Bob Lutz Shares Details of the Chevrolet Volt

[Oracle of Delphi]

[siegen]

I am surprised that the designers weren't more concerned with aerodynamics when they were first designing the concept, and that they only discovered it had horrible aerodynamics after showing the completed concept to the public (or perhaps they knew it had horrible aerodynamics and needed to change, but still showed it).

When Honda unveiled the Clarity concept for the first time it was nearly finished, and the production version only had minor tweaks and a different grill compared to it. Same with the Insight.

[Drew Dowdell]

The original Volt concept was a powertrain exercise wrapped in hot looking package.

[hyperv6]

I also think the first Volt was done in a very short time so odds are aero was a priority on this let alone even put it in a tunnel.

[ocnblu]

I still think some cues from the original Volt might evolve into some other production car.

[pow]

The original Volt concept was a powertrain exercise wrapped in hot looking package.

The original Volt concept had a theoretical powertrain and was powered by a tub of detergent and a golf cart motor.

[GXT]

I also think the first Volt was done in a very short time so odds are aero was a priority on this let alone even put it in a tunnel.

Except that the press release for the Volt concept contained this heading in regard to the exterior, "Environmentally conscious vehicles can be aesthetically appealing". It also contained this, "The Volt’s athletic design challenges the notion that an environmentally conscious vehicle can’t be beautiful and possess an aesthetic spirit that matches its driving characteristics." and, "“First and foremost, this is an advanced technology vehicle that uses little to no fuel at all. But we didn’t see any reason why that should compromise its design,” said Anne Asensio, executive director, GM Design. Asensio led the design team that created the Volt concept, with designs solicited from GM’s studios around the world." Finally, "“Our job was to design a vehicle people could easily imagine,” said Asensio. “It couldn’t be a ‘science project,’ because that’s not what this car is all about. It had to be realistic, executable and carry the essence of the Chevrolet brand.”"

Can you believe that was in the PR and they actually had no idea if the Volt was or wasn't aerodynamic? At least I assume they were being incompetent and not deceitful. For me, it is just more evidence about how very little actual work/research had been done on the Volt when they started making all their claims that have proven so inaccurate.

[GXT]

I am surprised that the designers weren't more concerned with aerodynamics when they were first designing the concept, and that they only discovered it had horrible aerodynamics after showing the completed concept to the public (or perhaps they knew it had horrible aerodynamics and needed to change, but still showed it).

When Honda unveiled the Clarity concept for the first time it was nearly finished, and the production version only had minor tweaks and a different grill compared to it. Same with the Insight.

I think the major difference was that Honda was showing cars they intended to build. GM was showing a car for PR (as per Lutz) that they didn't intend to build (as per the PR at that time).

It is very funny in retrospect, now that we know how GM pretty much knew NOTHING about the Volt and how they inflated pretty much every number that mattered, that that the detergent powered brick concept was assumed a working moonshot that leap-frogged Toyota.

[z28luvr01]

To look at it another way, GM spent two and a half years creating technology (where there was none before) that will deliver on what were at the time empty promises made by GM's PR about a concept that was essentially based on vaporware.

[GXT]

To look at it another way, GM spent two and a half years creating technology (where there was none before) that will deliver on what were at the time empty promises made by GM's PR about a concept that was essentially based on vaporware.

Except that they aren't really delivering.

e.g.

1) Price will apparently be $40K+, not under nicely under $30K

2) ICE MPG will likely be in the 30's, not 50.

3) Electric range will be 32 miles (city EPA) and probably less on the highway, not 40 miles.

4) Availability will be niche for quite some time, not the "gotta be a Chevy to show how it is an average person car" mantra.

5) Range is 300 miles, not 600 (not that this really matters as far as I am concerned).

6) Appearance is more Prius/Insight-like and less Camaro-like.

I would also argue whether or not the technology existed. I don't think anything particularly new has been created since the time of the concept. On the contrary, I think the battery breakthrough that GM was banking on hasn't happened and that is why they are falling so short on the important metrics.

Edited October 30, 2009 by GXT

[CARBIZ]

Except that they aren't really delivering.

e.g.

1) Price will apparently be $40K+, not under nicely under $30K

2) ICE MPG will likely be in the 30's, not 50.

3) Electric range will be 32 miles (city EPA) and probably less on the highway, not 40 miles.

4) Availability will be niche for quite some time, not the "gotta be a Chevy to show how it is an average person car" mantra.

5) Range is 300 miles, not 600 (not that this really matters as far as I am concerned).

6) Appearance is more Prius/Insight-like and less Camaro-like.

I would also argue whether or not the technology existed. I don't think anything particularly new has been created since the time of the concept. On the contrary, I think the battery breakthrough that GM was banking on hasn't happened and that is why they are falling so short on the important metrics.

You could just cut and paste your anti-Volt diatribes, or just right 'ditto' on your posts: save the uninitiated the pain of having to read them all from scratch. Tell me, what is Toyota paying you to be their spokesperson? The fact that Toyota began to attack the concept of the Volt from the beginning is enough proof for me that GM has been and is on the correct track here.

I agree that perhaps Lutz and others shouldn't have over-hyped it from the beginning, but with Consumer Reports and others constantly rehashing Toyota and Honda's press releases, GM needs to bleat their own horn because nobody else is doing that.

[SAmadei]

1) Price will apparently be $40K+, not under nicely under $30K

2) ICE MPG will likely be in the 30's, not 50.

3) Electric range will be 32 miles (city EPA) and probably less on the highway, not 40 miles.

4) Availability will be niche for quite some time, not the "gotta be a Chevy to show how it is an average person car" mantra.

5) Range is 300 miles, not 600 (not that this really matters as far as I am concerned).

6) Appearance is more Prius/Insight-like and less Camaro-like.

Nothing here is that out of line.

I would also argue whether or not the technology existed. I don't think anything particularly new has been created since the time of the concept. On the contrary, I think the battery breakthrough that GM was banking on hasn't happened and that is why they are falling so short on the important metrics.

I couldn't argee more. Battery technology is evolving very slowly, regardless of GM's investments or not, as the technology is used in SO many other applications.

You could just cut and paste your anti-Volt diatribes, or just right 'ditto' on your posts: save the uninitiated the pain of having to read them all from scratch. Tell me, what is Toyota paying you to be their spokesperson? The fact that Toyota began to attack the concept of the Volt from the beginning is enough proof for me that GM has been and is on the correct track here.

I agree that perhaps Lutz and others shouldn't have over-hyped it from the beginning, but with Consumer Reports and others constantly rehashing Toyota and Honda's press releases, GM needs to bleat their own horn because nobody else is doing that.

He's not being anti-Volt, as least as far as I see... Toyota and Honda's efforts aren't much farther along. To keep touting GM breakthroughs that aren't breakthroughs hurts GM's creditability.

[CaddyXLR-V]

Nothing here is that out of line.

I couldn't argee more. Battery technology is evolving very slowly, regardless of GM's investments or not, as the technology is used in SO many other applications.

He's not being anti-Volt, as least as far as I see... Toyota and Honda's efforts aren't much farther along. To keep touting GM breakthroughs that aren't breakthroughs hurts GM's creditability.

I don't see anything out of line either. The Volt at over $40,000 is a joke. That is as affordable as a BMW 3 series. Except, it's a Chevy.

[GXT]

You could just cut and paste your anti-Volt diatribes, or just right 'ditto' on your posts: save the uninitiated the pain of having to read them all from scratch. Tell me, what is Toyota paying you to be their spokesperson? The fact that Toyota began to attack the concept of the Volt from the beginning is enough proof for me that GM has been and is on the correct track here.

