program called “Cash for Gassers” which would give people a cash voucher if they traded in their gas car for one that runs on electricity. The bigger the battery, the bigger the voucher.

Also, the possiblity of state tax credits or removal of states sales tax has the potential to lower initial Volt costs as well. As an example, I discussed with my assemblywoman’s adviser the creation of such a bill here in New York. The adviser said there would be a high likelihood they would draft it and that the assemblywoman would bring it to the NY State assembly in January 2010. You could consider doing the same in your state (or country).

Posted by: Lyle

120 Responses to “Cash For Clunkers Bill Passes Congress but Volt Could Arrive Too Late”

statik Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 6:26 am

Too late? I’m expecting my Volt for free by the time 2011 rolls around.

The rule of thumb in America now is…don’t like the price? Wait longer, it’ll get cheaper.

(Quote)
nuclearboy Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 6:30 am

More money to stimulate sales of Japanese vehicles. Why can China use their stimulus money for Chinese only products but here in the US, we hand out stimulus monies to buy Chinese goods at Walmart or in this case, a bunch of Japanese cars.

Hopefully some people will feel that the need to buy a domestic.

Side note: The Volt looks great in Black.

(Quote)
Schmeltz Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 6:39 am

“Cash for Gassers” – I have a feeling people with gastro-intestinal issues may take offense to this policy.

(Sorry, had to say it)

(Quote)
RB Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 6:40 am

The post says
That value became lower by $7500 when the tax credit for plugin-cars was legislated, which allows the first 250,000 buyers of the Chevy Volt (in the US) to receive a $7500 direct credit, thereby putting the effective price tag close to $30,000
————————————————————–

There are some wobbles here. In the first phrase, let us hope that it is the price that is reduced by $7500, not the value. Then the $7500 is not a direct credit, it is a kind of tax credit, subject to various income tax rules. Toward the end, the idea that a 40 something price is reduced to “a price tag close to $30,000″ by means of a $7500 credit is hopeful, but it is not mathematical, unless thousands don’t count any more.

I appreciate the spirit of the sentence, nonetheless. It is that the government will subsidize GM so that the price will be less. We’ll see. Maybe.

(Quote)
MDDave Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 6:42 am

Less than 18 is pretty low… even my 2000 Lincoln Town Car gets a combined 18 MPG according to fueleconomy.gov.

(Quote)
statik Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 6:43 am

I think of also of interest, and worth mentioning is that this thing passed because it was attached to the urgent/rushed through 100+ billion ‘fund the war in Iraq/Afghanistan’ and that was considered a ‘must pass’ vote for a piece of legislation.

/democracy in action

Sidenote: GM killed the Vibe yesterday, as part of the ‘long-term viability plan’ in a rather short press release.

http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewmonthlyreleasedetail.do?domain=3&docid=55133

(Quote)
RB Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 6:50 am

The picture at the top of the post is really nice. Part of the illusion it creates is about the size of the car. Most people will see a much larger car in the picture than the real Volt they will see. The illusion occurs because the camera is very low, the Volt is close to the camera, and some big objects (trees) are in the background. Your mind interprets the car relative to the trees, which are the only elements in the picture that one remembers from past experience. The result is a car that, in one’s mind, is much bigger than it really is. Look at how carefully everything is removed from the picture’s foreground — no people or animals, and no other familiar objects — nothing that your brain can use to correct the size impression.

That is, deconstructing the picture elements, I think the picture is really nice, and a substantial part of what makes it nice is the purposeful illusion about the size of the car. It is really a tiny car, not the sedan size that one thinks one sees there.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 6:55 am

I would have liked to have seen a rule in this clunker law, that we must buy an American car. I don’t have a problem with foreign cars mind you. It’s just that I would have liked to see my tax money stay here.

As for the picture above, I really do dislike black on this car.
How about making it the color of the American flag?

(Quote)
jason M. Hendler Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 6:59 am

It seems the fuel economy gains are too small to help improve our dependence on foreign oil. Considering some vehicles achieve almost 40 mpgs, gaining only 4 seems trivial.

(Quote)
Schmeltz Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 7:02 am

“The plan will take effect 30 days after Obama signs it into law and could stimulate up to 250,000 vehilce sales.”

I’m not sure, but I thought I had read at http://www.businessweek.com that they were forecasting 600,000 to 1,000,000 sales from this. Those numbers sounded pretty optimistic but 250,000 sounds too low for some reason. Would Congress even give this legislation the time of day if it were only 250 thousand sales?

(Quote)
RB Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 7:08 am

#4 MDDave says
Less than 18 is pretty low… even my 2000 Lincoln Town Car gets a combined 18 MPG according to fueleconomy.gov.
———————————————————-
Is the combined mileage from fueleconomy the number used in the cash for clunkers refund decision?

(Quote)
RB Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 7:09 am

Moderation has done me in for the last time.
I am giving up. Best wishes everyone.

(Quote)
Jeff Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 7:11 am

Promotion: A free “Government Motors” Volt for the 1st 10,000 to submit a 2010 tax return. Also, the 1st 10 winners get a free trip to Washihgton DC.

Sorry could not resist

(Quote)
Dave K. Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 7:33 am

Size of the Volt?

Having seen the Volt up close at two car shows. The first impression is that it is BMW 328i-like. Same size, similar lines and color, 17″ wheels, with black leather buckets.

http://garfwod.250free.com/Photos/LA%20Volt%20028.jpg

http://garfwod.250free.com/Photos/LA%20Volt%20017.jpg

=D~

(Quote)
Dan Petit Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 7:34 am

The “cash for clunkers” ought to have extensive “set-asides” that could be permanently kept available for EREV’s. Even for when 5 or 7 years down the road, you want to sell your Volt and get a new one, (to help drive further the green electric motoring evolution), and, your buyer needs some purchasing help.

I fully expect EREV’s to keep the same or better resale value as a Civic, because hardly anything will wear out with a Volt driven gently, and, a second buyer would need that “cash for clunkers” help.

This would greatly improve the “cash for clunkers” program, and, would also go far deeper into cutting carbon, as us first buyers could “seek out” those who **really** need help from “(who helped) kill the carbon clunker”.

This would help magnify the rate of adaptive-change, and, increase the number of future EREV-industry investors.

In addition, GM-Volt warranties, as a set of new standards for the new electric motoring industry, ought to become a specification within “cash for clunkers”. Otherwise, it could be a tremendous financial disaster for someone if a small OEM went out of business (and all its proprietary firmware values, etc., were tied up in litigation).

That way, a safeguard and “safety net” for the motoring public would help to ensure that substantially, non-GM vehicles that are electric will more likely have the best-proven technological standards selected to be incorporated into them.

When Air Conditioning transitioned over to R-123a from the extremely-damaging R-12, the EPA required a maximum industry standard of compressor (and total system) leakage to be not greater than 10 percent per year.

This excellent directive standardized and greatly improved the serviceabilities of automotive air conditioning immensely.

So, requiring all OEM’s to have their product to match or exceed (and be able to prove it with statistically-valid MTBF’s, Mean Times Before Failures), to those of GM’s, the electric motoring public might be increasingly protected from a more casual and dangerously-indifferent component selection process for whatever they decide to buy.

Producing all that carbon to make *all vehicles* ought to have a requirement that the owners will have something left of very high residual value 7 years after purchase.

Having something to last 25 to 30 years of green electric motoring would be well worth a substantial sticker price, and, most certainly advantageous in context to what you could call a “carbon sticker price”.
This is just not any sort of “feel green good” situation whatsoever.

“Carbon sticker price” in annual CO2 tonnage, Manufacturing CO2 tonnage, and Owner Use for the life of the vehicle CO2 tonnage, would be a “crystal-clear” way for EPA to help us understand that what we are buying.

It would be a simple mathematical number of tons of carbon dioxide produced by purchasing any given vehicle.
In “Total Carbon Accounting” like this, expect to be shocked by the ICE vs EREV tonnages, and, expect that your resulting perceptions about the Voltec purchase price to be placed at an impressively reasonable if not heroic level of carbon mathematical consideration.

Gallons times 20 pounds of CO2, times annual gallons for annual CO2 tonnage. CO2 tonnage for the expected life of the vehicle in relation to the tonnage of CO2 in it’s manufacture as well as in its repair and service, is also another set of considerations that the EPA could greatly help us with in making informed decisions.

That Volt picture above REALY looks great!!!

Dan.

(Quote)
Jeremy Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 7:39 am

This is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money. All this will do is pull forward future sales which while making some sales now, will serve to keep the whole industry in the dumps for even longer than it was already going to be.

I am also of the opinion that we spend far too much tax payer money in this county subsidizing foreign products. As already mentioned, at least 50% of these “extra” sales will be going to foreign makes.

The mileage requirements are far to low to actually make any appreciable difference in gas consumption.

Last but not least, my understanding is that these cars have to be scrapped once they are traded in. I wonder what the environmental aspects for creating a new car to replace a functioning car are? Everyone always gets so up in arms over CO2 coming out of tailpipes but as far as I am aware the much bigger issue is factories and power plants.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 7:47 am

#17, Jeremy,

Yes, this does pull future sales in, but to maintain production capacity at some minimum level until the economy bounces back, you want to pull some sales in – demand smoothing helps stablize an industry.

(Quote)
Mark Z Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 7:48 am

If current EPA mpg numbers are used, then the ‘94 Eldo will qualify at 17. Original sticker number is 19.

(Quote)
MDDave Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 7:52 am

RB @ 11

Is the combined mileage from fueleconomy the number used in the cash for clunkers refund decision?

