Jump to content
Create New...
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    GM May Redesign The Volt's Battery *UPDATED*

    William Maley

    Editor/Reporter - CheersandGears.com

    December 1, 2011

    In a interview today with Reuters, GM CEO Dan Akerson said the company may redesign the Volt's battery in response to a NHTSA investigation.

    "We want to assure the safety of our customers, of our buyers, and so we're just going to take a time out, if you will, in terms of redesigning the battery possibly," Dan Akerson told Reuters.

    Back on Monday, GM announced they would offer loaner vehicles to 5,500 Volt owners after NHTSA opened a investigation into Volt's batteries last Friday.

    In addition, Akerson said the Opel Ampera would not go on sale until engineers and safety regulators had worked out how to deal with the 400-pound battery pack after any accident.

    Akerson also reiterated that the Volt is a safe car, pointing to the safety ratings the car has received.

    Source: Reuters

    UPDATE: Dan Akerson told the AP today that the company would be willing to buy Volts back from their owners. Akerson also said that if necessary, GM will recall more than 6,000 Volts on the road in the U.S. and repair them once the company and safety regulators figure out what caused the fires.

    "I think in the interest of General Motors, the industry, the electrification of the car, it's best to get it right now than when you have - instead of 6,000 - 60,000 or 600,000 cars on the road," said Akerson.

    Source: The Associated Press

    Further Reading:

    NHTSA Opens Investigation Into Volt Batteries

    GM Offering Free Loaner Cars to Volt Owners During Battery Investigation

    Chevy Volt Tops Consumer Reports Owner Satisfaction Survey

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    This tells me that GM's secret safety procedures are insufficient so far... and yeah, this is really not the time GM needs to give ammunition to the anti-GM press and enthusiasts.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    What I am more interested in is how many people take GM up on these offers. The buyback offer could be a really big PR coup for GM. Consumer reports says that 93% of Volt owners would buy another one.. That makes them rather unlikely to want to give their current Volt back to GM. That leaves only 503 out of 6,300 Volt owners as even remotely likely to be interested in a buyback. How many of those are going to want a buyback.... 1%?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    better to be proactive than reactive.... always.

    I mean.... it's better than being hauled in front of a Congressional Inquiry about "what you knew, when, and what are you going to do about it?" like Ford and Firestone.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think I see where Camino is coming here from. As a skeptic of anything GM does, asking for a buy back after quick succession of concessions shows that GM does not have faith in Volt, despite of the so called proactive steps. Here the intentions may have been right, but the move may be wrong.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Not so much wrong, as too early - and possibly unecessary.

    The loaner option was just announced, and well received, they should have waited a bit for things to clarify before saying anything about a buyback.

    The press will spin this into an ugly thing that could damage the Volt (and GM) needlessly.

    Reactions to things like this require proper timing, that's all.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I agree the buy back should have come if there people coming back and just do it on a case by case base. I really don't think many will take up on this as I have seen most defend the car. They are a very loyal group.

    As for the battery update it is just one of many running changes we will see. Things are going to happen that no matter how much testing you do, the real world is the real test.

    If it was easy to build a car like this everyone would have one.

    The key is for GM and those like us here to keep this in perspective and not over react like the press. GM needs to prevent the media from doing a 60 min hack job on this. GM handled the Truck fuel tank issue the one network was setting them up with. Remember they were using toy rocket engines because they could not get a truck to go up in flames as claimed.

    GM I think will let them investigate and will publish the facts on this and that will keep them in the clear. It is not like these things are just going off driving down the road.

    Like I have stated this car has enemies out there and there are other MFG's and media people who would love to make sure it fails. Some other MFG's know this car could kill their investments into their own EV programs they alread have started. It could make them change direction and cost them millions. That is on top of those who would love to see GM fail anyways.

    Edited by hyperv6
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

      On 12/2/2011 at 5:09 AM, CanadianBacon94 said:

    Im thinking their going to put something in it as a safety to de-power it upon an accident.

    wasn't the first volt that burned found next to a significantly more burned home built electric suzuki car?