I agree that perhaps Lutz and others shouldn't have over-hyped it from the beginning, but with Consumer Reports and others constantly rehashing Toyota and Honda's press releases, GM needs to bleat their own horn because nobody else is doing that.

I do feel kind of repetitive... I'm not sure how many times I have told you that I don't particularly like Toyota, have never owned one, and don't particularly want to own one. I don't want to get in the way of your persecution syndrome, but sometimes it isn't quite that black and white.

Toyota was correct when they criticized the Volt... and take note that that was when GM was claiming the Volt's performance was much better and the cost was much lower than what it seems today. It makes even less sense now.

Initially GM tried to pretend that what they were doing was some leap-frog moon shot, but now we know that wasn't the reality at all. Lutz has admitted that the Volt was a compromised attempt to one-up the Prius and now it is pretty clear that at the time of the concept they really had very little idea what they were talking about. That also means that they most likely decided to go ahead based on public reaction to their claims (as well as government money) and not based on what actually made sense. So don't blame Toyota for pointing out the obvious.

The reality is that Toyota could do what GM is doing if they wanted. And while I suspect they will one day, they will probably wait until it makes sense. Rushing to put out a vehicle that doesn't make much sense for the consumer and loses money for automaker doesn't make sense.

Edited October 31, 2009 by GXT

[Drew Dowdell]

Rushing to put out a vehicle that doesn't make much sense for the consumer and loses money for automaker doesn't make sense.

You mean like the first 3 generations of Pruis and the first generation of Insight?

[CARBIZ]

Oh, the joys of a a free society and the internet: we get to attack GM before it builds something, during and then through hindsight attack things we overlooked.

We are watching the final few moves of a massive game of chess on a global scale.

What did GM learn from the EV-1 project? Answer: we don't know.

Why didn't GM worry about aerodynamics on the Volt from the beginning? Answer: we don't know.

How much will the car actually cost IN ANOTHER YEAR WHEN THEY START SELLING THEM? Answer, we don't know.

What eventual mpg will the car get, when its real marketing trump card is that for 70% of the drivers out there, it will never run on gas? Again, we dont' know.

A whole lot of speculatin' goin' on. The difference is, some of us are HOPING for the best, while others are HOPING for the worst.

I'm starting to see why Nero chose to play the fiddle while Rome burned......

[and puhlease! I know the fiddle was invented a thousand years after Nero died...it's just an allegory!]

[GXT]

You mean like the first 3 generations of Pruis and the first generation of Insight?

Are you saying that Toyota lost money on the 3rd gen Prius? I've heard people make that argument about the first gen, but you can't seriously be making that argument about the 3rd and 2nd gen too?

Now if you had stuck to the first gens then I could have seen your point to an extent. But I believe even the first gen Prius made much more sense to Toyota and the consumer than the first gen Volt. More to the point, one of the causes of the first gen hybrids was government money, and in that regard I guess Toyota and GM aren't so different.

Regarding whether they make sense for the consumers, I don't know enough about the 1st gen Prius to say how the volume proposition has changed, but yes, a 2nd and 3rd gen Prius driver could make up the cost premium.

But let's assume you are correct and say the Prius doesn't make sense for the consumer. Lets see how the Volt compares.

Assumptions:

Price premium for Volt ~$18,000 (40K vs 22K). This actually flatters the Volt as depreciation and financing costs will widen this gap significantly. I know there is a tax credit for the Volt, but that the government has to prop it up just proves the point all the more. Let's assume the extra financing, depreciation and taxes equals the tax credit.

Prius gets 50MPG. Volt gets 30 miles electric range (as per EPA city of 32 - slightly lower for highway) for $0.80 ($0.10/KWh) and 35MPG on ICE. Assume gas costs $2.50. Volt users get up to one full charge per day.

Let's look at someone who drives 5,000 Miles/year, 10,000 miles/year, 15,000 miles/year, and 20,000 miles/year. For simplicity assume that they drive the same number of miles per day (this favors the Volt as it optimizes the number of miles that will be on elecricity).

5,000 miles/year:

Prius uses $250 in gas.

Volt uses no gas, and $133 in electricity.

Volt saves $116/year over Prius.

Volt premium over prius after 8 years of driving $17,067.

Volt premium over Prius has a 154 year payback.

10,000 miles/year:

Prius uses $500 in gas.

Volt uses no gas, and $267 in electricity.

Volt saves $233/year over Prius.

Volt premium over prius after 8 years of driving $16,133.

Volt premium over Prius has a 77 year payback.

15,000 miles/year:

Prius uses $750 in gas.

Volt uses $290 in gas, and $292 in electricity.

Volt saves $169/year over Prius.

Volt premium over prius after 8 years of driving $16,650.

Volt premium over Prius has a 107 year payback.

20,000 miles/year:

Prius uses $1000 in gas.

Volt uses $646 in gas, and $292 in electricity.

Volt saves $61 year over prius.

Volt premium over prius after 8 years of driving $17,507.

Volt premium over Prius has a 292 year payback.

So if the Prius makes no sense for consumers, what does that mean for the Volt if even in one of the most Volt-friendly situations it has a 77 year payback premium?

I picked 8 years for the cost comparison because that is apparently when the Volt's battery warranty will expire.

Now you are saying, "GXT that price will come down." OK, lets say GM manages to drops the price by $9,000 and for some reason the Prius doesn't manage to realize any of those savings. Now you have a 77, 39, 53, and 146 year payback respectively.

Even if you give GM all their original goals (including the $30,000 price, 50 MPG ICE, 40 miles electric) and $4/gallon gas, the Volt payback is still many many times worse.

Edited November 1, 2009 by GXT

[GXT]

Oh, the joys of a a free society and the internet: we get to attack GM before it builds something, during and then through hindsight attack things we overlooked.

We are watching the final few moves of a massive game of chess on a global scale.

What did GM learn from the EV-1 project? Answer: we don't know.

Why didn't GM worry about aerodynamics on the Volt from the beginning? Answer: we don't know.

How much will the car actually cost IN ANOTHER YEAR WHEN THEY START SELLING THEM? Answer, we don't know.

What eventual mpg will the car get, when its real marketing trump card is that for 70% of the drivers out there, it will never run on gas? Again, we dont' know.

A whole lot of speculatin' goin' on. The difference is, some of us are HOPING for the best, while others are HOPING for the worst.

I'm starting to see why Nero chose to play the fiddle while Rome burned......

[and puhlease! I know the fiddle was invented a thousand years after Nero died...it's just an allegory!]

As I've pointed out many times, I'm still here and I will be when the Volt comes out, for better or worse.

However I think you are viewing GM's actions with rose-coloured glasses. It isn't like they set out with reason and knowledge to build the right vehicle and fell short only because of bad luck or because of facts that are only apparent now.

Here is what I believe we know from observation and public statements:

1) From interviews we know Lutz believes the demand for fuel efficient cars is largely media hype.

2) From all sources we know the Volt was Lutz's baby.

3) From interviews we know Lutz wanted to build an all-electric car for the purposes of getting Prius-style PR.

4) From interviews we know Lutz was told that was not practical, and the bastard Volt was created.

5) A Volt concept was shown with impressive claims. We now know that the Volt is falling short on all the important metrics originally claimed. We also now know that GM was claiming things which they could have known one way or another at that time (e.g. aerodynamics), but for which they clearly did not have even the most basic evidence. We don't know if that was deceit or incompetence. GM (correctly, I think) used the "we need a battery breakthrough" disclaimer to cover their butts.