——————————

Good question… I was wondering the same thing. They have to use some standard, otherwise people could game the system. I figured the cash-for-clunkers program is a government program and fueleconomy.gov is a goverment-sponsored web site, so it makes sense that they would use those numbers. But that’s just a guess.

I’m also not sure if they are using city, highway or an average MPG.

(Quote)
charlie h Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 7:56 am

As someone who has driven fuel misers for decades and therefore doesn’t qualify, I’d like to say “Thank You” to Congress for a big kick in the teeth.

(Quote)
Guido Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 7:57 am

I know that a number of posters here ( think: that awful background noise on AM radio …) have stated that GM will not reach their stated goal of launching the Volt by November of 2010 – of course, we will have to wait and see how that plays out…. However, as that deadline draws closer and closer ( 17 months ! ), we certainly don’t see any obvious signs of panic or even damage control by the GM team. Subtle signals, in fact, seem to indicate the exact opposite –
such as the comment in this story: “….GM will not confirm pricing until May 2010 primarily because of the changing landscape of these facts, but most estimates place it around 40-ish or so.”. If GM suspected that their cheerleading was setting expectations too high, this would certainly be the time to start toning down the rhetoric!

GM’s “body language” appears to be getting more and more confident – not what you would expect from a company preparing to yank their tablecloth off of the place setting they have worked so hard to prepare for us! This is consistent with what I continue to hear from colleagues close to this effort – I don’t want to jinx anybody, but I’m feeling betta and betta about this moonshot ! GO GM ! GO VOLT !

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 8:06 am

RB
Hey don’t give up on us NOW. You’re a great poster. Hang in there.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!

(Quote)
JEC Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 8:08 am

21 charlie h

I am right with you on this one!

What a load of crap. Talk about another subsidy that rewards those who, in general, have made poor purchasing decisions, this goes on top of the list.

Why is it that so many people think that the govt is helping us by redistributing OUR money. Just cut the taxes, and let the market correct itself!

All this “feel good” legislation is making me ill.

ARRRGGGGGGG>>>>>>>>>>>>>

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 8:11 am

RB, this moderation thing is a pain. I can’t quite figure out how it works, but I do think it is triggered by certain words. It is truly frustrating , I know.

(Quote)
Larry McFall Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 8:14 am

I don’t like to hear that the Volt is expected to sell in the “Fortish” range. I notice that GM wants all to realize that if they are in the first “25,000″ to buy the Volt, they will get a US Government Kick-Back of $7,500. First, GM should strive to make the vehicle affordable at least, around the $30,000 range.

GM gets another bail-out if the government kicks in $7,500. In consideratiion of this $7,500 what is “Direct Credit”? GM has to keep their mind on the product and make the best product at an affordable cost to the American public. None of these drug industry tricks of selling to foriegn countries at a reduced cost.

GM can do better than what I am getting a feeling for. If they don’t do better, Asia will! Of course we can sale GM to Japan and we would call it, GMESAN.

(Quote)
omegaman66 Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 8:22 am

Getting back to the topic of this article. What a total freaking waste of taxpayer money. First of all trading in a car doesn’t remove it from us so it will still be on the road. Secondly, the automobile you buy to replace the older one isn’t even required to get good gas milage. The government at work.

(Quote)
Guido Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 8:30 am

charlie h Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 7:56 am
As someone who has driven fuel misers for decades and therefore doesn’t qualify, I’d like to say “Thank You” to Congress for a big kick in the teeth.
—————
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I was pissed off myself that there was no “made in America” requirement to qualify for this tax credit ( since all Prius’s are made in Japan ). Now get back under the bridge and stop yer whinin’.

(Quote)
Adrian Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 8:44 am

Math and tax lesson. First, only the top 50% of Americans pay income taxes and only the top 25% pay any significant $$$. That top 25% is the target for the first 250k Volts/hybrids/fuel efficient vehicles. Saying that…
How much of the $7500 is just your taxes you already paid?
How much is your neighbor who despises the fact his hard work allows you/someone else a free handout for a car?
As Jeremy #17 pointed out, the $7500 will be taxable…

cash for clunkers: You have to own the car for one year. Most people who can afford the Volt (see below) have trade ins worth $4500 or almost that (my 10 year old Grand Prix was just short of $4k). This makes almost zero impact.

Lyle, I take issue with your Volt math. It is pretty firm the pricewill be $40-45k MSRP and $46k-48 @ financing before trade in. After trade in you are still $41-43k unless you are trading in a new car NOT the $30k you mention.

4MPG is not worth $3500. From 18 to 22 you save ~150 gallons that @$3/gallon is $450 per year @15k miles per year. 18MPG means you use 833 gallons of gas a year @15k miles. The average medium to large vehicle out there is probably closer to 20 or 21MPG with small cars being closer to 30. The Volt latest estimate is 100 gallons (the 150MPG number) using 15k miles. Comparing 18MPG to the Volt is where $3500 comes from.

You still have financed a $41k car and the $7500 rebate is applied on April 15th. So you have just given yourself a $800 a month loan (@60 months)!!!!!!!!! That is the price of a house loan!

WAKE UP!!!! The Volt is still a upper middle class to upper class car.

(Quote)
Adrian Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 8:46 am

“Made in America” would have started a trade war. You thoughts your everyday ideas cost money now…

Too bad such ‘made in America’ thoughts aren’t put towards drilling for our own energy (oil, natural gas, etc…) where it would really make an impact.

(Quote)
Lwesson Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 8:56 am

Guido #28 This bill was knocked around for a bit by our various Congressthings. What was knocked out of it, by the “Free” Trade insects was the Buy American provision. And AMERICAN is kind of difficult to define with all the cars made here by NON US companies. Now a buy Domestic Home Based clause could have gotten around this but the “Free” Trade bugs would have gone into an even more upset frenzy to serve their masters. So we get this crumpled up package from Das Stat helping “Free” Trade and the GLOBALISTS who see NO nation, no boundaries but certainly see the money.

Cash for Gassers——- very witty Lyle!

Cheers!——–Higgins

(Quote)
Mike-o-Matic Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 9:00 am

I agree with those who think this is a waste of taxpayers’ money. What a frickin’ disgrace. The willful destruction of America’s financial integrity continues!!

But don’t worry, those responsible will all have lucrative ambassadorship, lobbyist, and “consultant” jobs by the time the bill comes due. </sarcasm>

EDIT: Sorry for the brief rant, but I’m beside myself. At this point, it’s almost inconceivable to me that our economy can bounce back from the last/current congresses and presidents. And that’s very frustrating.

(Quote)
Lwesson Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 9:01 am

Adrian#30 This nation did quite well in the past protecting it’s industrial base and citizens from the nebulous goings on of the cheep labor pool of other countries. The nation, US, flourished! Adam Smith, recall the dead white guy? had words for any nation that disregarded it’s home base. Cheap now but hidden costs later.

Protectionist Regards!——Higgins

(Quote)
CorvetteGuy Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 9:11 am

I refer to my 1979 as a ‘Classic’, not a ‘Clunker’.
Sure, it only gets 9 to 10 MPG, but I only drive 1.5 miles to work and 1.5 miles back each day. So a tank of gas lasts me almost a full month.

Thanks Obama, but I think I’ll keep what I’ve got ‘cuz you won’t be seeing a Prius, Insight, or a VOLT (well… maybe) at a classic car show 20 or 30 years from now.

(Quote)
Mike-o-Matic Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 9:13 am

A quick followup, and something a bit more constructive. Bicameral roll-calls for this boondoggle!! Have fun contacting your elected officials.

SENATE:
Voted Yes: 54 Democrats, 4 Republicans, 2 Independents
Voted No: 1 Democrat, 35 Republicans
SOURCE: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090618/ap_on_go_co/us_rollcall_cash_for_clunkers

HOUSE:
Voted Yes: 239 Democrats, 59 Republicans
Voted No: 9 Democrats, 110 Republicans
SOURCE: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll314.xml

(Quote)
old man Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 9:17 am

#30 Adrian

I have no fear of a trade war. If we had a surplus of exports we would be vulnerable to other countrys taxing our products or not giving rebates on our goods. But, he11, they already do. The trade problem of the twentys and thirtys did hurt us as we were a country that imported very little and exported a lot. [makes us sound like we were the Japan, China, India, ect. of that time. It is time we insisted on fair trade and treated each country as they treat us in trade agreements.Imho they need our importing a lot more than we need what little most buy from us.

I wonder how little we export if you take food, military weapons, and commercial planes out of the mix.

We certainly do not export anything you would buy at nearly any stores you might wish to list.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 9:21 am

Yikes, seems we’re united in disdain for this piece of legislation. It does seem to be absolute hogwash. Given the mpg requirements it seems aimed at SUVs and pickups. In Europe they’ve had a similar but more extensive program since last year and all it has done is make their car industry dependent on the subsidy. As has been pointed out, you’re just moving next year’s purchase forward. Right now the problem for Europe is that no one can see how to end the program without crashing the car industry. So the saving grace of this one may be that it doesn’t apply very broadly.

As for needing or wanting another subsidy for the Volt, since GM is only making 10K of them I don’t see the value. The price will be set by supply and demand, and if you pile on the subsidies all that will happen is that GM will raise the price or the dealers will raise the price. My guess is that this is why the price has been moving from “closer to 40 than 30″ to “40-ish”. Another big subsidy and we’ll be at 50-ish.