    Disconnecting the Volt power supply in an accident is not real difficult. It has the MSD... manual service disconnect. I suppose it could be modified to automagically disconnect service if, say, the air bags were triggered... but the problems with fires will not be solved by this problem because the battery pack is still live.

    Removing this charge from inside the battery pack is not a trivial task. You can't just short the battery... and whatever you use to provide a load needs to discharge the battery at a rate which does not overheat the battery... and the load itself needs to be robust enough to dissipate the energy that is in the battery, which is quite a lot in a fully charged Volt battery pack. I imagine building something like this into the battery pack would easily add a hundred pounds of weight and would eat more space in the battery pack that would do better with more lithium cells.

    Many forget that in order to fit the energy in Li Ion cells that would fit in a traditional gasoline tank, you are starting to play with chemistry that is highly reactive. The lithium metal is reactive to water, so the electrolyte or coolant cannot be water based... and you can't even let the lithium metal be exposed to air, as there is water vapor in it. Not only is the lithium dangerous, but the electrolyte is highly reactive... and in the case of the Volt, very flammable. If it wasn't flammable, it would still be nasty stuff.

    It all suddenly makes gasoline look quite safe.

    And while many people think that batteries will get safer and more powerful, I see this as a inverse relationship. More powerful batteries will use more reactive chemistry and will be nastier when damaged... and will have higher electrocution risks due to the massive energy stored and the rate at which it can be discharged. The batteries in your cell phone, laptop and car will be rated as munitions. Luckily, we never had to figure out how to power cars with C4. ;-)

    That said, I still look forward to new battery technology... as I want an all electric '68 Bonneville that can do the 1/4 in 9 flat and a Droid that can remote control it all day while streaming Slacker radio without dropping into the yellow battery zone.

    Edited by SAmadei
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    what i think would be an good way to go with batteries, is if all cars used a universal battery. Say you pull up to a gas station, old battery slides out- new one slides in, you pay for the electricity in the battery and there you go.

    While i think this could work, i don't think it is practical in the real world, as batteries are very expensive, while the electricity in them is cheap.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

      On 12/3/2011 at 6:08 AM, CanadianBacon94 said:

    what i think would be an good way to go with batteries, is if all cars used a universal battery. Say you pull up to a gas station, old battery slides out- new one slides in, you pay for the electricity in the battery and there you go.

    While i think this could work, i don't think it is practical in the real world, as batteries are very expensive, while the electricity in them is cheap.

    There has been talk of systems like this... but I doubt the manufacturers would ever agree on a standard... even if they could, considering that different cars may have different battery needs. Lets say was use the sizes analogous to common alkaline batteries... A Smart might need 2 AAAs, whereas the Volt uses 2 AA... maybe the Volt CUV 3 AA... but a fullsize SUV needs a C and a tractor trailer gets a monster load of 8 Ds. ;-)

    That said, its true the electric is cheap... but the lithium is not. Even a dead battery pack has a lot of value... so either the price of eventual recycling is built into the electric refill cost, or the manufacturers get involve to eat some recycling cost in order to build more electric cars... in which case the cost is piggybacked onto the vehicle cost.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Noting is cheap at this point but the more they make and advance these systems the price will drop.

    As for the problem with the battery we need to know more about what happened and what they are doing to change it. Also was the onstar hooked up and did GM even know these cars were sitting crashed?

    Was it the NHTSA not letting GM dischage the batteries or did GM not respond or did they even know?

    There are many unanswered questions and from what has been stated GM seems to have a way to deal with the batteries if they know or respond. The question is why was it not discharged?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

      On 12/3/2011 at 1:00 PM, hyperv6 said:

    Noting is cheap at this point but the more they make and advance these systems the price will drop.

    No it WON'T. Unless their is a MAJOR development which reduces the need for lithium, or we discover Greenland is a huge lithium deposit, lithium will remain expensive.

    We only recently learned of a large deposit, and its in Afghanistan... so we're going to be making a new group of tin-pot dictators into a major player and battery prices will fluctuate depending on their mood.

    Saying that advances will make the batteries cheaper is like saying in 1974 that advances will make catalytic converters cheaper. Well, aside from one advancement (going from pellet to mesh), cats have gotten more expensive... because platinum is still very rare.

