GXT

Well I guess that is your bias. According to Road and Track the Type-S is faster to 0-60, 0-100, 1/4mile, and pulls more Gs on the skid pad than the CTS DI. I guess if the Type-S is "okay" then the CTS DI is sub-ok and the CTS non-DI is unacceptable for anything with a "premium" badge? The CTS was ~1% faster in the slalom and ~3dBA quieter across the board. That hardly puts the Type-S a "class or two below the CTS". The Type-S also gave ~12% better fuel economy.

Chrysler claimes they've been working on this for two years. That's about the same as GM. They just didn't spend all their time talking about it. As they appear as far along if not farther than GM, I have no reason to doubt them.

Or does $48,000 become $40,500? Why wouldn't they take the $10,000 price difference into account?

Heh. Chrysler showed three game changes...er moon shots... of their own today. Chrysler co-president Jim Press said “We are well ahead of where people think we are. Perhaps that’s because we haven’t tooted our horn up till now.” Zing! Not only that, it looks like Chrysler will be getting batteries from one of the companies in the running for the Volt. And it sounds like Chrysler already has working product. That puts them ahead of GM. I think it is becoming painfully obvious that the main purpose of the Volt was always PR and not product. Otherwise they would have shut up and built it rather than spent so much time talking about it.

Actually, he was spot on. But then I am biased because I have spent the past year or so saying pretty much everything he wrote. It is about time that the media stopped passing along GM's PR without critical thought. He didn't claim that was the value of the Volt. In fact, he didn't even say it. Mike Jackson, CEO of Autonation did. In fact, I think the author wrote the very thing you are alluding to, "It is hoping the Volt will help it regain bragging rights from Toyota." Or were you ignoring the author's criticisms and referring only to Mike Jackson's comments? It was just one of many reasons listed as to why the Volt isn't what it was cracked up to be. Got any real criticism?

A couple thoughts: 1) I don't know how McCain can get away with doing his "smaller government"/"government should get out of your life" speech and at the same time toss in a section about "more regulation". But then I never thought the US was the communist country that apparently it is. I guess when the chips are down communism wins out. :AH-HA_wink: 2) It boggles the mind that the right has any credibility left with the American public. At least I am assuming they do based on the closeness of the election. 3) I think it stinks that people can get involved in mortgages they have no way of paying, wall street can get rich off of selling them, and the responsible tax payer that was doing things right now has to pay for both of them.

It would be pretty much perfect for me. Especially if I had to choose between: 1) $40,000+ and very limited availability with 40 miles or 2) $25,000 and wide availability with 10 miles. Plus it would be better long term if the company making the vehicles could turn a profit instead of a loss on each one. Actually, I think the 10 mile solution is the most appropriate solution at this time. With 10 miles of range pretty much everyone will use every bit of the battery in the Prius. With 40 miles of range (and due to other limitations of the Volt's design), IIRC, 1/3 of North Amercians will be paying for and hauling around almost four times as much battery as they will typically use. That's fine if we are just talking about "range", but it is another matter if I tell you that $150-$200 of your monthly lease is paying for a feature you don't want, need, or use. Not only that, Toyota will be able to make ~8 times as plug-ins as GM given the same battery production capacity and those cars will be affordable to a much larger % of the public. Having the extra range does no good for oil use if it is being hauled around by someone who never uses it instead of in another car where someone would. The US government needs to decide if it is actually interested in getting the US off oil or just giving bailouts to GM.

That is a common misquote of a GM stat that is purposely misleading. Well, I think it is a blatant lie, but you can be the judge. To quote myself: "The average fridge from 2004 uses 465 kW/year (411 if Energy Star) and the average freezer 344kW. The Volt would use 2920kW (8kW * 365 days). That is over 400% more electricity required for the Volt than a fridge and a freezer." Full post: http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...5620&st=80#

No doubt the batteries will get cheaper. But they aren't cheap yet. So any way you look at it if GM was serious about making a car that appealed to a lot of people AND that a lot of people could actually possess then they should have started with a much smaller battery. They could have increased the battery size as it made sense. I think this is the major reason why GM was pretty much alone in making this move. What they are doing just doesn't make any sense beyond PR and Prius-envy. Most people haven't sat down and done the math. Some who have done the math are doing it wrong. Anyone who does it right would no longer be excited. If you only drive 25 miles/day then the Volt makes no economic sense for you. You are paying for ~$7,000 of batteries and hauling around and extra ~180 lbs you will rarely use (assuming GM's 40 mile claimed range is correct). That is on top of the fact that the battery that you will use still won't pay for itself regardless of the $7,000 wasted on top of it. I agree, but I'm still not excited about paying 45-$55,000 CDN for a Volt. Not that they will be available outside of perhaps Toronto and Vancouver anyways. The time will come, but GM is forcing it way too early for anything but PR.

The engine can run at any speed GM wants it to. I understand that it will run at one of 3 or 4 fixed speeds depending on conditions. The reason why the Volt (and hybrids) give such good city fuel economy relative to a traditional car is that they gain energy back while slowing down. That doesn't happen on the highway. On the highway the engine/battery have to provide all the energy. Once the battery power is at 30% it is pretty much all gas engine. Therefore the it is fair to compare the Cruze to the Volt as they have the same engine and chasis. The Volt will be hauling around probably an extra 15-20% of the mass of the Cruze. On the other hand it should be more aerodynamic. The Volt will lose some efficiency over the Cruze when it generates electricity and when it turns the electric motor. But the Volt will also be able to run at optimal engine speed (but then the Cruze should be geared to be running at optimal engine speed on the highway as well). All in all, I don't see how the Volt could offer highway efficiency equivalent to a Cruze or a traditional hybrid. This further contributes to the niche market of the Volt.. if you do a lot of highway driving the Volt is a poor choice. On a related note, apparently the generator is only able to supply about half (?) of the power that the batteries can supply. Therefore it is likely that once the generator is on it will mostly stay on except in the most non-taxing of situations.

Your new commute brings up another criticism. Although at first a 12 mile commute would seem ideal for the Volt, it actually means you are paying for, and hauling around, a lot of batteries that you are almost never going to use. If you drove 12 miles/day at 50MPG from an insight/prius type hybrid @ $4/gallon you would spend $350/year. The Volt would cost $73 in elec. That's a $277/year savings with the Volt and a 70+ year payback on the extra up-front cost of the Volt. That is why I keep saying GM made a mistake when they picked the range. They picked a range to cover 80% of the consumers but in doing so raised the price and lowered their volume to only a couple % of the market. I don't recall the exact stats, but I believe GM could have had a battery half the size of what is in the volt and still had a range that covered 50% of consumer's commutes. That probably would have made the Volt hit their target of sub $30,000 and allowed them to have built more product. And maybe they could even break even on the Volt. It was totally ass-backwards thinking... at least if we were talking about something that they intended to make a viable product. But then if they were trying to do that they wouldn't be talking about it. As PR it makes a lot more sense.

GM originally claimed 50 MPG when running on the gas engine. At that time the engine was spec'd at a 1L or (1.3L, I can't remember which off-hand) turbo 3cyl. Now they have moved to a non-turbo version of the cruze 4cyl engine. Two thoughts: 1) The 50 MPG estimate was probably much like the 40 mile range estimate... namely city. So highway fuel economy will probably be less. 2) I believe GM is claiming 40 MPG (this time highway, of course) for the cruze. GM has to experience some additional losses when going from generator to batteries to electric motor. On the plus side they should be able to control the RPM of the engine to run at whatever makes most sense. Based on the above I'm guessing 45-50 MPG city and 35-40 MPG highway. It would appear that if you cannot charge the Volt from a plug then it would be a REALLY bad idea to buy one.

I think it means you don't buy the Volt. You would be paying ~$40,000 for a car that gets the same MPG (or worse, I guess we will see) as an ~$20,000 Honda Insight.

While it probably isn't an extensive amount of time, I am sure it is measure in at least tenths of a second. While it doesn't bother you, it does increase the chance of an accident and it isn't necessary if the stack is properly designed. From gm-volt.com: So you really will have to look. Even running your hands accross the controls could cause buttons to be selected.

I was going to suggest a gas-powered generator.

I agree. But what is it actually worth? I know we have been treating this car as if "money were no object", but money is an object and this car is apparently already too expensive. I think it would have been better if the plug were in the front. Plus two plugs would allow someone to syphon your electricity while you are charging.

-RBB Like many other things about the Volt, that is misleading bordering on lying. The average fridge from 2004 uses 465 kW/year (411 if Energy Star) and the average freezer 344kW. The Volt would use 2920kW (8kW * 365 days). That is over 400% more electricity required for the Volt than a fridge and a freezer. Even if you had appliances from 1984 the Volt would still use 30% more energy. http://www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/equipment/english/page16.cfm I guess the average home has 4 fridges and 3 freezers. Either way, meaningful comparison GM. Meaningful comparison. So what were you saying about 40 miles of range again?

I see. Well with the car of today (and certainly the car of the future) you shouldn't need to to that. Maybe it will have voice recognition to compensate.

It just struck me as an example of form over function. Perhaps I would feel better about it if the "form" portion didn't look so bad. One of the reasons the iPod works well because it has so few buttons. And even at that it does have the "circle" to give the user a tactile indication of what button they are touching. I think it will be hard to get used to those button locations (without taking your eyes off the road) as seems to give no good tactile feedback. I guess we will see.

You'll have to see a picture of the Volt plug before laughing... it sticks out farther than a conventional plug. If you have a tight park then it will be an issue. I can't say I've had to content with anything like it as every plug I've had on any of my cars was where it should be; on the front.

You actually look off the road to adjust your stereo, HVAC, etc.?

In the end it only requires an extra few feet of cord. What is good about having it on the drivers side is that you can be sure the driver won't end up having to walk around the car to unplug it. What is bad is that those of us with garages where we only park a foot or two away from the driver's side wall will now have to contend with a cord in our way.

It also erases many of the advantages of an electric car. Based on some of the quotes that GM has given about things they had to "learn" about electric cars (drag vs weight, stereos use power, etc.), if there was any EV-1 transfer it was minimal. What does that even mean? Price and availability mean this will be the half-electric-car for the very few.

The second plug was cut. It only plugs in on the driver's side. But two plugs were not really needed.

Yes. And I believe I read that it only has 10 cubic feet of cargo space.