RB & MDDavid — From what I’ve read the mileage requirement is the EPA combined. Note the numbers on fueleconomy.gov for earlier years is an updated number reflecting the current EPA number. For example, a combined 20 mpg under the old testing might be 17 mpg under the current standard. (Can’t remember exactly how you relate the two numbers but I think the old number is 120% of the new number).

#12 RB — Yeah, the moderation thing is bizarre and quite frustrating.

(Quote)
George K Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 9:25 am

jason M. Hendler
“It seems the fuel economy gains are too small to help improve our dependence on foreign oil. Considering some vehicles achieve almost 40 mpgs, gaining only 4 seems trivial.”
- – - – - – - – -

I pained over an additional $3500 or so for my wife and me to buy a 50 mpg Prius.
Why on earth would I give another $3500 to someone I don’t know, to go from 18 to 22 mpg??!

(Quote)
Edwin Mang Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 9:29 am

The only one that I have that would qualify is the 1990 F150 at 17MPG . I guess that if you looked for econime in the past like the 1990 NewYorker at 29MPG you do not need the tax credit .
I never looked for tax credits I just buy what is the best buy for the dollar . Like the Volt .

God Bless

(Quote)
MuddyRoverRob Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 9:36 am

#3 Schmeltz
LOL! My wife said something like that about me last night… But it had to do with me relocating to the couch…

(Quote)
nuclearboy Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 9:52 am

35. Old man.. You are right on the money.

What is the potential of loosing a trade war when you are already loosing the war on a daily basis? Our money is leaving the country as fast as we can print it..

Right now, we are sending our wealth to Asia at an alarming rate. They send a pittance back. If we started an all out trade war and this was stopped, Asia would loose big time. We would have to pay more for our trinkets at Walmart but in the end our money would circulate more in the US and US jobs would have a tendancy to stay and grow.

I am not advocating a trade war. I am just noting that the downside for us is small compared to those countries who are collecting our money in trade right now.

The plan from outside of the US is to continue to sell things to the US until the US can no longer sustain the situation (ie: we become a complete debter nation). At that point, hopefully some other great econonmy will emerge to drag the world along and the US can be left to dream of the past…

(Quote)
Terry Jones Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 9:54 am

Absolutely ridiculous that my tax money will go to fund someone else’s car purchase. I am utterly speechless about this.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 10:01 am

While I think it is great to remove gas guzzlers off the street, this bill does very little except spend 1 billion dollars without really affecting any real gasoline savings. Requiring 2 to 4 MPG savings minimum is simply stupid, but it was written by someone in congress, after all. If they really wanted to get the “clunkers” off the street the bill needs to have stronger requirements for age of vehicles regardless of MPG differences. This is a bill written by someone or a group of idiots who do not understand anything about automobiles and fuel savings. They just saw a chance to spend another billion dollars. A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon we are talking about some real money. Will the loons in D.C. ever learn? I doubt it. Apparently they give up their brains when the go to Washington, DC.

(Quote)
Bill Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 10:02 am

How many Chevy Volt integration vehicles are being made a week now?

(Quote)
Schmeltz Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 10:03 am

#36 Don C:
Regarding our “united disdain for this piece of legislation”, I guess I’m pretty much indifferent about it. It was born orignally as a measure that would help the country sort of have its cake and eat it too. The orginal design was a legislation vehicle (excuse the pun) to provoke car sales, but only of fuel efficient vehicles, and remove polluting vehicles off the roads. But then I think Congress was stuck in a Catch-22. Congress quickly realized that fuel efficient cars are low price points for Automakers. And with Detroit struggling as it is, a piece of legislation that was heavy handed towards fuel efficient vehicles wouldn’t really cut it in terms of “helping” Detroit. To add insult to injury, the original bill would have probably helped the import nameplates moreso, due to their wider offerings of fuel efficient cars. So, as a compromise, the bill has been written to still mandate more fuel efficiency, but is much less harsh in favor of spurring sales in larger vehicles to boost profits. Bottom line, this will move some metal, some guzzlers will be gone, and some fuel efficiency gains will be made. Most likely no party involved will be 100% happy with this legislation, but compromise seems to be the name of the game these days. Something is better than nothing.

(Quote)
MarkinWI Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 10:18 am

The cash-for-clunkers program was an idea stolen from Germany, Italy and other countries who have offered cash incentives for the purchase of new (domestic) cars since the beginning of the current global recession. The goal of these programs was to support their respective domestic auto industries. Fuel economy was a secondary goal, if it was mentioned at all.

We have introduced the fuel efficiency element here, which is o.k., but no, it will not have a significant impact on foreign oil imports.

I also am frustrated that the credit was not limited to domestic cars (or at least cars assembled in the U.S.), as it was in the programs that it was modeled on. If Germany’s domestic limitation did not trigger a trade war, then it seems unlikely that a similar U.S. limitation would have either. About the only thing I can say in a positive manner about the way that this program was implemented is that if it would have had both a domestically produced element and a truly stringent fuel improvement element then it would have virtually been a support program for the Ford Escape Hybrid and Ford Fusion Hybrid.

(Quote)
BruceL Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 10:18 am

So let me get this straight. My with my tax money (that I pay a ton of every 3 months):

We pay for the car company.
We pay for people to buy the cars.
Hell, we even pay for the tax credit for them to buy their house.

Sounds great if you are on the recieving end of any of these. Except I only work my ass off and pay and never get any credits for anything.

(Quote)
Shawn Marshall Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 10:19 am

This ludicrous bill is simply meant to help certain auto manufacturers and their UAW employees. But the bulk of your money will go to Toyodor and Hounda.

Another instance of the government malignantly misappropriating funds.
Now where are all those fans of crap and trade and the gas tax?

Good grief, will we never learn?

(Quote)
Noel Park Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 10:29 am

Don’t care. I’m not buying another car until the Volt is available, and this will be history by then.

Although it is pretty frustrating to now be a part owner of GM and see my tax money going to help the sales of Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, et al. Sometimes I think that we really ave lost our collective minds.

#24 Rashiid Amul:

Nice to see your name here. Where ya been? I’ve missed you recently.

#35 old man & #40 nuclearboy:

Alas, too true.

(Quote)
kent beuchert Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 10:42 am

We know the reason advanced to justify giving car buyers $7500 for
their Volt, which makes no sense when examined even superficially. The law is nothing more than cash thrown very publically at a program sure to please those green campaign contributors. The idea that it will spur battery design couldn’t be more absurd, with every battery company on the planet doing all the R&D they can supply bodies for. Now, theonly conceivable motive behind the “cash fro clunkers” (what exactly do they mean by “clunker,”
since clunker has to do with the qaulity of the vehicle, not its gas consumption). Another reinterpretation of the English language by our brilliant representatives in DC. And I’ll bet none of them speak “Austrian” either. But they probably know (from the Senate roll calls) that the US only has 50 states, which has stayed constant since 1957, I believe.
Well, cash for clunkers then presumably means that we ned to encourage lower gas consumption. And exactly what are going to be the result of this $1 billion dollars? That’s pretty easy – $1billion pays 133K drivers to switch to a car that gets 7 mpg more and (assuming they actually achieve 7 MPG more, given the widespread recalculations and errors in teh EPA estimates over the past decade) thus are, in effect, taking 40K drivers off the road. Removing 1 million drivers form the road is easily shown to have a totally insignificant effect (less than 1/5th of 1 percent demand redcution) . So guess what the effect will be by romoving 40K drivers? That’s right, kiddos. Less thaninsignificant. This stupid law is achieving absolutely nothing. There were claims that its aim is to dsell cars. Guess which country’s cars are going to be sold to meet this new demand? That’s right, kiddos, every country EXCEPT the US. Another example of the new boys in town and their marvvelous thought processes. Your taxes in action. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. This has got to be the most brainless Fed govt in our history. Some said Zachery Taylor, but Taylor’s horse could give these guys a run for their money.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 10:59 am

off topic ** off topic ** off topic ** off topic **

My prediction on how volt will run in Range extender mode:

4 power settings:
ICE 0: idle
ICE 1 : high idle,
ICE 2 : most efficient power,
ICE 3 : high power,

Once the Volt has been plugged in to topoff (80% to 90% SOC) the car will operate in EV mode until approx 30% SOC , at that point the ICE comes on to turn the generator which will drive the car and recharge the battery up to 80%. This will be in ICE 3. There will be programming to bring the engine down to ice 2 or ice 1 for noise considerations (i.e. low speed, drive through, stop light etc) but will quickly return to ice 3 in order to get to 80% as soon as possible.

Now the car will switch to ice 2 for efficient driving (using ice 1 and ice 0 as necessary). ICE 3 may be called on in rare occasions (multiple accelerations, trip to pikes peak).

Car will remain in RE mode (even if shut off and restarted) until car has been plugged in again — topping off the charge and resetting it to EV mode.
—–

Why will the car operate this way (in contrast to what GM has been saying)? Primarily for 2 reasons:

1. To protect the battery — achieve a high cycle life.
2. To protect from power fade issues — achieve consistent operation wether in EV or RE mode (i.e. there’s just not enough battery reserve down at 30% SOC to provide consistent operation).
—–

Also, ICE may come on to ICE 0 or ICE 1 during EV mode for heating/cooling issues.

____________

/ currently accepting wagers on my predictions, funding/confidence is limited to the equivalent of 4 virtual steak dinners.

(Quote)
statik Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 11:01 am

#10 Schmeltz said:

“The plan will take effect 30 days after Obama signs it into law and could stimulate up to 250,000 vehilce sales.”