    Luckily, lithium is not nearly as rare as platinum... but it also has more competition for its use. Only 23% becomes batteries. Plus there is mounting evidence that increasing lithium production is not ecologically sound.

    Granted, this chart does not cover 2009-2011, but I assure you, the prices have not plummeted.

    lithium-price.gif

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

      On 12/3/2011 at 10:43 PM, SAmadei said:
      On 12/3/2011 at 1:00 PM, hyperv6 said:

    Noting is cheap at this point but the more they make and advance these systems the price will drop.

    No it WON'T. Unless their is a MAJOR development which reduces the need for lithium, or we discover Greenland is a huge lithium deposit, lithium will remain expensive.

    We only recently learned of a large deposit, and its in Afghanistan... so we're going to be making a new group of tin-pot dictators into a major player and battery prices will fluctuate depending on their mood.

    Saying that advances will make the batteries cheaper is like saying in 1974 that advances will make catalytic converters cheaper. Well, aside from one advancement (going from pellet to mesh), cats have gotten more expensive... because platinum is still very rare.

    Luckily, lithium is not nearly as rare as platinum... but it also has more competition for its use. Only 23% becomes batteries. Plus there is mounting evidence that increasing lithium production is not ecologically sound.

    Granted, this chart does not cover 2009-2011, but I assure you, the prices have not plummeted.

    lithium-price.gif

    My statment was not just batteries but motors and all other parts in the system that are expensive today due to start up cost and low volume. With higher volumes the price will drop on these parts with compitition and voulume.; Yes the Battery is the most expensive part and who's is to say future power will be Lithium 10 years from now?

    Demand is high for a cheaper more efficent power system and not just in the auto segment. This means a lot of investment is being made here and someone will find other options in time. There is a lot of interesting work going on right now in this area and many are showing great promise.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

      On 12/4/2011 at 1:59 PM, hyperv6 said:
      On 12/3/2011 at 10:43 PM, SAmadei said:
      On 12/3/2011 at 1:00 PM, hyperv6 said:

    Noting is cheap at this point but the more they make and advance these systems the price will drop.

    No it WON'T. Unless their is a MAJOR development which reduces the need for lithium, or we discover Greenland is a huge lithium deposit, lithium will remain expensive.

    We only recently learned of a large deposit, and its in Afghanistan... so we're going to be making a new group of tin-pot dictators into a major player and battery prices will fluctuate depending on their mood.

    Saying that advances will make the batteries cheaper is like saying in 1974 that advances will make catalytic converters cheaper. Well, aside from one advancement (going from pellet to mesh), cats have gotten more expensive... because platinum is still very rare.

    Luckily, lithium is not nearly as rare as platinum... but it also has more competition for its use. Only 23% becomes batteries. Plus there is mounting evidence that increasing lithium production is not ecologically sound.

    Granted, this chart does not cover 2009-2011, but I assure you, the prices have not plummeted.

    lithium-price.gif

    My statment was not just batteries but motors and all other parts in the system that are expensive today due to start up cost and low volume. With higher volumes the price will drop on these parts with compitition and voulume.; Yes the Battery is the most expensive part and who's is to say future power will be Lithium 10 years from now?

    The motors are relatively cheap, already... However, they also depend on a fairly expensive metal... copper. Not long ago, I was reading how the copper supply was scheduled to run out in 5 years... which has had the result of convincing people to start removing long abandoned (for fiber) wiring and upgrade plumbing to PEX/CPVC and selling their old pipes as if it was jewelry.

    I still maintain that generator/motor tech is nothing radically new... and either is the controller systems. In general these are similar to forklifts... but the motors are somewhat repackaged.

    The only thing 'new' to this stuff are the fact that they have GM part numbers... and need to go through the typical GM part inverted bell curve for pricing.

    Who says the future is Lithium? Well, most electric engineers would. It took Li Ion cells from 1979 to 1996 to come to market... and until 2003 to become mainstream... over 20 years. If you read about tech on a regular basis, you will see techs in the news for years before they are ready for the consumer. Where are the flexible solar panels? Foldable/rollable LCD screens? Flying cars? These have been around for roughly 10, 6 and 35 years, respectfully... and are still not here. There is nothing on the horizon that appears to be supplanting Li Ion in the next decade. Even if we invent Mr. Fusion TOMORROW, it would take 10 years of testing and fireproofing before the lawyers let it hit the streets.

