Thought I'd beat Volty to the punch here http://www.automotoportal.com/article/awar...the-middle-east First, as a car manufacturer's concept, how is GM the first? Isn't the Prius nearly 10 years old, counting Japanese production that began years before entering the U.S. market? Second, where were all theses GM ads . . . all this hype . . . all this hoopla and propaganda ... article after article after article, when they brought out the EV1 ?!? My favorite line: "The Volt draws from GM’s previous experience in starting the modern electric vehicle market when it launched the EV1 in 1996, according to GM Vice Chairman Robert A. Lutz. " Wait ! Before, all GM said they learned was that no one wanted electric. Maybe, as another said, this time they learned how important it is to destroy the waiting list, that you denied ever existed, or maybe they learned it's important to crush the cars under cover of dark, then hide the mangled scrap. At least when they made the EV1, they didn't deny the batteries were ready for prime time.
ReVolting, I'd say. Isn't this the same company marketing the Tahoe Hybrid (The HyHo?) as fuel efficient?
To GM's credit, they are coming up with a new approach to PHEV's. Having an electric motor that's simply powered by an electric generator gives an abstraction of the type of engine you can use, which is interesting. I distrust GM as much as the next guy (and I dislike how they're uing the Volt as a halo vehicle to try to cross-sell SUVs and fight fuel efficiency legislation), but I really hope it's a big success for GM! Hopefully it will lead them in a new direction!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Oct 18 2007, 10:34 PM) [snapback]527581[/snapback]</div> Whether it's a Tahoe Hybrid, or maybe some day a Hybrid Land Boat made by Toyota ... the whole thing about a HUGE hybrid "concept" sucks. Why brag about getting 15% better mpg over a pathetic gas guzzler? If we can get some of these solo passenger numbskulls that drive these monsters to switch to a smaller car that's NON hybrid, we'd be way better off.
Interesting how they can make this claim when they still don't have the battery that they will use in the production version. Why don't they claim "up to 5000km"* ? * Of course, "up to " clearly includes all values below 5000 including 0.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Oct 18 2007, 10:14 PM) [snapback]527572[/snapback]</div> That line is accurate. The EV-1 had great engineering chops, but nowhere near the management support they are indicating for the Volt. If GM management is playing the bad battery tech excuse when a third or fourth generation Prius is a fact on the ground proving them wrong, they just may be finished as a maker of passenger cars. If they let their engineers have free reign, I think (desperately hope, frankly) they may trump Toyota. But then again, I'm a guy who believes they could almost just dust off the EV-1's tried and tested design, plug in current generation batteries and have a winner with near zero engineering cost. The big difference between the Volt and the fuel cell car (perpetually 5-10 years out) is that the Volt appears quite possible with current tech. Also, the idea is now a very high profile darling in a competitive market. Could you imaging if Honda trotted out a very similar car, perhaps called the CR-Amp, to the general market in five years while GM is still claiming they're waiting for batteries, or even if Gen 4 Prius can do 40 miles off a plug in charge? Corporations aren't people, no reason to hold a grudge (Philip Morris/Alt-whatever exempted). I'm optimistic and prefer to see the current GM Volt hype as sincerely betting the company rather than digging their own grave. I've started the savings fund to buy one, although I'm not ready to put it in GM stock quite yet...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dogfriend @ Oct 19 2007, 09:47 AM) [snapback]527736[/snapback]</div> 1030km is based on the gas engine that's recharging the batteries as it goes, so it will be limited on the size of the gas tank and size/efficiency of the engine. 5000km (3K miles) is hard to do with a normal gas tank. Of course, as you point out they haven't determined the final configuration of the car, including some key elements like the battery pack, so it's pretty hard to justify 1030km as compared to say, 980km. At this point they should say "an estimated 850-1000 km" and leave it at that. If they end up exceeding it slightly, great, nobody'll complain, but meanwhile 600 miles (nearly 1000km) is still a good range.
From the cited article: The car is not capable of doing anything because the car does not exist. If they prove me wrong and build it some day, it will be capable of traveling some specific distance. But for now, it IS not capable of traveling farther than you can push the mock-up. What they should have said was "GM claims that the car will be capable of traveling..." <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Boulder Bum @ Oct 18 2007, 11:05 PM) [snapback]527635[/snapback]</div> This is nothing new. General Electric has been building freight train locomotives this way for decades. Except without the batteries: Diesel engine turns a generator which provides electricity for the electric motors that actually push the train.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 21 2007, 09:29 AM) [snapback]528422[/snapback]</div> Ships too: tugs, ice breakers, conventional submarines..., the list goes on. Tom