I’m not sure, but I thought I had read at http://www.businessweek.com that they were forecasting 600,000 to 1,000,000 sales from this. Those numbers sounded pretty optimistic but 250,000 sounds too low for some reason. Would Congress even give this legislation the time of day if it were only 250 thousand sales?
===================

Probably has something to do with the budget for this being cut from 4 billion as was originally intended to 1 billion.

250,000 @ $4,000 = 1 billion (average rebate between 3,500 and 4,500)

(Quote)
statik Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 11:11 am

#12 RB said:

Moderation has done me in for the last time.
I am giving up. Best wishes everyone.
———————

No, don’t do it. At the very least think about me…don’t leave me here alone with Tag.

Seriously, don’t let it get to you…just take a breather. I think I probably have had literally 300 posts in moderation. More often than not there is just a trigger word and it is easy to get around. (They are other ways too…but I digress).

Sometimes, if you are start a ‘new’ topic or have ‘new’ news, it may be filtered (off a keyword) because it is going to be the subject of the ‘next thread’ …and Lyle is just trying to give the current thread some legs and/or pacing himself by putting some threads in the ‘can,’ ready to go.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 11:13 am

#50 (me) add,

“1. To protect the battery — achieve a high cycle life.”

should read:

1. To protect the battery — achieve a high cycle life. (i.e. having the battery “short cycling” around 80% SOC is significantly less stressful on the battery than having it short cycle around 30% SOC. thus greatly extending cycle life of the pack. Also while operating at 80% SOC any generator “glitch” can be much more easily diagnosed and rectified by the cars on board systems. At 30% SOC any glitch can quickly result in a critical situation, with battery death a much more threatening possibility).

(Quote)
jeffhre Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 11:14 am

This thing is so small so limited and so short it’s only symbolic – nothing to get your shorts bunched up into a knot – unless you’re really into symbols!

I think Adrian @ 28 is onto something!

MarkinWI @ 45 it’s a wee tiny stimulus measure with wee tiny added effects!

To sum it up, I have to agree with Guido @ 27, in summer it’s nice in the shade!

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 11:20 am

statik@52 said in part to RB:
…No, don’t do it. At the very least think about me…don’t leave me here alone with Tag.
***************************************************************************

Wow, and I was thinking “Don’t leave me here with statik”! (lol).
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!

(Quote)
Mike D Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 11:25 am

My 02 Malibu stickered at 20 city / 29 highway, which was on the old EPA cycle. Fueleconomy.gov says my “new” combined estimate is 21 MPG. (18 / 26)

It’s dumb to me how i wouldn’t get a credit even though i would be trading up for a car with at least 10 MPG combined better economy….

18 MPG is low, even for sedans. Seems like “Cash for clunker SUV’s” should be the name of the incentive.

(Quote)
MuddyRoverRob Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 11:37 am

Cap’n Jack, and others
I have posted a question about the Volt’s cost/price @124 on yesterdays thread where it is fairly on topic.

I’m curious how you see this.

(Quote)
Joe Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 11:46 am

Rashiid Amul Says: @8

“I would have liked to have seen a rule in this clunker law, that we must buy an American car. I don’t have a problem with foreign cars mind you. It’s just that I would have liked to see my tax money stay here.”

*********************************************************************

I feel the same way. You would never see that happen in reverse in Japan. I have this ugly feeling most people will buy foreign cars.

(Quote)
jeffhre Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 12:01 pm

carcus1 @ 51 & 53
/ currently accepting wagers on my predictions, funding/confidence is limited to the equivalent of 4 virtual steak dinners.
____________________________________

The SOC will never return to above 34% with the generator alone. My wild Guess, not to include regen.

I prefer bacon wrapped Filets.

Seriously, as you have seen, a set of partial recharges for a Li Ion cell will be the same as the equivalent full charge-in-one-setting as long as it isn’t going into the near 100% charge discharge damage zones. Doesn’t matter to the cell if it’s a partial or full charge as long as it’s not over or under charged.

I don’t understand what you mean by the battery glitch at 80% v 30% part though.

(Quote)
MarkH Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 12:06 pm

#45 MarkinWI

I agree with you that the bill should have been limited to domestics. The local jobs could be better supported and the fuel efficiently requirement could have been ramped up to something meaningful.

The problem is how do you do that when the suppliers and manufacturers are spread across both Canada and the U.S.? This would have been more effective if it had been a joint NAFTA measure limited to domestic production.

I believe that Canadians have spent even more bailout money than Americans, per taxpayer, to prop up GM and Chrysler. It wouldn’t hurt to have a few cars made in Mexico either. Maybe if they had a few more manufacturing jobs there, they wouldn’t be jumping the wall to work as illegal (untaxed) employees.

I’m looking at a Ford Fusion Hybrid for my next vehicle because it doesn’t look like the Volt is coming to Alberta anytime soon. I don’t know of any credits whatsoever that would help me buy it here.

(Quote)
Noel Park Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 12:11 pm

#12 RB, #52 statik & #55 Tagamet:

Yeah, I’ve quit about 20 times myself, LOL, but I just keep coming back. Kinda like Al Pacino in “The Godfather”, or Steve Van Zandt in “The Sopranos”, playing off Pacino:

“Just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in.”

Or Moon Unit Zappa in “Valley Girl”:

“Hurt me, hurt me, I’m sure, no way!”

Don’t leave me here alone with statik and Tagamet! Just kidding, them I can stand, hehehe.

It’s kinda like quitting smoking – or worse. gotta get my GM-Volt.com fix every morning.

LJGTVWOTR!! NPNS!

(Quote)
Thomas Gilling Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 12:21 pm

That’s a bit different then how they do it hear, we give in a old car that is over 10 years old (Vauxhall Nova) and you have to owned it for at least 12 months. Then get a new Shiny Car (Hyundai i20) but you get £2000 knocked off it! But you see company’s like MG Motor, don’t do very fuel efficient car’s and you can get some money knocked off one of them. The Yank “Cash for Clunkers” version is much better, then our “Scrappage Scheme”.
http://www.dont-dream-it.chevroleteurope.com/en_UK/

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 12:27 pm

Noel Parks re daily “fix” of gm-volt.com:
I’ve had days when it was impossible to check the site and they are TOUGH.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!***************NPNS

(Quote)
coffeetime Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 12:38 pm

Going off-topic for a moment, did anyone else read Bill Moore’s review of the Volt “mule” (evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1714) in EV World? Judging by his review and his response to a comment I left on their forum, he – unlike Lyle and several other reviews that I’ve read of “mule” test drives – feels like GM didn’t disable the ICE from kicking in. Mind you, it DIDN’T kick in during his testing, but he felt that it could have had diminished battery capacity warranted it. His article came out on June 17th, so I wonder if GM has since changed their stance?

Comments?

(Quote)
Herm Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 12:44 pm

#53 carcus1 Says:
1. To protect the battery — achieve a high cycle life. (i.e. having the battery “short cycling” around 80% SOC is significantly less stressful on the battery than having it short cycle around 30% SOC. thus greatly extending cycle life of the pack.
………………………………

Lipos are shipped at 50% charge for longevity in storage, I dont see where hovering around the 30% point is going to preserve the battery vs hovering around the 80% point.. I dont think generator glitches are anything to worry about, I would think the battery goes much below 30% and the genset dies then the whole car will stop.. to preserve that expensive battery.. at a certain point protection relays will disengage and you will have to go the dealer for repairs-diagnosis and a reset..

Lots of $$ in that battery.

(Quote)
statik Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 12:52 pm

#58 Joe said:

Rashiid Amul Says: @8 “I would have liked to have seen a rule in this clunker law, that we must buy an American car. I don’t have a problem with foreign cars mind you. It’s just that I would have liked to see my tax money stay here.”
——
I feel the same way. You would never see that happen in reverse in Japan. I have this ugly feeling most people will buy foreign cars.
==================================

Well, I think that is inevitable, the ‘big 1′ + the 2 gov’t motor companys only have a 48% share of the overall market…and that share has to be heading even lower in the next couple months figuring in Chrysler.

(GM 21.2%, Ford 15.1%, Chrysler 12.1%)

If you are thinking (and your right) that most of these ‘rebates’ go towards the purchase of a new car rather than a truck, it is much, much worse than that.

33.1% of all ‘cars’ are imported…while domestics only make 18.1% of the segment. So you are looking at least 2:1 ration imports to domestics on cars. (The opposite is almost true for trucks 30.2 domestic to 18.6 imports).

Logically, your going to see more ‘clunkers’ turned in to buy a car, just because your average price point on a car is much lower than a truck, and that represents a far greater value ie) turn in your ‘old and busted’ for $4,500 off a new $9,000 Hyundai, or $15,00 Civic, or $22,000 Prius….over say $4,500 off a $30,000 Envoy or $25,000 Silverado.

All numbers are May 09 statistics, source WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 12:53 pm

#48 Noel Park says,

Rashiid Amul:

Nice to see your name here. Where ya been? I’ve missed you recently.

Noel, I have been so busy at work and play.
Work laid off 107 people back in December. They cut my IT dept in half and then tripled the work load.

At play, I was coaching Little League until two nights ago when we lost the Championship game. The was a real bummer as we were in first place the entire season.

I read this blog almost everyday, but don’t comment much. I don’t read the comments much either. I do read whatever Lyle writes though. This car is still extremely important to me.

I hope you and yours are well, my friend.

(Quote)
ClarksonCote Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 1:00 pm

#50 carcus 1 said:
Car will remain in RE mode (even if shut off and restarted) until car has been plugged in again — topping off the charge and resetting it to EV mode.