      Quote

    Demand is high for a cheaper more efficent power system and not just in the auto segment. This means a lot of investment is being made here and someone will find other options in time. There is a lot of interesting work going on right now in this area and many are showing great promise.

    Demand is high for gold, as well. But you still can't turn lead into gold, regardless of the alchemists that claim that "there is a lot of interesting work going on right now in this area and many are showing great promise."

    Companies developing any new technology are out to claim being first (to get patents) and to draw in additional investment... and love to spout off lots of promises that don't really pan out. Sure, advances are coming... the laws of physics are putting a brake on the rate of advancements... regardless of demand.

    I'm not discounting the possibility that something earth-shattering will develop tomorrow (like Mr. Fusion)... but when you pinpoint the most earth-shattering developments, most occurred long ago... and we live in a time of slower incremental improvement. The only exception to this is Moore's law... but even that is coming apart. Battery development severely trails even the currently busted Moore's law.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

      On 12/4/2011 at 4:03 PM, SAmadei said:
      On 12/4/2011 at 1:59 PM, hyperv6 said:
      On 12/3/2011 at 10:43 PM, SAmadei said:
      On 12/3/2011 at 1:00 PM, hyperv6 said:

    Noting is cheap at this point but the more they make and advance these systems the price will drop.

    No it WON'T. Unless their is a MAJOR development which reduces the need for lithium, or we discover Greenland is a huge lithium deposit, lithium will remain expensive.

    We only recently learned of a large deposit, and its in Afghanistan... so we're going to be making a new group of tin-pot dictators into a major player and battery prices will fluctuate depending on their mood.

    Saying that advances will make the batteries cheaper is like saying in 1974 that advances will make catalytic converters cheaper. Well, aside from one advancement (going from pellet to mesh), cats have gotten more expensive... because platinum is still very rare.

    Luckily, lithium is not nearly as rare as platinum... but it also has more competition for its use. Only 23% becomes batteries. Plus there is mounting evidence that increasing lithium production is not ecologically sound.

    Granted, this chart does not cover 2009-2011, but I assure you, the prices have not plummeted.

    lithium-price.gif

    My statment was not just batteries but motors and all other parts in the system that are expensive today due to start up cost and low volume. With higher volumes the price will drop on these parts with compitition and voulume.; Yes the Battery is the most expensive part and who's is to say future power will be Lithium 10 years from now?

    The motors are relatively cheap, already... However, they also depend on a fairly expensive metal... copper. Not long ago, I was reading how the copper supply was scheduled to run out in 5 years... which has had the result of convincing people to start removing long abandoned (for fiber) wiring and upgrade plumbing to PEX/CPVC and selling their old pipes as if it was jewelry.

    I still maintain that generator/motor tech is nothing radically new... and either is the controller systems. In general these are similar to forklifts... but the motors are somewhat repackaged.

    The only thing 'new' to this stuff are the fact that they have GM part numbers... and need to go through the typical GM part inverted bell curve for pricing.

    Who says the future is Lithium? Well, most electric engineers would. It took Li Ion cells from 1979 to 1996 to come to market... and until 2003 to become mainstream... over 20 years. If you read about tech on a regular basis, you will see techs in the news for years before they are ready for the consumer. Where are the flexible solar panels? Foldable/rollable LCD screens? Flying cars? These have been around for roughly 10, 6 and 35 years, respectfully... and are still not here. There is nothing on the horizon that appears to be supplanting Li Ion in the next decade. Even if we invent Mr. Fusion TOMORROW, it would take 10 years of testing and fireproofing before the lawyers let it hit the streets.

      Quote

    Demand is high for a cheaper more efficent power system and not just in the auto segment. This means a lot of investment is being made here and someone will find other options in time. There is a lot of interesting work going on right now in this area and many are showing great promise.

    Demand is high for gold, as well. But you still can't turn lead into gold, regardless of the alchemists that claim that "there is a lot of interesting work going on right now in this area and many are showing great promise."