6) PR floods in. Government retooling money was on the table for efficient vehicles. Cash burn was so high that bankruptcy was probable.

7) Ford, Toyota, Honda (and me! ) point out that a car such as the Volt doesn't make sense and there are better avenues to pursue.

This is spun by GM and sites like this as evidence that GM has accomplished something that no one else could accomplish... even though we now know the Volt was little more than a box of detergent apparently filled with ignorance and PR-dreams.

9) In spite of all the above, GM decides to proceed with the Volt immediately.

10) That no one else is jumping off the cliff with GM is spun as further evidence that GM is performing some kind of "Moon shot" of which no one else is capable (Chinese company BYD proves this incorrect by selling a car similar to the Volt in 2008. Chrysler also demonstrates a EREV prior to the Volt being demonstrated.)

Just to put that in context, let's compare GM's actions with Ford's. GM built some crap hybrids (with 4ATs!!!) and then started their Volt slight-of-hand routine described above. Instead of jumping off the cliff with GM, Ford demonstrated that they could one-up GM, then pointed out that it was a bad idea, and then, while GM was busy building their PR production lines so as to play make-believe, Ford ACTUALLY one-upped Toyota by putting out the most fuel efficient midsize sedan. It was on sale years before the Volt, profitable (I suspect), a reasonable purchase for the consumer, wide availability, no government subsidies, probably cost a lot less than the Volt to develop, and Ford doesn't have to worry about looking like idiots because they made up a bunch of facts they couldn't ultimately back up.

Edited November 1, 2009 by GXT

[vonVeezelsnider]

The Economics of the Volt are compelling to me... but my interest in purchasing one would determine on gas prices.

When I graduate from University in 2013 I intend to put down a 15'000$ down payment on a new car (as I have intended the Impala would be kept and garaged, its gas costs constant and therefore not a factor in this scenario). Assuming that MSRP on a topped out Cruze LT will be like 25k$ and the Volt will be about 45K$ before the 10K$ tax credit as promised by Stephen Harper and Ed Stelmach.

According to statistical research done by my university I should expect to earn 62-68k$ right after I graduate within a 95% confidence interval. At that salary with a mortgage down-payment of 60-80k$ the only place I could afford to live in something bigger than a 900sqft apartment is outside the city limits. I currently put 7000mi on my car annually but this number will realistically be more like 15500mi when I'm out on my own (estimating a commute of 30mi each way, 70/30 hwy city split). I'm assuming paying exactly MSRP for both vehicles.

1. Gas where it is now (3.50/gallon)

Cruze 1.4L LT AUTO

Combined MPG 35.5MPG
Miles Driven: 15'500
Annual Gas Cost: 1480$
Annual Finance Payment: 2364$
Monthly Gas Cost: 123.30$
Monthly Finance Payment: 197$
ANNUAL TOTAL- FINANCE + GAS: 3844$


Volt (assuming a battery range on the average commute of ONLY 20 MILES)

Combined MPG: 34MPG
Miles Driven: 15'500
Miles on Gas Engine: 3'500
Annual Gas Cost: 363.30$
Annual Finance Payment: 4560$
Monthly Gas Cost: 30.27$
Monthly Finance Payment: 380$
ANNUAL TOTAL- FINANCE + GAS: 4923.3$[/b][/u]

~ at current prices I would lose 1000$ a year for five years before the car would begin to pay for itself.  Assuming 5000$ over the finance period and net 10000$ in price difference it would take almost fifteen years for the car to pay for itself, prohibitive because I would only likely keep it as long as the battery warranty (8 years).  Advantage Cruze.

2. Gas where industry watchdogs speculate it will go by 2013 (7.50/gallon)

Cruze 1.4L LT AUTO

Combined MPG 35.5MPG
Miles Driven: 15'500
Annual Gas Cost: 3171$
Annual Finance Payment: 2364$
Monthly Gas Cost: 246.66$
Monthly Finance Payment: 197$
ANNUAL TOTAL- FINANCE + GAS: 5528$


Volt (assuming a battery range on the average commute of ONLY 20 MILES)

Combined MPG: 34MPG
Miles Driven: 15'500
Miles on Gas Engine: 3'500
Annual Gas Cost: 778.50$
Annual Finance Payment: 4560$
Monthly Gas Cost: 30.27$
Monthly Finance Payment: 380$
ANNUAL TOTAL- FINANCE + GAS: 5420.50$

~ at 7.50/gallon I would gain 100$ a year for five years.  Assuming 500$ in gains over the finance period and net 10000$ loss in price difference it would take nine years for the car to pay for itself, prohibitive because I would only likely keep it as long as the battery warranty (8 years).  Advantage Cruze.

CONCLUSION: Unless gas hits 11-12 dollars per gallon the Cruze remains a more responsible, financially feasible purchase. The numbers look even worse for the Volt if I put it against a Cruze that was bought through an inventory reduction promotion, for less than MSRP, likely with 0% apr. It's a defeat akin to the Battle of Little Big Horn for the Volt if I were to compare it to a Cruze that was bought as a year old low mileage car that's already taken it's first-year depreciation hit and sells for 17000$. The only caveat is that the Volt over the eight years gives off less emissions than the Cruze. Since this is somewhat substantially offset a la Prius by the processes that must go into making the batteries, and because I generally don't believe Al Gore, I don't give a $h! about this point.

*Disclaimer*

I'm not saying that the Volt won't work for anybody at all, I'm just saying that in my reality it isn't really a better solution than what's already available.

Edited November 1, 2009 by vonVeezelsnider

[GXT]

The Economics of the Volt are compelling to me... but my interest in purchasing one would determine on gas prices.

When I graduate from University in 2013 I intend to put down a 15'000$ down payment on a new car (as I have intended the Impala would be kept and garaged, its gas costs constant and therefore not a factor in this scenario). Assuming that MSRP on a topped out Cruze LT will be like 25k$ and the Volt will be about 45K$ before the 10K$ tax credit as promised by Stephen Harper and Ed Stelmach.

According to statistical research done by my university I should expect to earn 62-68k$ right after I graduate within a 95% confidence interval. At that salary with a mortgage down-payment of 60-80k$ the only place I could afford to live in something bigger than a 900sqft apartment is outside the city limits. I currently put 7000mi on my car annually but this number will realistically be more like 15500mi when I'm out on my own (estimating a commute of 30mi each way, 70/30 hwy city split).

I like your dedication to the facts. But why are you putting $15,000 towards a cobalt/cruze instead of your mortgage? Your mortgage will surely be at a higer rate than the car. You are throwing away money.

Your numbers are minimizing the cost difference between the Volt and the Cruze. If the Volt is 40,000 in the US it will be 45,000 in Canada and therefore nearly 50,000 with taxes. The Cobalt LT2 1SB is about 25,000 right now with taxes. Even assuming you waste my taxes (Ontario should get their own fiscal situation in order before they decide to so profoundly waste transfer payments) for a $10,000 credit, the Volt will be 15,000 more, and probably at 6% more per year (I wouldn't expect any deals on a niche product like the Volt). $40,000 for 60months @ 7% = ~$9,500/year. $25,000 for 60 months @ 1% = ~$5,130/year. That is an extra $1,200 per year for the Volt over your original numbers.

Also, as someone who found this out the hard way, I would encourage you to research depreciation rates if you haven't already done so. I think you will see that buying a new GM is a bad idea.

e.g. a $24,859 Corolla LE will cost $445.58/month for 60 months at 2.9%, and a 2005 model is currently worth $9,100 black book. (e.g. It will cost 17,634 over 5 years.).

A $25,355 Cobalt LT2 1SB will cost $443.31/month for 60 months at 1.9% (I assume you can get a slightly better rate on the cobalt) and a 2005 model is worth $6,900 black book. (e.g. it will cost $19,698 over 5 years, or $2,000 more than the Corolla.)

Edited November 1, 2009 by GXT

[vonVeezelsnider]

Your numbers are minimizing the cost difference between the Volt and the Cruze. If the Volt is 40,000 in the US it will be 45,000 in Canada and therefore nearly 50,000 with taxes. The Cobalt LT2 1SB is about 25,000 right now with taxes. Even assuming you waste my taxes (Ontario should get their own fiscal situation in order before they decide to so profoundly waste transfer payments) for a $10,000 credit, the Volt will be 15,000 more, and probably at 6% more per year (I wouldn't expect any deals on a niche product like the Volt). $40,000 for 60months @ 7% = ~$9,500/year. $25,000 for 60 months @ 1% = ~$5,130/year. That is an extra $1,200 per year for the Volt over your original numbers.

I know what depreciation is, I'm not a moron. We've bought leaseback GM vehicles in 2006, 2007 and 2008 I have a general grasp of the residuals on GM vehicles. My 15'000$ down-payment would become a 4000$ down-payment if I bought a year old car. The number is simply for illustrating a down payment that could be applied to both cars at new in the context of my own scenario (hypothetical at this point).

If what I want is available as a leaseback at a year old that's what I'll buy... I'm not stupid. I'm just trying to illustrate the differences here. The numbers aren't spot on they're rough and approximated, not including taxes, and whatnot for the sake of simplicity. I gave the Volt plenty of leeway to illustrate that it just doesn't work for me even in mildest of conditions.

Edited November 1, 2009 by vonVeezelsnider

[FloydHendershot]

Also, as someone who found this out the hard way, I would encourage you to research depreciation rates if you haven't already done so. I think you will see that buying a new GM is a bad idea.

e.g. a $24,859 Corolla LE will cost $445.58/month for 60 months at 2.9%, and a 2005 model is currently worth $9,100 black book. (e.g. It will cost 17,634 over 5 years.).

A $25,355 Cobalt LT2 1SB will cost $443.31/month for 60 months at 1.9% (I assume you can get a slightly better rate on the cobalt) and a 2005 model is worth $6,900 black book. (e.g. it will cost $19,698 over 5 years, or $2,000 more than the Corolla.)

Depreciation? You had to learn that the hard way?? The second you drive off the lot you lose money, everyone knows that much. That is some mighty good research and insight.

I'm sorry what were you bitching about?

[CARBIZ]

Oh, GXT, you are so funny. I wish you'd come and bought a car from me when I was working at GM: my commission off you would have been well over $1,000. Keep up the good work, your posts are my daily thrill.

First of all, by comparing a LE Corolla with a LT2 Cobalt, you are showing your true colors: they don't match up in features by HALF. Secondly, get off the internet will you? Both the GM and Toyota websites don't show accurately what their prices are or their equipments lists. If you would pay $21k plus taxes for a Cobalt LT2, then you are stupider than I thought you are.

(Sorry, I know I shouldn't get personal, but this kind of sheer ignorance just cannot go unchecked. It's people like YOU, spreading your lies and ignorance that are destroying GM. Some people might actually think you know what you are talking about!!)

Your half-assed analyses are getting annoying already! I worked for a GM store that owned 2 Toyota stores. I worked there for 10 years. For $h!s and giggles (and with the used car manager hovering over my shoulder) we crunched the REAL numbers many times, and forgetting the cost of money and forgetting the MANDATORY 3 money trips to the Toyota dealership, the Cobalt was literally $3-5K cheaper than the Toyota. Nobody uses black book, especially on newer vehicle. Black book is only shown to idiots that walk in the show room to prove the dealer is being 'honest.' It's the auctions, stupid. They change daily, literally.

But the real proof is working at both a Toyota and Chevrolet store and SEEING the differences, not speculating about them like Cars.com or whaver half-asses sites you use. It's the mythology that Toyotas hold their value better that is keeping the Toyota mistique circulating.

And people dredging up BS speculation about a car that GM isn't even building yet, hoping to topple it before it gets off the ground, is what is destroying North America. How can GM counter such mindless drivel when people believe it to be true?

I don't even work for GM anymore, so really, I shouldn't give crap, but honestly - I can't countenance fools either.

[A Horse With No Name]

Actually Carbiz, you made a point awhile back about the Cobalt and Cavi that really, really stuck with me. And I'd like to elaborate.

You talked about how GM overbuilt things like door hinges, trunk locks, suspension mounting points, et al-things that will go bad when you really drive one of these things in a harsh environment like Toronto or Columbus Ohio.

I like to wrench on cars once in awhile, and I love salvage yards. After you brought up that point...I started paying CLOSE attention to the Toyotas and Chevy's rotting away in a yard after ten or fifteen years of service.

Imagine THAT: A CANADIAN of all things was actually RIGHT about something. The Body structure of a Chevrolet/GM product seems to hold up MUCH better over real world time and real world use than that or a Toyota. Not only that, when they are smacked hard, the body structure of the Cobalt holds up really well.

Off topic but..saw a red Cobalt 2 door sitting next to a Corolla at the Local Pick N pull. I've watched the crash test video's on you tube, but to me looking at actual wrecked cars seems to tell the true story. AMAZING how much better the Cobalt seemed to hold up from a similar accident. I am a family guy, and if I had to send my daughter off to college in a car, it would DAMN sure be a Coblat rather than a Corolla based on what I've seen in yards.

But I'm just a ranting yankee, eh? YMMV.

Chris

[SAmadei]

Off topic but..saw a red Cobalt 2 door sitting next to a Corolla at the Local Pick N pull. I've watched the crash test video's on you tube, but to me looking at actual wrecked cars seems to tell the true story. AMAZING how much better the Cobalt seemed to hold up from a similar accident. I am a family guy, and if I had to send my daughter off to college in a car, it would DAMN sure be a Coblat rather than a Corolla based on what I've seen in yards.

Careful about that comparison, as I've done a lot of 'armchair crash analysis' at Pick-a-Parts, as well... and while drawing similar conclusions, I also take my observations with two large bits of salt...

First, most P-a-P junk yards don't put severely crashed cars in the lot. Ones drenched in blood or mangled to the point where most parts are damaged. These are crashes that can be most telling about structure or survivability.

Second, I've noticed that the higher residual value of the imports keeps them out of the P-a-P. _All_ the import cars in the local yard are clapped out, have physical damage and are loaded with JC Whitney clearance items. There are domestic cars in there that have NO DAMAGE at ALL! Plus our yard puts notes on the cars, so you can note if a car has serious engine or tranny damage... these are cars with tens of thousands of perfectly good miles on them. So my theory is that a good deal of the import cars that take less damage are repaired instead of junked.

Also, a third thought, and one I don't completely subscribe to, but if an car crushes more during an impact, it is that less energy is transferred to the passengers... so those imports with more damage were (to a degree) inflicting less injury on the passengers.

[gm4life]

I hope this helps GMs "green image". Being as I don't really care about this bull$h!, like the Volt, I hope it does well for them, and they actually make money on it. Oh wait I just realized the only way anyone can make money on these things is if they charge out the a$$ and the government gives huge tax credits. Again remind me why hybrids make so much sense? Screw it, I'll take my big ass American barge anyday. Thats why I keep thinking RWD, V8 for my next car... If not me, my sons first new car will be!

Edited November 2, 2009 by gm4life

[hyperv6]

I can not comment on the crash teszt but here in the rust belt it is rare to see a really old Honda or Toyota but still common to see a Chevy Beretta or very square body Cavalier. It is still not odd to see a Chevette yet.

Most of the Honda's and Toyotas of the same years have either rusted away or have gotten to a point where they are no longer cheap or easy to repair.

It is like many found out with the Vega. It may have rusted out and used oil but it would always start and run. Keep oil in it and it would run forever.

I don't see this this trend ending here as my Buddy is in a part department of a Mitu/Hyundia dealer. Some people come in for repair in the service department only to leave when they find the cost too high for the value of some car. When you start to add up the cost of some of the Turbo's AWD and other items it gets $$$$.

He laughs at kids with Evo's who come in to buy parts. They had one with the big Brembo package on his and he wanted rotors and pads to do it himself. The parts alone were $2400.

He also noted once all the electrics go they often tow the car out and often it is junked as not only will the owner not fix it the dealer wants no part of a trade with these and cars in need of mechanical work. They will not even want to send them to auction.

THe one thing that has helped GM over the years is the use of the same parts on many cars. It helps keep the parts avaiable and easy to find. Interchangeablility is key for the salvage yards. Many imports not only will parts from more than one year not work but even in the same year.

I see cars like Hondas in some years use crazy things like 3-4 different ignition system in one year. Then add in the imported cars and they use different parts too even with the car looking the same. When you ask the owner for the engine code you get a long pause and then "I Don't Know".

[siegen]

AMAZING how much better the Cobalt seemed to hold up from a similar accident.

There is no way to derive that conclusion given the evidence and information available to you. The Cobalt and Corolla did not experience the same accident, unless they were both NHTSA crash cars under controlled crash test conditions.

[Z-06]

And people dredging up BS speculation about a car that GM isn't even building yet, hoping to topple it before it gets off the ground, is what is destroying North America. How can GM counter such mindless drivel when people believe it to be true?

This. His analysis might even be true. But it is like jailing a baby who was born in a meth infested trailer park of West Virginia on the grounds that he will be a future drug dealer.

First starting off with a tirade of GM notgoingtobuildtheVOLT.com to detergent box filled engine compartment to no batteries exist to PR stunt to cost of ownership the tirade never ends. The rant has been going on and on to a point of being hackneyed.

If people did not invest in a new technology and try to look at cost disadvantage from the start there will be no fruits of a technology for mass consumption. If GM was really blowing smoke with its Li technology companies like Peugeot, Mitsubishi, Nissan will not invest in the same plug in concept. The concept brought forth by GM is now being studied or being wanted to be used by many major manufacturers barring Toy and Honda - who secretely must be pursuing it too.

[GXT]

I know what depreciation is, I'm not a moron. We've bought leaseback GM vehicles in 2006, 2007 and 2008 I have a general grasp of the residuals on GM vehicles.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply you were a moron. I just couldn't figure out why anyone who had the grasp of numbers that you seemed to have would put down such a large downpayment or seriously consider a new GM.

My 15'000$ down-payment would become a 4000$ down-payment if I bought a year old car. The number is simply for illustrating a down payment that could be applied to both cars at new in the context of my own scenario (hypothetical at this point).

If what I want is available as a leaseback at a year old that's what I'll buy... I'm not stupid. I'm just trying to illustrate the differences here. The numbers aren't spot on they're rough and approximated, not including taxes, and whatnot for the sake of simplicity. I gave the Volt plenty of leeway to illustrate that it just doesn't work for me even in mildest of conditions.

Gotcha. But I'd suggest that adding a downpayment to the mix only complicates the comparison and hides the differences. That $15,000 could be doing a lot of positive things.

[GXT]

Oh, GXT, you are so funny. I wish you'd come and bought a car from me when I was working at GM: my commission off you would have been well over $1,000. Keep up the good work, your posts are my daily thrill.

I checked the Canadian website and it tells me there are no deals on the Cobalt in my area. Sorry Biz, I don't have the time to sign up for quotes or go to the GM dealer to find out what amazing deals they have on the Cobalt, or try to figure out what kind of financing rate I could get, or see just how much GM has inflated the MSRP so that they can screw people into thinking they are getting a deal.

First of all, by comparing a LE Corolla with a LT2 Cobalt, you are showing your true colors: they don't match up in features by HALF. Secondly, get off the internet will you? Both the GM and Toyota websites don't show accurately what their prices are or their equipments lists. If you would pay $21k plus taxes for a Cobalt LT2, then you are stupider than I thought you are.

Do tell: What is your definition of "HALF"? Of course the all-knowing non-ignorant Carbiz KNOWS (as per the GM website) that the Corolla has the following advantages over the Cobalt:

2 more airbags, 2 more speakers, brake assist, auto climate control, cruise control, driver lumbar, etc.

In fact, out of the ~180 items compared on the GM website, the GM advantage is indicated only for 12... and several of those are actually ties that GM has given to itself, and the rest mostly have to do with on-star and the engine being larger (which is a wash I think because the fuel economy is worse). I can't see one major feature in favour of the Cobalt besides the Cobalt having a 5AT to the Corolla's 4AT.

So when you said, "they don't match up in features by HALF." did you mean that the Cobalt doesn't measure up by half? Because I think you are being a little bit too critical. It isn't that bad.

If the GM website is wrong, please tell me all the amazing features of the Cobalt that make it twice the car.

(Sorry, I know I shouldn't get personal, but this kind of sheer ignorance just cannot go unchecked. It's people like YOU, spreading your lies and ignorance that are destroying GM. Some people might actually think you know what you are talking about!!)

The last time we had a similar argument it was about the Cobalt/Civic and as I recall I was the one who pointed out how misinformed and misleading you were. Apparently not much has changed.

PS. You never would have been able to sell me car, because, as you can see, I would have actually checked the bull that you were telling me. Apparently you've sold Cobalts and have some inside knowledge of the Corolla. I've never really cared to own either but for some reason apparently I know more than you.

But you are right that you need to get off the websites. The Cobalt my wife and test drove had horrible build quality... e.g. the fabric on the door near the tiny power window or door switch didn't reach under the switch. Trying to sell a used GM vs a used Honda is a pain in the butt. And you don't really understand depreciation until you see how little you get for your used GM.

Edited November 4, 2009 by GXT

[GXT]

If people did not invest in a new technology and try to look at cost disadvantage from the start there will be no fruits of a technology for mass consumption. If GM was really blowing smoke with its Li technology companies like Peugeot, Mitsubishi, Nissan will not invest in the same plug in concept. The concept brought forth by GM is now being studied or being wanted to be used by many major manufacturers barring Toy and Honda - who secretely must be pursuing it too.

You've created a false dilemma.

Here's an analogy you might appreciate. Before LCDs were common, do you think the best approach was to sell 15" LCDs? or 120" LCDs? Or 405" LCDs? Because those are roughly equivalent differences when comparing the scope of the battery size difference between the Volt and the Prius and the Volt and the Insight.

Do you think the best way to make 120" LCDs mass market is to go from 15" straight to 120"? Or does it make sense to go 17, then 19, etc. until you reach 120?

The Volt also has the unenviable position of having the cost of a 120" but only 60" viewable (as half of the battery is not used).

GM jumping straight to the 120" may "one-up" Toyota, but that doesn't mean it is smart. Plus what GM is essentially doing is buying a 120" panel from a 3rd party. Nothing but sense stops Toyota from doing the exact same thing, from the exact same company even.

Edited November 4, 2009 by GXT

[GXT]

THe one thing that has helped GM over the years is the use of the same parts on many cars. It helps keep the parts avaiable and easy to find. Interchangeablility is key for the salvage yards. Many imports not only will parts from more than one year not work but even in the same year.

Yeah, I think I had the same ebrake break twice on my wife's beretta and twice on her alero.... and I think there was 6 ore more years between those cars.

I can't comment on the import part situation as I've never had to search out a part for any of my imports... except the button for the fog lights on my 1992 Talon. But I believe that was standard over 4 or 5 years.

[vonVeezelsnider]

I just couldn't figure out why anyone who had the grasp of numbers that you seemed to have would put down such a large downpayment or seriously consider a new GM.

If I plan to keep the car for 8-12 years and put 250+ thousand kms on it then why in the Sam Hill would I care about how GM vehicles depreciate over the first three years?

I Don't Care about depreciation for this VERY REASON.

Incidentally GXT, for your edification I like my Cobalt- and I wouldn't consider trading it for a candy ass Corolla. The Cobalt, like has been alluded to by others in this thread is by my own estimations, overbuilt. More power than a Corolla and rides like a much bigger car too. I've driven both the new Civic and the new Lancer and they are both tinny and inferior IMHO. Both ride like apple carts and the Lancer especially feels hollow. I wonder why it is that I simply don't like those "glorious" imports. I don't intend to purchase an Asian car, they do not wash with me.

Edited November 4, 2009 by vonVeezelsnider

[GXT]

Depreciation? You had to learn that the hard way?? The second you drive off the lot you lose money, everyone knows that much. That is some mighty good research and insight.

I'm sorry what were you bitching about?

Obviously cars depreciate the second they are driven off the lot. Thanks for pointing that out.

But I have to assume from your response that you haven't actually looked into the different depreciation rates between say a Honda and a GM. Otherwise I doubt you would have posted quite so many

And yes, I did learn this the hard way. My wife really liked the look of the Alero so we went ahead and bought one. We had never bought a new car before so we didn't know what we were getting into. Not only did it have LOTS of problems, the dealership always seemed to take three visits to fix anything. Later we found out how bad the crash test results were. We couldn't wait to get rid of it, but it took us about 2 months to sell it. In the end we took about $15,000 of depreciation in 4 years.

Her next car was an Accord. It had a similar purchase price but slightly lower lease payments (in spite of the slightly higher lease rate). Even though we paid slightly less for it over the four years, it depreciated ~$4,000 less than the alero. We also managed to sell it in two weeks, and I suspect we could have done even better had I been willing to take two months selling it.

I really don't see what is so funny about throwing away $4,000 for the opportunity to drive a worse car. In fact, you can directly trace that to why I (and I suspect many others like me) don't buy GM products.

?

[GXT]

If I plan to keep the car for 8-12 years and put 250+ thousand kms on it then why in the Sam Hill would I care about how GM vehicles depreciate over the first three years?

I Don't Care about depreciation for this VERY REASON.

Incidentally GXT, for your edification I like my Cobalt- and I wouldn't consider trading it for a candy ass Corolla. The Cobalt, like has been alluded to by others in this thread is by my own estimations, overbuilt. More power than a Corolla and rides like a much bigger car too. I've driven both the new Civic and the new Lancer and they are both inferior IMHO.

You wouldn't. I think buying a 3 or 4 year old GM's and driving it until it was 12 years old would be about the cheapest way to own cars.

But some people want a new car more often. Some people like to be able to have a new car every 4 years for the price that others have to wait 6, or pay the same overall cost but get much more car. For some people the cost of time wated on an older car makes it too expensive. For those people depreciation does matter.

I'm glad you like your Cobalt. What really struck me about the one I drove was how they had wasted money on a hood strut while at the same time putting the dinkiest little power window/door lock buttons. I should never have to open that hood (and the few times I do I could just use a brace), yet I touch those power window door buttons all the time. It really seemed like misplaced priorities to me. That, and the clunky mechanical HVAC controls and the dot-matrix stereo really turned me off. How much is an LCD panel anyways? We moved on to the Malibu pretty quickly.

[FloydHendershot]

Obviously cars depreciate the second they are driven off the lot. Thanks for pointing that out.

But I have to assume from your response that you haven't actually looked into the different depreciation rates between say a Honda and a GM. Otherwise I doubt you would have posted quite so many

And yes, I did learn this the hard way. My wife really liked the look of the Alero so we went ahead and bought one. We had never bought a new car before so we didn't know what we were getting into. Not only did it have LOTS of problems, the dealership always seemed to take three visits to fix anything. Later we found out how bad the crash test results were. We couldn't wait to get rid of it, but it took us about 2 months to sell it. In the end we took about $15,000 of depreciation in 4 years.

Her next car was an Accord. It had a similar purchase price but slightly lower lease payments (in spite of the slightly higher lease rate). Even though we paid slightly less for it over the four years, it depreciated ~$4,000 less than the alero. We also managed to sell it in two weeks, and I suspect we could have done even better had I been willing to take two months selling it.

I really don't see what is so funny about throwing away $4,000 for the opportunity to drive a worse car. In fact, you can directly trace that to why I (and I suspect many others like me) don't buy GM products.

?

I get it you are a fan boy and that is OK. But constant baseless accusations and antagonizing does not make your arguments sound. Especially when you learn about depreciation the hard way. (sorry, there I go again). You want an investment? Here is a tip, buy some stock or municipal bonds, not a car. :AH-HA_wink: T bills with quarterly compound, very sound.

You certainly have a lot to say about the matter but your point about about different cars depreciating differently is so glaringly obvious and misleading considering you nestled it inside a larger gripe I have to wonder about about your motivation. Not too hard mind you but just enough for a quickie. You made a bad decsion (hard to believe) once and now not ever again? And that is not hyperbole as I used to encounter these types on a daily.

Depending on how high the pedestal I say your patience with Honda or whomever will wear thin but i say that with a slight hesitation. They seem to be virtually flawless for you like so many others that only needed a new transmission or had to replace a sludgy engine, but other than that are perfect and can't wait to get another.

I think you will see that buying a new GM is a bad idea.

Your true colors are showing with this one but is it personal or something other?

Again though there is a lot of people who seem to question your authorit-ay so by all means continue to shine on.

Edited November 4, 2009 by FloydHendershot

[CARBIZ]

Sounds to me like GXT took it up the ass on his Alero, then is still pissed about GM ever since.

Let me tell you a story, GXT. In 2001 and 2002, I stood next to the Alero GLS at the Toronto Auto Show because I knew that with standard leather seats, spoiler, 16" wheels, 3.4 V-6, kick-ass sound system, all the power goodies, ABS, etc, this car leased out for $420 TAXES INCLUDED, about the same as a 4 cylinder Accord or Camry at the time. GM had a $3,500 STACKABLE cash credit AND a lease rate of 0.5% at the time. I knew I would be able to attract a lot of customers by pointing this out and make my unpaid time there worth it. If you paid anywhere near the $32k MSRP on that car - well, like I said, you are pretty boneheaded. Or you just don't know how to buy cars. If you lost $15k on the vehicle, it's because YOU PAID TOO MUCH. The beauty of GMAC leases (at the time) is that the lessee doesn't need to worry about depreciation, because it is in black and white. Why the F would you care if the Alero's buy back was $3-5K less than a crappy 4 cylinder Accord? Your payments are LOWER by quite a bit. That's what counts. GMAC would have taken their lumps at the auctions, for sure - but why would you care? Dump the car while in warranty and run. Cleary you got hosed on the deal. I am sorry for that, but you apparently never leased an Alero from me.

Does GM play games with MSRPs? Yes. As a former salesperson, I hated it; however, over at our Toyota store, their 'red tag sales' garnered $350 discounts and people sneered at that. Remember, the public at large thinks we make $5-10K on EVERY car sold. A $500 discount gets laughed at. So, GM provides hidden 'stackable credits' which gives the dealer the tools to appease the "I know how to buy cars" a-hole, or we can soak the bone heads who don't. That's the nature of the car business, and one of the prime reasons I got out. As the movie Suckers points out, never once has a customer walked into the show room and given a $h! whether the dealer makes money or not...

Back to your Cobalt/Corolla comparison. For 2009/2010, the Corolla has narrowed the gap, to be sure. The old Corolla was a POS, plain and simple. Cowl chake, chintzy suspension, grossly underpowered: I used to sell the '05 CAVALIER against the '05 Corolla just by test driving them with the customer back to back. Other than the Cavalier's fugly seats, it was the hands down winner in the handling/ride/power department by miles.

In '09, Toyota played catch up. Knowing that the Cruze was still a couple years away, GM upped the ante with the Cobalt by piling on the equipment list.

Here's GM's wins: The 1SB package for '10 is called the Team Canada Edition.

It includes a 220W sound system with SEVEN Pioneer Speakers, including a 10" flat sub in the trunk

XM Radio, standard

On Star, standard

Power sunroof, standard

leather wrapped steering wheel, with radio controls, standard

Blue tooth and all that stuff, programmable through the OnStar system (even without subscription, so there!)

Chrome exterior handles and spoiler

That is above and beyond all the usual Cobalt stuff, like 6 airbags, ABS, power windows, etc.

Here are the Corolla's wins: automatic a/c - in a car? what, you can't reach the 30" to turn the heat down yourself?

Smart key - yeah, kind of cool, but I wouldn't call a Corolla cool to begin with, so this feature is superfluous

XM 'ready' - WTF is that? $550 for XM??? You can buy the portable for $220!!!

DVD Nav 'optional' - yeah, but with OnStar you could upgrade for a year until you've grown bored of it and save $$$

love the dual glove boxes, tho

no leather steering wheel available

fewer speakers and downright crappy sound compared to the Pioneer system in the Cobalt

the outside mirrors are heated - that is a feature I do like and is useful in Canada

NO SUNROOF

The ride and handling on the Corolla has vastly improved over the previous model - it should! It's 'all new.' The Cobalt is already 5 years old, but still holds its own, especially with all the tweaks they did to the 2.2 in '08. Finally, I like the Corolla. But I still would rather push the Cobalt than drive the Corolla (no damned way my money is going to Japan -ever!), but Toyota has done a good job with the Corolla. The 2.2 in the Cobalt is still quieter and has more power than the Corolla, but not by much. If you believe Canada's Energuide numbers, you are a fool. They are tested on a dyno, not even on a track. Toyota and Honda know this, and design their vehicles accordingly.

BTW, a friend of mine bought a 'daily rental' used Alero from me back in '02 and was hit by two vehicles in an intersection a few weeks later, and walked away with a bump on his knee. The cops were amazed he survived. He came back to me and said he wanted the exact same car because it saved his life. Crash tests are great, if you drive into a brick wall; real world, not so much. FYI, in 2006, only the Corolla and Cobalt passed the small car side impact crash test that year, the vaunted Mazda 3, the Hyundai and all the rest failed. I don't put much faith in the crash tests. A laboratory is a laboratory.

[CaddyXLR-V]

BTW, a friend of mine bought a 'daily rental' used Alero from me back in '02 and was hit by two vehicles in an intersection a few weeks later, and walked away with a bump on his knee. The cops were amazed he survived. He came back to me and said he wanted the exact same car because it saved his life. Crash tests are great, if you drive into a brick wall; real world, not so much. FYI, in 2006, only the Corolla and Cobalt passed the small car side impact crash test that year, the vaunted Mazda 3, the Hyundai and all the rest failed. I don't put much faith in the crash tests. A laboratory is a laboratory.

There are too many variables to compare one real world accident with another. Do you know the speed, the angle, the weight and speed of the other vehicle, the point of impact? That's why crash tests are done in a controlled environment, with none of the variables.

[CARBIZ]

There are too many variables to compare one real world accident with another. Do you know the speed, the angle, the weight and speed of the other vehicle, the point of impact? That's why crash tests are done in a controlled environment, with none of the variables.

Exactly - and just what do they prove? Like most 'certifications' today, they only provide more jobs to people who also control the agenda, plus make the safety nazis happy. I know people who work for the 'safety' police, and it has nothing to do with safety and everything about extorting the public.

[CaddyXLR-V]

Exactly - and just what do they prove? Like most 'certifications' today, they only provide more jobs to people who also control the agenda, plus make the safety nazis happy. I know people who work for the 'safety' police, and it has nothing to do with safety and everything about extorting the public.

They just give a base comparison between vehicles, just like fuel economy ratings. While neither is perfect, it's better than having nothing at all for a comparison.

[pow]

They just give a base comparison between vehicles, just like fuel economy ratings. While neither is perfect, it's better than having nothing at all for a comparison.

Agreed. The Corolla is safer in every possible crash test than the lame-duck Cobalt. The 2011 Cruze should level the playing field.

"Marginal" structure:

"Good" structure:

The Corolla comes standard with ESP, whereas you can't get it on any Cobalt sedan.

[Z-06]

You've created a false dilemma.

Here's an analogy you might appreciate. Before LCDs were common, do you think the best approach was to sell 15" LCDs? or 120" LCDs? Or 405" LCDs? Because those are roughly equivalent differences when comparing the scope of the battery size difference between the Volt and the Prius and the Volt and the Insight.

Do you think the best way to make 120" LCDs mass market is to go from 15" straight to 120"? Or does it make sense to go 17, then 19, etc. until you reach 120?

The Volt also has the unenviable position of having the cost of a 120" but only 60" viewable (as half of the battery is not used).

GM jumping straight to the 120" may "one-up" Toyota, but that doesn't mean it is smart. Plus what GM is essentially doing is buying a 120" panel from a 3rd party. Nothing but sense stops Toyota from doing the exact same thing, from the exact same company even.

Umm when most of plasma and LCD TV's came none of them were in smaller scale. The battle was for bigger size most were sizes 45"+. As pixel density increased smaller LCD screens came into picture. So as for your example it is wrong too. Put it this way the manufacturers of plasma and LCD TV's knew that it would be futile to compete against the well established and cheap CRT from the bottom so their approach was from the top. Technology rarely starts cheap and becomes mass market overnight. I guess if you were in 1960's you would have expected in 1965 to have PC with a 4 quad core processors and 128GB ram sitting on your lap for a price of $300.

As for your "Deadweight" of battery. There is always a factor of safety for engineering most of the designs. A factor of safety of 2 which GM is using for battery life is not a bad thing. It is better to play safe than sorry. Most engineered things which can be very precise still have a factor of safety of 1.3 - 1.5 because you cannot control everything. The only thing which does not follow the rule is the space shuttle, which is usually designed for a factor of safety of 1.05 because if it is overdesigned it will never take off.

The main thing people arguing against Volt showing its price as a hindrance forget is that it is the idea behind it which is important. It gives US a chance to be energy independent. Cars like those give chance to build new infrastructure for charging and help in jumping the economy. If oil production is reduced by 50% by the Arabs - 70% people will still go to work by charging the Volts. Prius owners will still go to work more than Silverado owners do but after a while what will fill their tanks with? A$ Gas? Americans want freedom and but they fail to recognize that freedom has no price tag. The other manufacturers from other countries have grasped the exact same idea. And no you cannot be incremental in such things, you have to be radical because you never know when oil will run out.

One of my import loving friend from India put it this way. It is better to pay $ more for freedom than pay less and spend money away to the world's most unstable region. He believes that Volt is a great step from GM and he HATES GM just like you do. I will give you his phone number if you want to talk to him about it. Sad part is foreigners see it Americans born here do not.

[Camino LS6]

Some do, Z-06, some do.

[A Horse With No Name]

Z I am born here and I agree 100 percent.

And what your saying about oil and freedom makes perfect sense. Perfect sense.

Exactly whjat I've been preaching since the 1970's.

Also, your point about the cost of technology going down over time is dead spot on target!

Thanks for posting that!

Chris

[Z-06]

Some do, Z-06, some do.

Z I am born here and I agree 100 percent.

And what your saying about oil and freedom makes perfect sense. Perfect sense.

Exactly whjat I've been preaching since the 1970's.

Also, your point about the cost of technology going down over time is dead spot on target!

Thanks for posting that!

Chris

It is not a generalization. Sorry if I made it feel that way. I know people who do care are the people who will bring this country back - the rest need to be educated the right way to support the people who care.

[GXT]

Umm when most of plasma and LCD TV's came none of them were in smaller scale. The battle was for bigger size most were sizes 45"+. As pixel density increased smaller LCD screens came into picture. So as for your example it is wrong too. Put it this way the manufacturers of plasma and LCD TV's knew that it would be futile to compete against the well established and cheap CRT from the bottom so their approach was from the top. Technology rarely starts cheap and becomes mass market overnight. I guess if you were in 1960's you would have expected in 1965 to have PC with a 4 quad core processors and 128GB ram sitting on your lap for a price of $300.

Wikipedia has a great article on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_crystal_display_television

Funny you should mention Plasma, because I think the Volt is comparable.

What you wrote isn't true at all for LCDs. LCD TVs they were very small initially. The first commercial LCD TV was in 1988 and was apparently 14". By 2004, 32" models were widely available, 42" sets were becoming common. Over the past couple of years LCD sizes have been increasing dramatically. The same is true for computer LCDs... they started at 15" or below, not 30 or 40".

Plasmas may have started large because there was a market opening, but the cost of entry was high. By 2007 LCDs were outselling CRTs and Plasmas. Now plasma exists only on borrowed time.

LCD = Hybrid

Plasma = Volt

As for your computer analogy, you've spun my point right around. In the 1960's I would not have expected many GB of RAM, but that is exactly what the Volt is. At a time when most hybrids have batteries in the 2KWh or less range, the Volt will have 16KWh (I believe this is some 27 times the size of the Insight battery).

As for your "Deadweight" of battery. There is always a factor of safety for engineering most of the designs. A factor of safety of 2 which GM is using for battery life is not a bad thing. It is better to play safe than sorry. Most engineered things which can be very precise still have a factor of safety of 1.3 - 1.5 because you cannot control everything. The only thing which does not follow the rule is the space shuttle, which is usually designed for a factor of safety of 1.05 because if it is overdesigned it will never take off.

The point is that the Volt's design is such that they NEED to carry that much deadweight. It is more than just a "battery life" issue... the ICE is unable to drive the wheels and is insufficient to power the car under heavy load. It is a flaw that drives up the cost and hurts efficiency. It is one of the reasons that some automakers have found this design a non-starter. That GM didn't think this far ahead or didn't want it to interfere with their one-upping of the Prius (as per Lutz) is no reason to commend them.

The main thing people arguing against Volt showing its price as a hindrance forget is that it is the idea behind it which is important. It gives US a chance to be energy independent. Cars like those give chance to build new infrastructure for charging and help in jumping the economy. If oil production is reduced by 50% by the Arabs - 70% people will still go to work by charging the Volts. Prius owners will still go to work more than Silverado owners do but after a while what will fill their tanks with? A$ Gas? Americans want freedom and but they fail to recognize that freedom has no price tag. The other manufacturers from other countries have grasped the exact same idea. And no you cannot be incremental in such things, you have to be radical because you never know when oil will run out.

One of my import loving friend from India put it this way. It is better to pay $ more for freedom than pay less and spend money away to the world's most unstable region. He believes that Volt is a great step from GM and he HATES GM just like you do. I will give you his phone number if you want to talk to him about it. Sad part is foreigners see it Americans born here do not.

Ah, the "energy independence" argument. It doesn't really hold up. I've given the numbers before, but because of the niche volume of the Volt and the delay in getting it to market Toyota has sold so many Prius that they have saved so much fuel that the Volt will likely never have the same impact as the Prius. I've joked that the person sitting and waiting for his Volt could have saved more fuel by buying a Prius than he ever will with his Volt. When the time comes (and apparently this is soon according to Nissan), people will buy all-electric cars and then the Volt will be the relative gas consumer.

It should be no surprise that the Volt isn't the "right" car, as per Lutz that was never the goal of the Volt.

[CARBIZ]

Except the boneheads that bought the Priuses in the first place most likeliy would have bought a POS Camry 4 cylinder anyway. NOW how much fuel have the saved?

I wish people would stop smoking crack at least an hour before posting.

If you want REAL fuel savings, the hybrid Tahoe gets the same mileage as the 4 cylinder Camry and for those people who need to tow their 5,000 lb boat and have a family, there are no other options. There are some real potential fuel savings to be had!

Buying a Prius has NEVER been about saving money, saving the environment or saving America: it's about white, middle-class losers trying to make themselves feel good at night, after they beat their wives and go to bed drunk.

Since we won't know the true economics of the Volt until many months after it hits the market, all speculation borders on maniacal, theatrical 'piling on' hatred toward GM. I, for one, would buy a Volt in a flash: I'd love to drive to work every day and NEVER give PetroCanada another dime. I've put 27k km on my car in 27 months and my round trip to work is about 10 km in stop and go traffic in downtown Toronto: I AM the target market for the Volt.

[FloydHendershot]

When the time comes (and apparently this is soon according to Nissan), people will buy all-electric cars and then the Volt will be the relative gas consumer.

And this IS soon? According to...Nissan.

Did you really quote Wikipedia??

[GXT]

And this IS soon? According to...Nissan.

I assume you are up to date on the state of the industry and know that Nissan plans to release the all-electric Leaf next year (i.e. before or at about the same time as the Volt). It will have a much lower price of entry than the Volt and apparently more cost effective than a similar sized gas car (which the Volt isn't).

PR: Did I mention it was all-electric? I should mention it is all electric. I should also mention the Volt uses gas. The Leaf doesn't use any gas. etc.

I imagine the Volt should perform better... but the Prius proves that really isn't the point in this segment. Plus if you really want something that performs well, the Volt, with a price tag of a CTS-V but with a 0-60 time of the hybrid Camry, doesn't really cut it. And now that GM has proclaimed that 40 miles is good enough for near 80% of the population, it will be interesting to watch them argue that 100 miles isn't good enough.

What was the point of all your cute emoticons again?

Did you really quote Wikipedia??

Yes. Was there actually something actually wrong with the information? Or is that just your knee-jerk reaction?