Why will the car operate this way (in contrast to what GM has been saying)? Primarily for 2 reasons:

1. To protect the battery — achieve a high cycle life.
2. To protect from power fade issues — achieve consistent operation wether in EV or RE mode (i.e. there’s just not enough battery reserve down at 30% SOC to provide consistent operation).

I would have to disagree that the car would operate that way, especially on the premise of extending cycle life. I think that the highest cycle life is achieved if the battery is charged at home, not by the motor. By having only the wall outlet charge the battery, you’re guaranteed that for any trip, the battery really only gets cycled once.

If you took some longer trip and your ICE started charging the battery on you, you’re introducing more partial charge/discharge cycles. Leaving the battery at 30% SOC isn’t really horrible for cycle life if you just plug it in after your trip and leave the ICE to extending range.

As for power fade issues, my guess is there will be some minimal amount of battery conditioning during trips with the ICE (i.e. the battery might go tdown to 28%, get charged back to 32%, etc.) to handle this case.

However, having the ICE stay on when the car is “off” to charge the battery introduces safety issues, practicality issues (running out of gas, emissions), and in my opinion would actually decrease battery cycle life.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 1:07 pm

#50 carcus1 – I’ll take the bet. I’ll even up you to one real pizza!

The contra point would be that even at its most efficient speed the engine would not be as efficient as the grid, which GM firmly believes (and I have no reason to doubt) is six times more efficient. Even if the engine is more efficient at your “Idle 3″ it would still be using more gas than it would at “Idle 2″. At some point there may some some extra energy not needed and that would be sent to the battery pack, but the economics would suggest using that more or less immediately so the grid charge would be maximized.

Posawatz’s did an interview — I can’t remember with whom but the interviewer had a Scottish accent (can anyone help?) — and I was quite impressed at how adamant and focused he was on this issue.

This is a secondary point, but I don’t see that having the gen set charge the battery offers more protection for the pack. I’d think it would be the opposite. If you essentially force charging from the grid then the realistic maximum number of cycles you’d see in a day would be two — say Rashiid’s 100 mile commute with one charge at home and one at work. Under the same scenario, if you allow the gen set to charge, then you’d have four (or three depending on how you want to design it) charge/discharge cycles per day.

Side Question: Why do you think the gen set will come on in maximum power mode? Just curious.

(Quote)
Nelson Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 1:14 pm

The devil is in the details.
The clunker has to be a drivable, 1984 or older vehicle and the same owner must have insured it for a least a year.

NPNS!

(Quote)
CS Guy Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 1:16 pm

Won’t the initial allotment of Volts be purchased by the “green elites” anyway? A few may go to regular citizens with pockets full of cash (a rarity these days) but the majority will go to the well heeled environmentally conscious anyway.

I sincerely hope that these subsidies will be extended until such time as the Volt can get into the hands of the middle class in sufficient numbers as to make it look that all these things are not just another handout to the well-off.

(Quote)
MarkinWI Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 1:17 pm

Mark H @ #60 – You’re right, on many levels. I’ll find some solace in Mr. Gilling’s post @ #62: looks like the U.S. isn’t the only one that didn’t restrict the credit to domestics. Still, I wonder if the U.K. borrowed the money used to fund the credits or not. Borrowing money from (mostly) foreign sources when a large percentage is going to flow overseas instead of stimulating our economy seems a bit like borrowing money from my bank to donate to the homeless guy downtown, and then finding out that he was just my banker out on his lunch break.

Statik @ #66 – If “33.1% of all ‘cars’ are imported…while domestics only make 18.1% of the segment,” then where on earth do the rest of them come from?

(Quote)
Jaxon Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 1:18 pm

I don’t qualify because my car already gets good gas mileage. My dad swears by the car buying process here: http://excarsalesman.typepad.com/. It is kind of similar.

I haven’t tried it yet, but I might because it looks good.

I have a feeling dealers are going to automatically increase prices because of the increased demand (artificial) for lower MPG cars. So the thousands of savings from this bill for consumers is not entirely accurate. The demand will increase prices and you’ll get a voucher from increased prices. I’m certain some markets you’ll come out even as if they never offered this voucher. It is poorly written legislation.

(Quote)
statik Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 1:35 pm

#70 Nelson said:

The devil is in the details.
The clunker has to be a drivable, 1984 or older vehicle and the same owner must have insured it for a least a year.

NPNS!
=========================
No, thats not right…but that would make more sense.

It is 1984 or newer. So theoretically you ‘could’ turn in your 2008 Audi R8 and get the big $4,500 check.

The ‘one year insured’ is simply to keep the cheats away from buying old cars/going to scrap yards for free money (…they did learn some things from the scandal in Germany)

(Quote)
statik Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 1:48 pm

#72 MarkinWI said:

Statik @ #66 – If “33.1% of all ‘cars’ are imported…while domestics only make 18.1% of the segment, (The opposite is almost true for trucks 30.2 domestic to 18.6 imports).” then where on earth do the rest of them come from?
======================

/trucks

I should have said 33.1% of all vehicles are ‘imported’ cars…(I did get it right on the wording for domestics, lol) My bad on the wording. Here is the breakdown:

Imported Cars 33.1
Domestic Cars 18.1
Domestic Trucks 30.2
Imported Trucks 18.6
—————————-
100%

Even more technically, foreign automakers do build domestically and those could be consider ‘domestics’ as well (and quite a bit actually…just makes sense for a lot of models that are USD sensitive and/or tight on margins)…but I think Joe meant using the rebate for only domestic auto manufacturers themselves, and not where the specific vehicles was built.

ie) Toyota sold 96,650 cars in May…of that 56,729 were build in North America (or 59%)

(Quote)
RVD Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 1:52 pm

Too bad I can not get a clunker from junk yard el cheapo, trade it in and finally buy Prius for $17k. Too bad …

(Quote)
k-dawgski Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 2:19 pm

Privet Comrades!
i’m in St. Petersburg Russia, so have not been keeping up on the posts. (surprisingly lots of Chevy’s & Fords on the roads here).

I like Cash for Clunkers
1. Reduces foreign oil
2. Reduces smog/pollution
3. Stimulates economy
4. Helps keep people empoyed
5. Puts people in safer cars
theres more.. but im off to the bar for some pivo.
(its 10:20pm here, but still very bright outside)

(Quote)
blakem Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 2:33 pm

Why the 1984 and newer restriction? I know there aren’t many older cars that this still being used regularly, but wouldn’t it make sense to try and get rid of the last few nearly worthless older cars? Does this mean that my parents can’t trade in the rusty 1972 station wagon w/o a catalytic converter that they let each kid take to college until he/she could buy a car of their own?

(Quote)
Dan Petit Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 2:39 pm

Since there is that terrific photo above of our Volt,
I am changing the subject to focus on what that picture motivated me to do today.

I went over to Henna Chevrolet today to check out the colors and everything about the Malibu, which is pretty much all the visual and sensory stuff you would get with your Volt.

Also, I wanted to see all the colors, presumably that they would be the ones that might still be available on Voltec vehicles. Golden Pewter Metallic (a light silver-green) is what I liked best.

I mentioned to the salesman that I would like to see if there was a waiting list that I could also get on if Henna Chevrolet had one or would start one.

He mentioned that it was too soon to do that, but he gave me his card so I could call him periodically.

Lots of efforts are being made by lots of people to try to help us get into Voltec vehicles. If I can’t afford one in the first year or two, I will continue to work hard to make it happen in year three, and be patient about it.

Getting it all going is what matters here. It just isn’t about “whose taxes” paid ought to go where ever, because that isn’t “my” money anymore. For the extremely high standards of living we have, it seems just plain wrong when unrelated frustrations are being displaced and then dumped onto this topic which is unnecessary.

As Americans, we still have it the VERY VERY best by far as compared to anywhere else on the planet is concerned. I just don’t buy it that I or anyone else ought to be at all frustrated or impatient about anything whatsoever.

Go out and do something different. Go to your Chevy store and get into a Malibu and see how it feels. Then, have a long term plan of 3 years like I do, working down other bills and doing without stuff.

The Volt is worth working this hard for.

Dan.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 3:04 pm

Jeffhre @ 59,

“Doesn’t matter to the cell if it’s a partial or full charge as long as it’s not over or under charged.
I don’t understand what you mean by the battery glitch at 80% v 30% part though.”
. . . . . . . . .
I’m thinking that all shallow charges/ cycles are not created equal. An 80% to 70% back to 80% doesn’t count nearly as much as a 30% to 20% back to 30% cycle.

By glitch, I mean that if you’re in ER mode traveling down the highway at 70 mph (high current draw), then there may be times when the GCU isn’t sure what state of charge the battery is at/ or how well it’s operating. The generator may have to come off line in order to analyze. At 30% you have a much shorter period of time to for the system to figure this all out before the car has to be shut down in order to save the battery. At 80% you can tool along for a while and/or the generator can ease back in to the system.
________________________

Clarksoncote @ 68,

“However, having the ICE stay on when the car is “off” to charge the battery introduces safety issues, practicality issues (running out of gas, emissions), and in my opinion would actually decrease battery cycle life.”
. . . . . . . . .

What I meant was, say you’re in ER mode that does sustaining at the 80% SOC and you shut the car off so you can go into 7-11 for a slurpee. When you come back out and start the car up it will return to ER mode (not EV mode).
_____________________

DonC @ 69,

No doubt running the ICE is not as efficient as pulling off the grid. I’m predicting GM will have to sacrifice some grid efficiency for ICE operation in order to protect the battery/ keep the car from having a split personality. It’s going to need more battery reserve to back up the ICE than what would be available down at 30% SOC.