    Companies developing any new technology are out to claim being first (to get patents) and to draw in additional investment... and love to spout off lots of promises that don't really pan out. Sure, advances are coming... the laws of physics are putting a brake on the rate of advancements... regardless of demand.

    I'm not discounting the possibility that something earth-shattering will develop tomorrow (like Mr. Fusion)... but when you pinpoint the most earth-shattering developments, most occurred long ago... and we live in a time of slower incremental improvement. The only exception to this is Moore's law... but even that is coming apart. Battery development severely trails even the currently busted Moore's law.

    With such high demand for better battery power in many products today there is more development money being spent now than ever. It is just a matter of time before someone will find a much better, efficent and cheaper power cell. The Prize for the winner or rights holder in this case will be high.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • google-news-icon.png



  • google-news-icon.png

  • Subscribe to Cheers & Gears

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001 we've brought you real content and honest opinions, not AI-generated stuff with no feeling or opinions influenced by the manufacturers.

    Please consider subscribing. Subscriptions can be as little as $1.75 a month, and a paid subscription drops most ads.*
     

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Posts

    • I was upgraded in a rental contract and, while going up by one category is not a big deal, getting to try out the new hybrid Camry was somewhat of a big deal.  The latest and current Camry only features hybrid powertrains.  The base 2.5 liter 4-cylinder engine, which was previously naturally aspirated, continues forward, but is assisted by an electric motor.  To make the powering on and off work, a CVT is now the standard transmission, when Camry had an excellent 8-speed automatic transmission for many years.  This vehicle had front wheel drive, but AWD is also available.  The V6 engine and ICEs are no longer available. Getting used to this car doesn’t take much time.  Having already driven another rented hybrid – a Honda Accord – all I needed to know is that turning the key does not fire up an engine, but makes the car ready to move in EV mode, at least initially. With 2.5 liters, the Camry pulls away nimbly and with agility, even with a minimally feathered pedal.  It doesn’t take much.  It’s fun to watch the centered power display setting move between eco and power modes.  If stomped on, the engine responds very quickly.  Surprisingly, stomping on it produces a more notable than expected engine hum.  The cabin remains mostly quiet and handling is predictable, neither firm nor vague, with some rougher pavement making it less quiet.  The transmission feels very much like a CVT, but a well behaved one.  Still, drivers with old school tastes can lament the absence of the very last slick shifting 8-speed automatic that came standard in the Camry.  I know I do.  However, the current CVT behaves well because it doesn’t have that “stuck” feeling when pushed, but the spool is more of an exhaust node than the winding out and high rpm droning caused by the variable gearing. The Camry’s exterior was freshened up and they worked off the last model.  It’s a compendium of small changes that, together, amount to a lot.  The front lights are narrower and cleaner.  The “appliance” grille is more understated than it once was.  (Sadly, it’s the more expensive versions where the grille is more flared, and even overworked.)  The rear lights are thinned out, complete with a boomerang effect, as they wrap around the rear fender edge and add to the horizontal look of the rear lip and the monolithic bumper panel.  Also, the almost retro, and not too effective, sweep of the rear pillar (think ‘72 Caprice coupe) is gone and the side profile of the windows is cleaner, perhaps a larger rendition of what was done with the Corolla.  Most of the vantage points look better than those of the previous Camry. Inside, the Camry is also much improved.  The dashboard is organized in cleaner volumes.  The dash has a simple main instrument pod.  In its center is a round dial, whereby the upper part displays the speed and eco/power, and the lower part, through toggling, provides other information – direction, tire pressure, trip information and mileage, or even graphics of the flow of energy involving the engine and the battery.  There is no dedicated tachometer; however, the temperature and fuel gauges remain.  Around the main circle are small digital readouts for the exterior temperature, the time, the odometer, and the remaining range.  Filling up this hybrid showed close to 500 miles of range.  Not only that, the fuel cap is on the driver’s side and, like the trunk, they can be remotely opened by buttons in the interior. That said, there is none of that capless fuel filler stuff! Being a Camry LE meant the lower grade fixtures inside.  Sadly, this meant a urethane steering wheel.  