EPA numbers are out for the Volt.

[Red coupe]

So it is competing with the Prius.

Kind of...
Not really though since the Prius cannot be used as a plug in hybrid. Most realistically it is competing with every car out there. Real people don't car shop by deciding what niche they fit into then looking at the list of vehicles that fit it... They just look at vehicles they have heard of, that look decent and are in their price range.

Your entire accusation that a volt cannot be compared to a Toyota avalon is ridiculous as they can very easily represent the two ends of a persons budget, and both provide a similar experience inside.

Just seen the pictures. We should wait until Jesda reviews one

Having never even seen the car in person you should probably shut the f*** up when it comes to telling the guy who has seen them several times what the interior is like.

[Jesda]

I'm on the Volt forum and I wish they'd bring the car to St Louis. The national tour and test drive made it as close as Chicago. I considered going, but that seemed like quite a drive to go play in a car that probably drives like a Malibu. Then again, there's italian beef sandwiches. *drool*

GM seems to be pushing this car in regions where people have largely abandoned GM, specifically California. Its a tremendous opportunity to reclaim a huge tech-savvy market lost to Toyota. Same for the Leaf.

[C-Kwik]

So, please tell me what niche this vehicle falls into. Is is a $15k econobox or a $40k luxury sedan?

How about a $40K car (though, it could potentially be closer to $33K after the tax credit for most potential buyers) that gets up to 90 mpg for most people?

Noone is gonna say a Volt makes sense from a purely financial standpoint. But everyone orders their priorities differently. Some have performance at the top of their list. Some will have economy. Some will have environmentally friendliness. If the latter two aren't high priorities on your list, then the Volt is not for you. To some extent everyone has some concern over economy. And I've had a number of professors buy Prius's when they first came out simply because they are concerned with the environment. It was worth it to them. Same way it might be worth it for some to pay a premium to be first in line for the newest high demand sports car.

[HashiriyaS14]

Why does everyone hate this thing so much?


It's obviously not going to be price-competitive with a turbodiesel or something, it's an early-adopter toy. ICE-powered cars were early adopter toys at one point also.

That said, I think the car has some pretty cool functionality. I could do 99% of my driving in this thing and use no gasoline. I'd pay for electricity, sure, but it would be a *lot* cheaper per mile. Most of my driving is a 7 mile round-trip commute to a train station.

Obviously, if you factor in the cost of the car, it isn't price-competitive anymore, but I firmly believe that gap will begin to lessen as time goes on, as the installed base rises, and as OEM's see more revenue dollars from offering this sort of product.


This is for people who want to drive it and tell themselves: "My car is a template for what may someday work as a mainstream solution. I paid an unreasonable premium to mess around with it today and I'm at peace with that".

If that doesn't sound like something you'd say, then the car isn't for you. I'm not a target buyer for this thing either, but that doesn't mean that I hate it.



EDIT: It's also important to remember that this is a CITY CAR. It's targeted towards city car users, people who, like myself, do 99% of their driving over very short distances. The all-gasoline mileage is totally irrelevant to most buyers of this car because no one would ever buy this car unless the all-electric range would cover their normal daily drive (IMO).

The people who buy this don't see it as a 37mpg car, they see it as a 93mpg car. It has to be evaluated as a 93mpg car to make any sense (and even then, at that price, it doesn't, but it gets closer).

[MinisterofDOOM]

Why does everyone hate this thing so much?

I don't hate it. I just think it could have been much more. I'm doing the "I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed" parental headshake right now.

I realize now why they did it this way, rather than the way I thought they'd do it. And the reason makes me even MORE disappointed.
The point of this car is NOT fuel economy. It's partial zero emissions. They've sacrificed potential overall fuel economy to be able to claim PZEV status. Ridiculous.

with all that said, anything outside of coal or other "fossil fuels" will EASILY double your electric costs, so as far as I'm concerned all these people that are really upset about fossil fuel electricity can turn their damn lights off and figure out a better way to make their own electricity.