I think if you run say a week’s worth of typical daily or not so typical daily scenarios out you’ll see that running a ERBNF (Extended Range Battery Near Full) doesn’t result in any more cycles than ERBNE (Extended Range Battery Near Empty). The battery is going to get recharged to full at one point or another, either from the ICE or from the grid.
. . . . . . . . .
“Side Question: Why do you think the gen set will come on in maximum power mode? Just curious.”

That post from the “I can’t tell you who I am Joe” last week was one of those where I read it and just went “ahaaa, now that would all make sense”. It sounded to me like a much more realistic engineering solution than what we’ve been told so far. So much so that I’m willing to bet 4 virtual steaks and maybe even a pizza on it.

A few months ago Dave G. and I had that looooonnnngggg shoot out on wether the volt was going to get 50 mpg and wether the battery reserve at 30% SOC would be enough. Back of envelope calculations convinced me that the answer would be no in both cases. But, if you let the volt run in ERBNF mode than I think the volt’s performance would be consistent and acceptable, and the mpg might well be able to get to 50 mpg as long as you can accept deeper dips into the battery and then let the genset slowly replace the energy into the battery at ICE 3.

(Quote)
statik Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 3:09 pm

#77 ‘k-dawgski’ said:

Privet Comrades!
i’m in St. Petersburg Russia, so have not been keeping up on the posts. (surprisingly lots of Chevy’s & Fords on the roads here).

I like Cash for Clunkers
1. Reduces foreign oil
2. Reduces smog/pollution
3. Stimulates economy
4. Helps keep people empoyed
5. Puts people in safer cars
theres more.. but im off to the bar for some pivo.
(its 10:20pm here, but still very bright outside)
====================

I’m liking the handle…very clever. Are you going to go to Moscow as well? Or is this just a one-stop, business trip?

You should hit up the State Historical Museum if your by Red Square if you are. Nothing like soaking up a little of the “outstanding events of the glorious history of the Russian State” (don’t go on Tuesdays though…everything is closed, lol)

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 3:12 pm

#80 (me) add,

last sentence should say ICE 2, not ICE 3.

(Quote)
Tom Harwick Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 3:26 pm

#32

Adrian#30 This nation did quite well in the past protecting it’s industrial base and citizens from the nebulous goings on of the cheep labor pool of other countries. The nation, US, flourished! Adam Smith, recall the dead white guy? had words for any nation that disregarded it’s home base. Cheap now but hidden costs later.

Protectionist Regards!——Higgins

You are mistaken. Adam Smith supported free trade.

(Quote)
Tom Harwick Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 3:30 pm

These govt handouts are always unfair. Tax the many to give free money to the few.

I traded a Lincloln Town Car for a Hyundai Accent. But no cash for me, because I did it last fall. Still get to pay the taxes to support the program.

(Quote)
Mark Bartosik Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 3:36 pm

RE #44 Schmeltz

That’s probably the best short analysis I’ve read about this bill.

May take:

If they limit to US made cars there’s a WTO problem.
If they limit to maybe 10 or 15 mpg improvement domestic firms will have smaller slice of pie and one they cannot make much money on either.
If they call it what it is (more bail out) they cannot hide behind green wash.
If they give money directly to manufacturers they cannot lever money from the consumer.

So they don’t have support of fiscal conservatives,and they don’t have support of greens, but they do have support of auto business, and maybe some of the 250,000 who get to claim the credit.

It’s hardly surprising that this bill is about as popular as a proxy server is with the Iranian govt.

(Quote)
sparks Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 3:59 pm

Wish we did have a cash-for-gassers program. I’d be rich.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 4:19 pm

EV world video, GM back in the battery biz

- Volt will (likely) draw power to maintain temperature of the pack while parked.
- Temperature of the pack will be maintained between 10C and 35C (50F and 95F).
- About 300 cells
- Every cell is cooled and heated (liquid)
http://evworld.com/EVWORLD_TV.CFM?storyid=1716

/more speculation: even in EV mode, I think the the genset could come on to ice0 or ice1 in order to cool/heat the pack.

(Quote)
MuddyRoverRob Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 4:33 pm

#87 carcus1
Thanks, that’s an excellent find!

/Have a great weekend all

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 4:40 pm

#87 (me) add, (and then I’m going to quit wasting time)

At about 7:33 in the video, Bill Wallace describes the maintaing battery temperature problem as “very difficult to predict what the customer wants”. Kind of an odd thing to say, as protecting the battery certainly wouldn’t be a customer option.

I’m guessing this means “we’re still deciding how much to let the ICE help out in EV operation”. I would think that it’s better from the engineering side to have the genset working (at a low power setting) in order to manage the temperatures, but this may be problematic for EV purists who want to keep the petroleum use to an absolute minimum.

/ If the battery power is used for cooling, then, of course the batteries will heat up somewhat in the process. A bit of a self defeating situation.

(Quote)
statik Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 4:56 pm

#89 carcus1 said:

At about 7:33 in the video, Bill Wallace describes the maintaing battery temperature problem as “very difficult to predict what the customer wants”. Kind of an odd thing to say, as protecting the battery certainly wouldn’t be a customer option.

I’m guessing this means “we’re still deciding how much to let the ICE help out in EV operation”. I would think that it’s better from the engineering side to have the genset working (at a low power setting) in order to manage the temperatures, but this may be problematic for EV purists who want to keep the petroleum use to an absolute minimum.
====================

I can’t believe they would do that. (I mean…I believe they could, but it would really surprise me).

If indeed the ICE is running at all when operting in ‘EV’ mode, then that is total game over for me (and I suspect a pantload of other people)…I can rationalize the ‘extended range’ part as it stands now in the Volt, because I have the option to start using gas or not…thats on me.

To have the ICE running in ‘EV mode’ is about as far away from the spirit of the thing as you can get, and it is just a hybrid then (albeit a fancy one)…nothing wrong with hybrids, but I pay $20K for those, not $40K.

Sidenote: I don’t really have a problem with the ICE starting up for a minute or two if it is sub-zero (again thats on me to make sure it is parked in a reasonable clilmate)

(Again, I can’t believe GM would let the ICE operate at all inside of the AER)

(Quote)
BobS Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 5:05 pm

Is this part of the Farm Bill? Cash for Hogs?

(Quote)
DaveP Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 5:13 pm

Aww, you all underestimate your US government. This is a clever secret plan to make money because we’re broke. Everybody knows the parts of a car are worth more than the car itself. So, they buy these old cars cheap and make a fortune selling the parts to owners of the other clunkers. That’s why the program has to only last a few months and not cover many cars.
So, maybe they’ll make a million bucks or so. All they have to do is come up with another 10 thousand clever secret plans like this and we’ll be in good shape again.

(I hope I don’t need to say that I’m totally kidding around here, but it could still be true, okay?. Just like New Coke was a clever secret plan to substitute corn syrup for sugar in Coke and get away with it, not just an accidental byproduct of serious marketing blunder, of course.

Also none of my cars qualify. And this plan is much more generous than the $500 CA is always trying to give me to scrap my old 87 corolla that gets 29mpg (in town) because it obviously must be producing too much smog (even though it passes it’s smog tests and produces much less C02 than many newer cars).

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 5:20 pm

Statik @ 90

These two things –

- Volt will (likely) draw power to maintain temperature of the pack while parked.
- Temperature of the pack will be maintained between 10C and 35C (50F and 95F).

– open up a myriad of complications/engineering challenges. What if you drive 40 miles to the airport and then want to leave your volt (unplugged) for a 2 week trip, say you’re leaving out of Brownsville TX in the summertime, or Winnipeg in the winter? Would it even be safe for the Volt’s ICE to come on unattended?

I don’t mind that the ICE would come on in EV mode, in fact, I kind of like the idea from a “techy” perspective. But I certainly understand your take on this and would guess many others would think the same.

To me, what really matters at the end of the year (not at the end of the day) is how much gas did you purchase, and does your car fit into your budget?

(Quote)
JEC Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 5:38 pm

carcus1
Interesting video.

We need someone in thermodynamics to chime in. He keeps mentioning that they have implemented a “very high efficiency insulation”. This would allow keeping the battery at its “happy” temperature, that will maximize its life. If the battery is wrapped in a highly efficient insulative blanket, then the energy should be small to maintain battery temperature.

My guess is that they believe they can keep the battery warm (winter) and cool (summer), by utilizing only a small amount of energy. If the pack is insulated well, then it really does not take a significant amount of energy to keep it at its optimum temperature (whilst the car is sitting). But, if you leave your Volt sitting around w/o a plug, how much energy would it expend in, say a 24 hour period at extreme temps? I would believe the battery could likely maintain for extended periods (1week+) if it started with near full charge. When plugged in, I see no real issue, accept your going to draw power from the grid, to keep your battery comfy. When running in EV mode, I think it unlikely the gen set comes on line, until you reach your 30% SOC limit.

I am guessing, that GM will need to put some disclaimer about letting the Volt stew, w/o being run or plugged in, that the batteries will eventually reach discharge, and cannot maintain proper thermal temperature. I guess you just need to treat your Volt nicely, and if your dropping $40K cool, then you should be nice to your prize.