Sometimes, a mere leather steering wheel imparts the feeling of better handling and a smoother ride.  It’s that equipment choices and groupings seem to work together to give a vehicle its feel. The LE seats are nicely upholstered in a tougher, durable fabric with slightly contrasting parts.  The front headrests can scoot all the way down and they actually point forward so the driver and passenger can use them without having to lean their heads all the way back.  Headrests for rear seat passengers are integrated into the seating and do not have features to adjust them. The infotainment system is on its screen which is engaged to the dash, but moved slightly forward, and creates a cleaner look because it does not go up over the top of the cowl.  Fortunately, it remains a touch screen.  The functions are easy to work with, but I had a little bit of finicky interactions with Bluetooth and Android Auto.  Climate control has toggles instead of dials and they are easy to work with.  I will only say that the center vents of the climate control system do not work that quickly and powerfully.  Beneath this small panel are the cubby, a charging pod for a phone, and the flat console surface for the shift lever.  I found the console a little high for my taste.  Possibly to accommodate the new mechanical set-up, there is no storage cubby underneath the console as one sees on larger GM products, for example – both SUVs and even the last-gen Buick LaCrosse.  However, the console box is amply sized. In addition to being able to look over the hood, visibility is commendable all the way around.  Except for being a little shoehorned into the Camry’s cockpit, the front of the cabin feels spacious and the legroom is also good.  (I had to push the lever to get the seats to move upward, which provided a view over the top of the hood, as evidenced by seeing the paint color, and which I prefer.)  They have retained good cabin space in the rear of the cabin.  Also, the trunk has a decent amount of usable capacity for this genre and for having kept this sweeping roofline.  I again want to state how pleasing it was to control the trunk, in addition to the fuel door, from a bar of buttons on a panel at the lower left part of the dashboard rather than on the floor near the door.  There are 5 functions and they were thoughtful about putting the (auto) lights control onto this bar, and all the way to the left, such that it can easily be noticed from behind the steering wheel.  The new Camry shows a lot of thought as to how the driver connects to the car through its controls and functions, and this is one of the areas where this Camry shines. While I didn’t calculate fuel mileage, I know that I added only 3.5 gallons of regular unleaded fuel to cover one jaunt of about 160 miles of mixed driving.  This seems close to the EPA estimate. The little green EV icon shone quite a bit. I imagine that this is a very easy car to live with over the long haul.  For Camry, this powertrain is obviously a new combination, but it’s technology that Toyota and other Asian marques have worked with for quite a while.  I mostly took note that, apart from the major powertrain change, there is the evident synergy of the many small changes that make this a more nicely packaged vehicle than the last Camry. - - - - - PHOTOS FORTHCOMING
    • The BYD Han interior does look really good.  Shame the outside looks like a 2-generations-ago Civic.
    • No one cares about that amount of horsepower in this class. These are chauffeur driven vehicles. Up until electrics came around, most were trundling around with 2.0T 4-cylinders or diesels.  While Genesis is still relatively new to us in the the U.S., they've made such strides on interior quality that I'd put them up against MB dollar for dollar. The nicest of the Chinese EVs sedans, the NIO ET7 is a pretty good looking car though I kinda think it looks like a Model-3 had it's way with a Buick Envista. It would do really well in the US up against the Teslas, but it is still not playing in the luxury ballpark with Genesis (or Benz or Audi) when it comes to design and materials.  Low end EQE Sedan rival? Sure. G90 rival? No.
    • Well 25% tariff added to it, which makes a G90 like $125,000, and probably dead in the water in the US.  The Chinese have luxury cars with over 1,000 hp for less than the price of a G90.  I don't know that they are really going to compete there either.  Unless they come up with some  next gen EV tech and have full self driving and impeccable build quality or something.
    • The thing is that Panera offers a better laptop and hot drink environment than does Starbucks and they cash in on that.  It's "space rental." The tab for a HALF chicken avocado chipotle sandwich and a small CUP of baked potato soup (both good, not great) was absurd.  Coffee, tea, and lemonade are roughly the same. I go there because it's near a friend's condo and it's better for having a discussion than a fairly nice Starbucks nearby.  A Starbucks has to have an excellent interior for me to go there and pay their now crazy prices for coffee and tea.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

This Article

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search