EXACTLY. Pipe dreams and hopes are fine for the future, but RIGHT NOW we still need to do what we can with what we've got. Wind power is NOT viable on a large scale, no matter how much idealists want it to be. And now we can't even go hydroelectric without being made to feel guilty. At least with coal we've got lots of fuel, it's right here on our soil, and the technology is already well-developed.
The fact is, we've offered the greenies tons of options. They just don't like any of them. We just need to accept the fact that they'll NEVER be happy, and just ignore them. In 5000 years when humanity is still awesome, no one will remember any of this anyway.

[PoorManQ45]

Nuclear energy is cost efficient also. Just have to get the damn hippies out of the way!

[themadscientist]

Use hippies as fuel.

[AZhitman]

Hash, in that case the Leaf would make more sense, and be more fiscally responsible as well.

Take the difference in sticker between the Volt and the Leaf and leverage that money towards green initiatives with a bigger ROI (such as planting trees, installing solar or a windmill).

[C-Kwik]

I don't hate it. I just think it could have been much more. I'm doing the "I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed" parental headshake right now.

Could you be more specific? The Volt is targeted at a relatively specific consumer. Surely, they could try and make it more friendly to the masses, but at the price point its at now, they need to be able to sell it to those who are most willing and able to buy it. Consider, there are certainly better ways of doing this. But there is a good chance it compromises other aspects of it and/or increases the cost. This is still an emerging market on a product that isn't going to be a drop in the bucket for most consumers.

I realize now why they did it this way, rather than the way I thought they'd do it. And the reason makes me even MORE disappointed.
The point of this car is NOT fuel economy. It's partial zero emissions. They've sacrificed potential overall fuel economy to be able to claim PZEV status. Ridiculous.

??? How is 90 mpg not have anything to do with fuel economy? Based on most people's commutes, people would achieve or at least get close to that rating on a daily basis. It would drop significantly if one were to take a road trip, but few people take more than even one a month. The emissions rating is certainly a factor, but they go hand in hand with fuel economy. Lower fuel consumption naturally means less CO2 (along with other emissions byproducts) emitted per mile.

EXACTLY. Pipe dreams and hopes are fine for the future, but RIGHT NOW we still need to do what we can with what we've got. Wind power is NOT viable on a large scale, no matter how much idealists want it to be. And now we can't even go hydroelectric without being made to feel guilty. At least with coal we've got lots of fuel, it's right here on our soil, and the technology is already well-developed.
The fact is, we've offered the greenies tons of options. They just don't like any of them. We just need to accept the fact that they'll NEVER be happy, and just ignore them. In 5000 years when humanity is still awesome, no one will remember any of this anyway.

Solar is actually quite viable and meets a specific type of demand extremely well. That is, during the day, energy consumption increases and decreases at night. The shape of the curves for consumption and solar panel output are remarkedly well aligned. That said, we do still need something to provide a baseline. Nuclear and Geothermal both can provide relatively stable outputs. There are also other options using tidal activity and the energy in waves. One thing is certain in that there is no single solution. And many solutions are going to be location specific.

As for offering a ton of options, feel free to name a few. Coal, as far as people concerned with global warming are concerned, is not a long term option. Aside from the sulfuric acids being released into the atmosphere, coal is still a hydrocarbon. So it will still emit CO2. It appears cheap as it is cheap to mine. But one part of the cost we do not add in is the cost of its waste product. We pretty much pay into the disposal of all our other waste products (trash, sewage, etc), but not for the entirety of what we emit into the air. We try to clean it up but ultimately, we have no implementation that is able to clean the CO2 out of burning a fossil fuel. I'd be curious to see what kinds of cost coal would have if we had to factor in the cost of catching the emissions or sequestering it from the atmosphere (however impractical it might be) and how it would compare to alternative sources.

Nuclear energy is cost efficient also. Just have to get the damn hippies out of the way!