(Quote)
Herm Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 5:56 pm

#87 carcus1 Says:

- Volt will (likely) draw power to maintain temperature of the pack while parked.
- Temperature of the pack will be maintained between 10C and 35C (50F and 95F).
- About 300 cells
- Every cell is cooled and heated (liquid)
……………………………………………………….

if you park for a long time in an environment outside that temperature range then the temperature conditioning system will have to spend power. This could be trouble if you leave it parked for a long time.. obviously the genset cant come on since the car does not know if its parked at your home’s garage or on an outside parking lot. At some point the computer will give up and stop trying to control the temperature, the batteries can stand to be outside the temp range for a long time (years?) but it will cut down its life.

No idea how long you can leave the car parked without plugging it in, it would depend on how good the insulation is and the temperature differential.. the video mentioned the insulation was very good and expensive.

(Quote)
JEC Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 6:48 pm

Lyle,

I think you should update your FAQ:
Q: What is the driving range of the Chevy Volt?
A: The car is being designed to drive at least 40 miles on pure electricity stored in the battery from overnight home charging. After that the gas engine will kick in and allow the car to be driven up to 400 miles on a full tank (6-7 gallons) of gas.

Change wording from “at least 40 miles”, to “up to 40 miles”.

Even the “up to…”, in my opinion, is likely stretching it. Maybe if you live on top of pikes peak, the temperature outside is 72.5 F, wind is at your back, you weigh in at less than 150 lbs, you are carrying no passengers or extra cargo, all stop lights are timed to your needs, it is not raining, the road is in excellent condition, your low rolling resistant tires have less than 10,000 miles, you keep the windows up, do not run a/c, do not run heater, you maximized every opportunity to recapture regenerative energy, and I think, you should easily reach your 40 mile range!

(Quote)
Koz Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 7:24 pm

Statik #90

Guaranteed ICE runnning in EV mode is only with regrads to heating the battery in extreme cold. Of the many, many discourses from GM on this subject and simple logic dictates the ICE use in EV mode with regards to heating is only for extreme cold battery temps for short period of time.

(Quote)
Michael C. Robinson Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 8:16 pm

No thanks. I see how paying people to trade in inefficient
vehicles for more efficient is good for the environment, but
it’s not good for the economy. It is tax money that is paying
for better vehicles where they should make economic sense
and they should pencil out. PHEV’s don’t make any sense
at all. The batteries are expensive, heavy, underperformers.
Chu needs to restore the hydrogen research budget and put
the country back on a path that makes sense. There is no
green revolution without hydrogen fuel cell cars. None.

http://web.robinson-west.com/michael/hydrogen/hydrogen.php

or

http://xerxes.robinson-west.com/michael/hydrogen/hydrogen.php

(Quote)
coffeetime Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 8:16 pm

#90 statik

I wonder if a solar roof (ala the new Prius) could generate enough power to maintain the battery pack temps?

(Quote)
Dan Petit Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 8:28 pm

There might be several ways for the Volt to deal with long term storage.
Down here in the Texas heat, the overnight lows are around 80 degrees in the Summer, and can reach 100 during the day. Thermal insulation would ensure that there would not be any problem at all here.

But up in Alaska, many parking lots have plugs for ICE cooling system block heaters anyway.

The cubic area within the battery to be heated is really small.
Maintaining minimum temps for a sort of “hibernation” mode, where the pack would not be called upon to work when the vehicle is first started from that cold long-term parking lot might be the way to go.

There used to be warning stickers on some vehicle radiator cooling fan shrouds that would warn of “Electric cooling fans may come on at any time”.
There might be the same expectation of passers-by to expect a Volt ICE to come on by itself when no-one is around, at an industry-standard time of (extremely cold) day, say, noontime every fourth day, in order to reheat the pack, and recharge the pack due to extremely-frigid long term parking.

This might be best accomplished with parking areas located closer to where parking fee attendants are working, so that they could supervise an area of Volts keeping themselves warm if that would be necessary. That would be a really cool and amusing sight.

On the topic of Volt down payments that someone indirectly brought up, if you drive a lot, there is likely a monthly economic savings of between $175 to $275 (at 40 miles plus per day) and depending on your current gas consumption, in addition to
the scheduled maintenance items eliminated.

That, annualized out to a 5 year note, ought to equate to a (monthly payment offset equivalent to a) 5 year note reduction toward a principal amount of between about $7,000 to about $12,000.

Researching further to see if there are rebates/incentives that can be assignable to the dealer during the transaction, and,

If you have a paid-off vehicle that you can line up a buyer for at the time of Volt purchase, using an “In and Out” if it would help save a little on the sales tax, with that as a down payment, say, $4,000, or $8,000, then:

You might end up with an effective difference (net of gas and maintenance savings above), to pay monthly net cost for the Volt between $410.00 to $620.00, your gas and maintenance budgets directed to the payment effectively cutting the net monthly costs to that approximate range.

Also, holding values as electric vehicles tend to do very well, these payments might be considered as a partial equity savings account.

Having a vehicle that holds its value so well takes the greatest portion of the initial stress of affordability out of the transaction, because you generally will not have the “upside down at signing” scenario happening.

This is what was the overwhelming factor for me buying the Honda (my first new car 4 years ago). This purchase was initially part of a plan to buy another new Honda for a much lower monthly payment.
(This plan could also work for you to get another new Volt after 3 years if your APR interest rate was low enough on the first Volt).

However, as more and more astonishing news came out about both battery technologies advancing in addition to GM’s decision to go forward with EREV Voltec Technologies, it became more and more clear that the equity I had been building in the Honda would be more appropriately directed to getting a Volt. The Honda pays off in October of 2010, just in time if I am lucky enough to have the opportunity to purchase.

Even if you begin now to do things to scrape together all value sources to accumulate $4,000, DO IT. You can’t go wrong by trying to do everything you can starting right now. If you have to wait an extra year, then the price comes down at the point your “down” comes up to meet it.

I hope this helps you to make your Volt plan.

(Volt plan) Dan.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 9:58 pm

I think I’m through posting for a while. I’ve pretty much shot my wad on volt predictions, and don’t have a whole lot of anything different or new to add to the conversation. Without that, I resort to bitchin’ about government involvement and inkompotents ( everybody can tune in to AM radio if they want to listen to that).

I can see that I didn’t win any converts to my ERBNF theory (@50), and, conversely, two takers on the steak dinner bet and several doubters. Even though it might mean a few more gallons gas used, I hope that this is the way the volt operates because it should mean improved performance and better battery protection — 2 big advantages over a BEV (along with alleaving range anxiety, of course).

Looking forward to the day when (if) GM releases some real world RE data and we can find out wether I’m eating steak or crow.

If I’m right: Thanks to anonymous joe for the tip.
If I’m wrong: F.U. anonymous joe, I bought into your B.S. and now I look like an idiot.

/off to the grocer to stock up on A-1, (and beer). . . .
Ok. really just going out for a beer.

(Quote)
nataraj Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 10:01 pm

Hmmm … my car gives “22.7″.

I’m sure the dealer will conviniently have a low mileage car. I first sell my current car (or in my case may be give it to a student for free) – then by the old clunker that gives 15 mpg for 5K. That will be my trade in for Volt for I get 5K from dealer and 4.5K from Govt.

Convenietly the dealer can keep using that old car this way …..

(Quote)
Zach Says:
June 19th, 2009 at 11:31 pm

Cool, but I don’t think I know anyone that has a clunker that has money to buy a new car…

(Quote)
NZDavid Says:
June 20th, 2009 at 1:55 am

It seems to me that the program is just designed to move cars off the lot and reducew current inventory.

Good in the short term, but bad for sales two to three years from now.

Lyle, get some detailed info on the generator for us. Leave the general stuff for others.
Given CJS’s statement that the battery can charge at up to 18kW (1C) without harm I would see the generator running at 15kW, 30kW and 53kW, or possibly 5kW, 20kW, 40kW and 53kW.

In other news we have just had a huge jump in petrol prices and is now selling for $6.39 per gallon. There are quite a few taxes in petrol, most of which are on a percentage basis. Ouchy!

I would love to do some winter testing on an IV’er

/sigh.

LJGTVWOTR

(Quote)
koz Says:
June 20th, 2009 at 3:19 am

Nataraj #102 & others

Unless congress changed their mind, the dealers can’t double dip. The dealer gives the credit but must scrap the “clunker” to get redemtion from the gov.

Basically the trade-ins have to be worth less than the credit (plus scrap value) for it to make sense.

Comprehened or not, everyone benefits from the raising of the total fleet mpg average and cleaner burning newer cars. The problem is the required mileage increases from “clunker” to new vehicle isn’t enough and >1984 clunkers means the worst polluting vehicles are excluded. The program should have been for a %25&up increase from clunker to new car combined mpg with credit amount indexed to mpg % differential and no manufactured date restriction. It was well intentioned but should have been executed better. Since most people will not see the direct benefit of the credit, to society benefits on less pollution and lowered gas demand should have been greater. This would have been a more effective use of taxpayer $.

(Quote)
koz Says:
June 20th, 2009 at 3:28 am

Once only editing prevented me from adding this to my #105 comment:

You must have carried insurance on the clunker for the preceding full year. Sure, there will be scammers scamming, as with everything.

(Quote)
koz Says:
June 20th, 2009 at 3:48 am

Carcus #1

Actually, I originally thought maximizing throughput efficiency (generator efficiency combined with direct path vs through battery efficiencies) would be GM’s design goal. GM has stated with strong conviction that they want the Volt’s operation is to be as similar as possible to conventional vehicle’s operation and batteries designed to last min 10yr. Maximizing throughput would require the user to dictate when to shut down the generator so that the vehicle arrives at the next charge point as close as possible to %30 SOC. With multiple optimized generator outputs and “feathering” between them, GM probably realized they could get very similar efficiencies this way while extending battery life and eliminating the need for user interaction.

