

http://gm-volt.com/2010/11/24/official- ... -released/
http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php ... y-Released
The leaf:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/22/autos/n ... /index.htm
I'm not crazy about the EPA's choice to label electric range as MPGe.


i actually like it... lets the treehuggers know they are still consuming non-renewable resources (unless they live somewhere with nuclear power)Jesda wrote:
I'm not crazy about the EPA's choice to label electric range as MPGe.
MinisterofDOOM wrote:All that engineering and hype and it only returns 37mpg?!?! FAIL GM. Fail.
Indeed, but if I hit you with my Cadillac, you'd be toast.nissangirl74 wrote:MinisterofDOOM wrote:All that engineering and hype and it only returns 37mpg?!?! FAIL GM. Fail.My 1979 Datsun 210 got 45 mpg with 189,000 miles on the odometer AND it passed emissions.
Go back to the drawing board, you idiots.
It's unfair to compare manufacturers with 30 years worth of safety crap glued onto the sides of the car. Add 800 pounds of batteries...Something's not right here.nissangirl74 wrote:MinisterofDOOM wrote:All that engineering and hype and it only returns 37mpg?!?! FAIL GM. Fail.My 1979 Datsun 210 got 45 mpg with 189,000 miles on the odometer AND it passed emissions.
Go back to the drawing board, you idiots.
Not really fair to compare a carbureted, pushrod, mechanical ignition engine with 30 years of technology advancement and modern fuel injection, variable timing, OHC, and electronic ignition. Yet the 210 still wins.ScorchedNX2K wrote:It's unfair to compare manufacturers with 30 years worth of safety crap glued onto the sides of the car. Add 800 pounds of batteries...Something's not right here.
I <3 Dave!Dattebayo wrote:Further proof that we need to mine the moon. TONS of titanium ready to take, only three days away by rocket. Lets get on this stat!
I always found that really funny! We talk about all the advancements, but we end up behind where we were!MinisterofDOOM wrote:Not really fair to compare a carbureted, pushrod, mechanical ignition engine with 30 years of technology advancement and modern fuel injection, variable timing, OHC, and electronic ignition. Yet the 210 still wins.ScorchedNX2K wrote:It's unfair to compare manufacturers with 30 years worth of safety crap glued onto the sides of the car. Add 800 pounds of batteries...Something's not right here.
Still fail.

I like options.Jesda wrote:The great thing about the Volt is that you aren't chained down to one source of energy. As gas prices rise, you can keep charging. If electricity goes up (say, the whole country goes electric), you still have gasoline to burn.
Good thing that wasn't for me. Only 3 of our 9 have airbags, 4 only have lap belts. Included safety features in the classics: a keen awareness of the dipshits driving around you and good reflexes.ScorchedNX2K wrote:It's unfair to compare manufacturers with 30 years worth of safety crap glued onto the sides of the car. Add 800 pounds of batteries...Something's not right here.nissangirl74 wrote:My 1979 Datsun 210 got 45 mpg with 189,000 miles on the odometer AND it passed emissions.
Go back to the drawing board, you idiots.
If you had the choice, would you purchase a car with only a driver airbag, little sound deadening, and none of the safety features the feds mandate? (Not a question to you. to people in general)
Solar panel mounted to the roof? Continuous charging?Jesda wrote:A road trip in the Leaf would take weeks due to charging time. The solution is faster recharging.
It's a good suggestion, but it would take a ridiculous amount of time to even charge the battery without the vehicle being in use. You're looking at ~175~250w from a panel about the size of the roof.nissangirl74 wrote:Solar panel mounted to the roof? Continuous charging?Jesda wrote:A road trip in the Leaf would take weeks due to charging time. The solution is faster recharging.
Correct. Even less than that, realistically.PoorManQ45 wrote:It's a good suggestion, but it would take a ridiculous amount of time to even charge the battery without the vehicle being in use. You're looking at ~175~250w from a panel about the size of the roof.
Maybe we'll use diet coke to run our cars in 2020. I'm looking forward either way.nissangirl74 wrote:Solar panel mounted to the roof? Continuous charging?Jesda wrote:A road trip in the Leaf would take weeks due to charging time. The solution is faster recharging.
Would that mean coffee would be "Boost"?Jesda wrote:Maybe we'll use diet coke to run our cars in 2020.
So we can't use corn or water, but Diet Coke is fine?Jesda wrote:Maybe we'll use diet coke to run our cars in 2020.
MinisterofDOOM wrote:All that engineering and hype and it only returns 37mpg?!?! FAIL GM. Fail. This is a bigger fail than the Aztek.
I called it years ago when it was announced. It's a joke. 37 effing miles per gallon.
I hope the engineers go back to their basic physics books after this one. Energy conversion is NEVER EFFICIENT. Adding more steps IS NOT THE ANSWER.
Ummmm, aren't you all completely missing the point by focusing on the 37mpg?nissangirl74 wrote:MinisterofDOOM wrote:All that engineering and hype and it only returns 37mpg?!?! FAIL GM. Fail.My 1979 Datsun 210 got 45 mpg with 189,000 miles on the odometer AND it passed emissions.
Go back to the drawing board, you idiots.
I'm 98% sure diet coke comes from the urine of squirrels with kidney problems, and I believe in recycling.Dattebayo wrote:So we can't use corn or water, but Diet Coke is fine?Jesda wrote:Maybe we'll use diet coke to run our cars in 2020.
I like the cut of your jib, Mrs C.nissangirl74 wrote:Would that mean coffee would be "Boost"?Jesda wrote:Maybe we'll use diet coke to run our cars in 2020.