Not initially. The cost to build the plants are much much higher. Longer use will likely reduce it over time, but since the plants require "fuel" an large increase in demand for said "fuel" may increase its costs. How much would remain to be seen, but jumping all over Nuclear by itself may create its own share of problems with cost.

Hash, in that case the Leaf would make more sense, and be more fiscally responsible as well.

Take the difference in sticker between the Volt and the Leaf and leverage that money towards green initiatives with a bigger ROI (such as planting trees, installing solar or a windmill).

I would actually say the upcoming plug-in Prius Hybrid might be a better match for Hash. Based on currently proposed specs, Toyota claims about 13 miles on the battery. They are testing the drive cycles to see if the current battery capacity is ideal, but with such a short drive, Hash would still minimize fuel consumption but also have a car that can drive longer distances. The Leaf would make more sense to people who have 30-40 mile one-way commutes or 60-80 mile one-way commutes with a charging station available at work. I believe the pricing on both will be similar. The underlying point here is that between these three cars, consumers have some plug-ins they can choose between based on their own needs and usage.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Could you be more specific?

I have been. I would prefer more CONSISTENT fuel economy versus 93mpg for 36 miles and then back to normal.

??? How is 90 mpg not have anything to do with fuel economy?

Again, because the 90mpg is not versatile. You can get 40mpg out of a Fusion hybrid or a Fiesta. For less money. Or you can get 37mpg out of the Volt if you drive it like a normal car. 93mpg for 36 miles assumes you're starting out on a FULL battery charge EVERY time you drive it. Otherwise, you quickly come crashing back down to earth with the rest of the econocar world. I would much prefer to see a system that sacrifices "peak" fuel economy for more consistent, reliable, versatile fuel economy across the board. I'd rather get 60mpg out of the car all the time than 93 sometimes and 37 the rest. And remember that 37 is under ideal conditions. For Hell's sake, my 300hp V8 gets 30mpg on the highway. 40mpg doesn't impress. And yes, I've read the papasmurf math. It all assumes ideal conditions, full battery charge, etc. etc. Fiesta'll do 40mpg without batteries.

I simply think that this car was designed with a very "all or nothing" mindset. Go electric, or get normal fuel economy. It seems to me that a better blending of the two would yield more beneficial results to more people in more situations.
And the only reasoning I can see behind that all or nothing design is that it allows the car to run as a PZEV, while my suggestion means always running the gas engine, but very very efficiently. One looks a lot better on paper (especially tax return forms).

[PapaSmurf2k3]

And yes, I've read the papasmurf math. It all assumes ideal conditions, full battery charge, etc. etc. Fiesta'll do 40mpg without batteries.

Yup, and the new Chevy Cruze will best that! But I have to believe that the interior/other amenities of the Volt is better, although I'm not sure because I've never been in any of the 3.

I guess where you and everyone differ is the fact that most everyone else assumes it will be running on electric power alone for 90% of the time, while you assume you'll be burning gas most of the time. There's nothing wrong with assuming a full battery charge every day. People do it with their cell phones, why can't they do it with their cars?

To me, this car works as a hippie's viable replacement for a traditional automobile. Could they accomplish 90% of what they need in a straight EV (leaf)? Yeah, sure, but they're boned if they ever want to go on a road trip (so they have to own 2 vehicles). This cuts down the stable to 1 (which as you can imagine, really doesn't matter to me, seeing as how I own 3 "small" cars).
Just playing devil's advocate here.

[MinisterofDOOM]

I guess where you and everyone differ is the fact that most everyone else assumes it will be running on electric power alone for 90% of the time, while you assume you'll be burning gas most of the time.

I actually don't assume that. But as I said before, this isn't some little 2 door subcompact. It's a midsize 5 seat liftback sedan. That doesn't scream "commuter" to me at all. Even if people DO use it for that, I think a midsize sedan is a dumb choice for that kind of use. As Greg said, the Leaf makes MUCH more sense. Note that Nissan didn't build the Leaf out of a Maxima, they built it from the Versa.

There's nothing wrong with assuming a full battery charge every day. People do it with their cell phones, why can't they do it with their cars?

Probably because everyone has a cell phone charger, and even needy cell phones charge in fractions of hours. As with everything else about electric cars, even keeping their energy reserves topped off requires ideal condition.
It's a balance. Gasoline is a fantastic energy storage medium, but internal combustion engines are inefficient. Meanwhile electric motors are very efficient but batteries are a terrible energy storage medium.
What if you haven't had time to charge? What if you want to do more than just drive to work every day.
THAT is what I'm getting at. I'm not assuming people will do more than commute with the car. I'm suggesting they SHOULD BE ABLE TO without completely sacrificing all benefits.

This isn't a Yaris. This isn't an Insight. This isn't a Smart Car. It's a midsize effing sedan. It WILL be used for more than going to work and back. People have other places to be than just work. And if you can't leave your car parked for hours at a time to charge, you can't realistically expect the car to have a full charge every single time it needs to be driven.

It's all just too subject to circumstances. Which is what I'm arguing here: a car that offers more versatility in its benefits would have been a better product.

[C-Kwik]

I actually don't assume that. But as I said before, this isn't some little 2 door subcompact. It's a midsize 5 seat liftback sedan. That doesn't scream "commuter" to me at all. Even if people DO use it for that, I think a midsize sedan is a dumb choice for that kind of use. As Greg said, the Leaf makes MUCH more sense. Note that Nissan didn't build the Leaf out of a Maxima, they built it from the Versa.

While it doesn't fit the description of what we considered "commuter" cars in the past, the reality is most people don't own "commuter" cars anyways. Yet, most people use "non-commuter" cars to commute. The idea here is to build a car that can be an economy car, yet handle more versatile needs.

Probably because everyone has a cell phone charger, and even needy cell phones charge in fractions of hours. As with everything else about electric cars, even keeping their energy reserves topped off requires ideal condition.
It's a balance. Gasoline is a fantastic energy storage medium, but internal combustion engines are inefficient. Meanwhile electric motors are very efficient but batteries are a terrible energy storage medium.

Really? Your argument is that it takes longer to charge than a cell phone? Were talking about practical usage here. It takes 8 hours to charge the battery with 120 volts. Most people are home about that long to sleep before hitting a day of work. For those who really need it charged faster, a 240 volt system will cut the charge time in half. And that's only if a full charge is even needed.

[quote="MinisterofDOOM"What if you haven't had time to charge? What if you want to do more than just drive to work every day.[/quote]

That's what the gas engine is for. But unless your daily commute is on the high end of the electric range, one will have some electric mileage left. And unless such excursions are frequently well beyond the electric range, the overall average will still remain quite high.

THAT is what I'm getting at. I'm not assuming people will do more than commute with the car. I'm suggesting they SHOULD BE ABLE TO without completely sacrificing all benefits.

And they won't. Surely, this car isn't likely to be well suited for those who drive 200 mile commutes everyday. But very few people have commutes that long. Most people work reasonably close to home.

This isn't a Yaris. This isn't an Insight. This isn't a Smart Car. It's a midsize effing sedan. It WILL be used for more than going to work and back. People have other places to be than just work. And if you can't leave your car parked for hours at a time to charge, you can't realistically expect the car to have a full charge every single time it needs to be driven.

The gas only mileage is still better than the Yaris. Gives up about 3-6 mpg to the Insight. The Smart car, despite its diminutive size and weight, is still only rated at 33/41 mpg. So despite being a bigger car than those you mention, it holds its own as far as gas only mileage is concerned. But the reality here it will (for most people) get significantly better mileage numbers overall. And in evaluating the overall cost of ownership of a vehicle, instantaneous numbers are irrelevant. As for not being able to charge all the time, sure, situations like that will occur. But at least it won't leave you stranded.

It's all just too subject to circumstances. Which is what I'm arguing here: a car that offers more versatility in its benefits would have been a better product.

Outside of long commutes, the Volt will get significantly better gas mileage than a Prius. If you still hold to your previous comment about running the two drive trains concurrently, you'll find that the Volt's operation schematic is much more efficient.

I have been. I would prefer more CONSISTENT fuel economy versus 93mpg for 36 miles and then back to normal.

If you are referring to your prior argument, see my response to it. I assumed you read it. So my request for specifics was a request for an argument against it.

And most people would prefer lower overall costs. If this is your opinion simply because its not what YOU want, then no problemo. Its not the car for you. But don't expect a company to go and design a vehicle exactly how you specify. Well, at least not without your agreement to pay for all the development costs for the design or modifications to an existing design. Otherwise, they are going to design cars that have mass appeal.

Again, because the 90mpg is not versatile. You can get 40mpg out of a Fusion hybrid or a Fiesta. For less money. Or you can get 37mpg out of the Volt if you drive it like a normal car. 93mpg for 36 miles assumes you're starting out on a FULL battery charge EVERY time you drive it. Otherwise, you quickly come crashing back down to earth with the rest of the econocar world. I would much prefer to see a system that sacrifices "peak" fuel economy for more consistent, reliable, versatile fuel economy across the board. I'd rather get 60mpg out of the car all the time than 93 sometimes and 37 the rest. And remember that 37 is under ideal conditions. For Hell's sake, my 300hp V8 gets 30mpg on the highway. 40mpg doesn't impress. And yes, I've read the papasmurf math. It all assumes ideal conditions, full battery charge, etc. etc. Fiesta'll do 40mpg without batteries.

The car itself is quite versatile. It gets some 90 mpg for most people's commutes. But can still be driven across the country if need be as conveniently as any other car. The "versatility" you speak of is meaningless when you consider what kind of average numbers most owners will get.

I simply think that this car was designed with a very "all or nothing" mindset. Go electric, or get normal fuel economy. It seems to me that a better blending of the two would yield more beneficial results to more people in more situations.
And the only reasoning I can see behind that all or nothing design is that it allows the car to run as a PZEV, while my suggestion means always running the gas engine, but very very efficiently. One looks a lot better on paper (especially tax return forms).

Elaborate on that. As I said before, the average american commute is 16 miles one-way. So more than half can, on a fairly regular basis, achieve 90 mpg. And even with a 100 mile round-trip commute, the return would be about 57 mpg. And this is from a car that you claim is not a "commuter" car. The Prius is much closer in operation to what you would like to see and it only returns 48-51 mpg. The Prius uses an Atkinson cycle for efficiency. Not sure how many people actually have such long commutes, but It's likely to be quite a small percentage. If we were to assume a very conservative 75% of commuters had round trip commutes of less than 100 miles, then 75% of commuters would be getting AT LEAST 57 mpg if they drove the Volt. That's a hugely conservative assumption btw. Greg's favorite online encyclopedia ( ) indicates 75% of American commutes falls within 40 miles round trip. If we assume their source is fairly accurate, that's gonna put at least 75% of people close to the 90 mpg mark. And last I checked, 90 mpg >> 51 mpg. Your argument might hold a lot more water if the spread of commutes was more evenly distributed, but its not.

The only real downside to the car is its cost. But the hope from GM's corner is that the costs will decrease as economies of scale become significant.

Yeah, sure, but they're boned if they ever want to go on a road trip (so they have to own 2 vehicles).

A viable alternative, is of course that for occasional road trips, one could just rent a car.

[HashiriyaS14]

Hash, in that case the Leaf would make more sense, and be more fiscally responsible as well.

Undeniably. I wasn't comparing the Volt to the leaf, just evaluating it on it's own merits.

The only downside of the Leaf is that if, perchance, you run out of juice, you're stuck. If you run out in the Volt, you aren't.

If you have a 2nd car for longer drives (like I would), Leaf makes more sense. If you live in the city and are absolutely constrained to a single car due to parking, and if you *occasionally* need to visit the relatives or something out of town where you can't fly/train, Volt makes more sense.