(Quote)
JEC Says:
June 20th, 2009 at 7:14 am

104 NZDavid

“In other news we have just had a huge jump in petrol prices and is now selling for $6.39 per gallon. There are quite a few taxes in petrol, most of which are on a percentage basis. Ouchy!”
===================================================
Holy cow, so what exactly does NZ apply all that tax revenue too? Feeding the poor, better health care, solving crimes against humanity? Or, like our govt, and give out subsidies to a select few?

(Quote)
JEC Says:
June 20th, 2009 at 8:07 am

Since this thread has apparently been beaten to death, how about a poll?

How much would you be willing to pay for a 10 year old Volt?

Lots of issues come to mind for me. Such as, how much life is left in the battery, how much will a new battery cost in 10 years, will batteries in 10 years be significantly cheaper, smaller, efficient, how much would the “new” Volt cost.

This is very different then predicting the value of your typical ICE vehicle, which we have 100+ years of supporting data.

(Quote)
koz Says:
June 20th, 2009 at 8:26 am

JEC #109

“This is very different then predicting the value of your typical ICE vehicle, which we have 100+ years of supporting data.”

Really? It’s important to always keep sight of the past but equally as important not to be blinded by it.

In one guessing at the future price of a Volt, you must consider the future availability and price of gas. What is the likelihood of replacement batteries plus electricity costing less or more than the following 150,000 miles worth of gas in an ICE or hybrid equavalent?

(Quote)
Jake Sysk Says:
June 20th, 2009 at 9:13 am

Hmm. Must be the registered owner for one year before the bill is signed. How many who qualify can afford a new car payment? It will be easier trade if the clunker is in need of repairs or on its last leg. The one bright spot in this industry has been auto parts stores, Garage men and paint and body shops. Crushed clunkers need no services. Take away the highest demand and the spot will be dimmed, for some the light will go out. As it has for the light aircraft industry which was trashed by our government and the media because of GM Execs trip to Washington in a company plane. Cessna trying to pull out of a tail spin Best shot? exports.
Thousands of junk men make a meager living collecting and selling scrap metal.
Enter the clunker to be crushed. The junk mans market dies before the first car is crushed. Prices will plummet in anticipation of a tremendous over supply.
Oldaxe

(Quote)
Lwesson Says:
June 20th, 2009 at 9:15 am

TomHarwick#83 The overall Smith and Wealth of nations, well yes on international free trade but the devil is in the details. Smith had thoughts of what the gov. had obligations to do on protecting national interests. The invisible hand was there too for naughty players. The Scot that he was, he never saw the coming day that 3rd world players could take and disassemble a nation’s ability to manufacture because of stupendously ridiculous low wages… .

Higgins off to work to PAY for other people’s cars, houses, welfare, illegal aliens… . Come Boys! Zeus, Apollo Come! They seem so sad!

(Quote)
NZDavid Says:
June 20th, 2009 at 10:05 am

108 JEC

104 NZDavid

“In other news we have just had a huge jump in petrol prices and is now selling for $6.39 per gallon. There are quite a few taxes in petrol, most of which are on a percentage basis. Ouchy!”
===================================================
Holy cow, so what exactly does NZ apply all that tax revenue too? Feeding the poor, better health care, solving crimes against humanity? Or, like our govt, and give out subsidies to a select few?

Some goes to maintaining/building the roads, some goes to subsidize public transport. 12.5% goes to balance the budget. Some goes to Rail, Ferries, walking tracks and, bike lanes. That’s pretty much it.

(Quote)
OldAxe Says:
June 20th, 2009 at 10:05 am

Big down payments make mediocre credit apps look good. Buyers who fail the credit test at $4,500.00? The spill over from the imports will then turn to one of the once big three and $3,500.00 Many marginal buyers will be accepted out of desperation. I’ll bet you know what happens next.

(Quote)
statik Says:
June 20th, 2009 at 12:13 pm

#92 carcus1 said:

Statik @ 90

These two things –

- Volt will (likely) draw power to maintain temperature of the pack while parked.
- Temperature of the pack will be maintained between 10C and 35C (50F and 95F).

– open up a myriad of complications/engineering challenges. What if you drive 40 miles to the airport and then want to leave your volt (unplugged) for a 2 week trip, say you’re leaving out of Brownsville TX in the summertime, or Winnipeg in the winter? Would it even be safe for the Volt’s ICE to come on unattended?

I don’t mind that the ICE would come on in EV mode, in fact, I kind of like the idea from a “techy” perspective. But I certainly understand your take on this and would guess many others would think the same.

To me, what really matters at the end of the year (not at the end of the day) is how much gas did you purchase, and does your car fit into your budget?
=============================
I really don’t have a issue with the ICE if it is a maintenance thing due to my neglect…like the scenario you mentioned at all. (I’d still rather have no ICE…but thats just me)

I still really don’t believe the ‘flipping’ on of the ICE while the car is already operating in EV mode is actually going to happen (or is on the table)…but it is certainly my non-starter. Sadly for me, if GM was to say that, the Volt is instantly dead to me.

I do see why we differ on our opinion on whether or not this is acceptable. You said, “what really matters at the end of the year (not at the end of the day) is how much gas did you purchase, and does your car fit into your budget?” Which both fair and reasonable.

For me, my priorities here are just different, mine are ‘eco-freak’ rather than economical. What matters to me is not using any gas, not polluting at all, making a statement that says I will pay/support/drive vehicles that can drive in pure EV mode.

I realize everyone can’t make that choice, especially in these early, formative years of the electric vehicles when the premium is high…and I don’t have any problem with that.

(Quote)
statik Says:
June 20th, 2009 at 12:23 pm

#97 koz said:

Statik #90

Guaranteed ICE runnning in EV mode is only with regrads to heating the battery in extreme cold. Of the many, many discourses from GM on this subject and simple logic dictates the ICE use in EV mode with regards to heating is only for extreme cold battery temps for short period of time.
======================

I agree with you Koz. I fully understand they have never said this would happen, and they have explained their intentions of the conditions where the ICE may turn on very clearly.

Thats why I prefaced my statement by saying, “I can’t believe they would do that. (I mean…I believe they could, but it would really surprise me). ”

Carcus1 just brought a thought about “how much to let the ICE help out in EV operation,” and maybe they would have “the genset working (at a low power setting) in order to manage the temperatures”…which kind of sounded like he was saying that could happen while the car was in operation (if temperatures of the pack dictated it).

…I was just getting way out in front of it, lol. I really don’t see the Volt’s ICE doing anything but prepping (and possibly maintaining) the battery in extreme conditions

(Quote)
Koz Says:
June 20th, 2009 at 2:09 pm

Statik #116

My bad. I should have been clearer here. I was backing you up with your comments dispelling Cascus1’s idea.

I do hope your a little wrong about the generator use in ER mode, though. You commented in some detail on this a few posts ago, referecing one of Andrew Farah’s comments. I posted a reply with some conflicting statements and info from Farah and GM. While it is a subtle difference, I expect they will be a little more agressive with the use of the battery in ER mode to get better mpg but still maintain the SOC in the 10% band they have stated. This will give them the ability to be similar in mileage and perhaps outperform the Prius in some situations under RE. Using the generator as you mention will leave them about 10-13% below the Prius’ mpg (extra loss of Mech>Elec>Elec>Mech vs Mech>Mech of Prius).

(Quote)
Lwesson Says:
June 22nd, 2009 at 4:18 pm

Tom, I followed up at #112 but per Smith, while yes Smith was the icon of free trade… he was also of a mind set that saw the competition within the confines of, say, France vs England basically like peoples and cultures… . Enter third world amazingly bizarre cheap labor. Smith would NOT be in favor of disassembling a manufacturing base from a country, destroying jobs, making citizens subjects of third world living conditions and wages just because there was some place that had a bazillion people that worked in horrid conditions for little. This whole “free trade” mantra is getting a more open eyed review by economists.

Regards!—-Higgins

(Quote)
Steve Says:
June 24th, 2009 at 10:25 am

I disagree with the idea of spending a billion dollars of taxpayer money to get rid of cars that will go away on their own by simple attrition. There has to be smarter energy and environmentally related ways to spend that money.

(Quote)
Bryan Says:
June 26th, 2009 at 1:05 am

When can I pruchase a new volt in Canada?

I am trying to limp myold cavalier along until it becomes availablle?

(Quote)

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud? November 20, 2009
This is how open minded liberals operate. "And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best... […]
BigCityCat
Is the Volt Engine Direct Injected? November 20, 2009
I recently read that the Cruze's engine will be DI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Cruze#Chevrolet_Cruze Obviously the Cruze's engine will... […]
omnimoeish
First Reports of the Chevy Volt's Charge-Sustaining (Generator) Mode Operation November 20, 2009
The first two journalists' reports of what it's like to drive the Chevy Volt while in generator mode operation have been published. 1) New York... […]
admin
Florida giving $5000 rebate to convert Prius to plug-in November 20, 2009
- Probably Hymotion - $10,400 standard price - $5000 state rebate - $1000 additional federal incentives - $4,400 final cost. Hurry because their... […]
Texas
New York Times CSM story November 20, 2009
Link to the New York Times story of November 19, 2009 about a test ride of the Volt in charge sustaining... […]
srschrier
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

Cash For Clunkers Bill Passes Congress but Volt Could Arrive Too Late

120 Responses to “Cash For Clunkers Bill Passes Congress but Volt Could Arrive Too Late”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts