the chevy link has "2011 Volt, November 2010 release"

Post #322,684 by SpiceWare 3/11/10 11:34:27 AM Reply	the chevy link has "2011 Volt, November 2010 release" I don't think I've seen anything saying it would be a "2010 model", though I can see how one could think that's what they meant. As for the EV1, I'm not surprised they killed it as it was way ahead of its time and thus not cost effective. One industry official said that each EV1 cost the company about US$80,000, including research, development and other associated costs; other estimates placed the vehicle's actual cost as high as $100,000. http://en.wikipedia....ccess_vs._failure As for better, that is subjective. Sure it went 2-3 times farther than the Volt does on battery, but once you hit the limit you have to stop and recharge. With a Volt I'd be on battery for vast majority of my driving, but still be able to take a road trip to visit family in Corpus Christ or San Antonio w/out having to stop once(cc)/twice(sa) adding 2/4 hours to a 3/4 hour trip. Increasing the time of a short trip 50% -100% isn't better in my book.
Post #322,689 by drook 3/11/10 12:15:08 PM Reply	Bogus numbers about US$80,000, including research, development and other associated costs Well most of those costs go down (per car) if you keep making it, don't they? As for total range: The film [Who Killed the Electric Car] also showed that the company who had supplied batteries for EV1 had been suppressed from announcing the improved batteries that can double the range of EV1, and General Motors had sold the supplier's majority control share to an oil company. Towards the end of the film, an engineer explains that, as of the interview, lithium ion batteries, the same technology available in laptops, would have allowed the EV1 to be upgraded to a range of 300 miles per charge. http://en.wikipedia....e_Electric_Car%3F They had a fix. They sold the company with the patent to an oil company which immediately shut them down. Chevy never wanted to make an electric car. They wanted to point to an electric car program as evidence they were trying to comply with anticipated CARB regulations. They also wanted to show that despite their best efforts they couldn't comply. And furthermore that people didn't want to buy them anyway. But the engineers fucked up and made something useful, the salespeople fucked up by finding willing customers, and the customers fucked up by wanting them. Chevy literally took back the last cars under police escort, took them to a desert facility, and crushed them. -- Drew
Post #322,707 by SpiceWare 3/11/10 2:30:12 PM Reply	not that many willing customers While customer reaction to the EV1 was positive, GM believed that electric cars occupied an unprofitable niche of the automobile market as they were only able to lease 800 units in face of production costs of US$1 billion over four years. things do appear to be different than 10 years ago, for one they're not being forced to build a product they don't believe in.
Post #322,708 by drook 3/11/10 2:48:54 PM Reply	"GM believed"? I'd have to transcribe the whole movie to make the point. Go get Who Killed the Electric Car to see how hard GM had to work to keep those cars away from people. The only thing they "didn't believe in" was its profit margin compared to Yukons and Suburbans. -- Drew
Post #322,710 by SpiceWare 3/11/10 3:17:45 PM Reply	businesses make that decision all the time Sure I wish Apple hadn't killed off the Newton, and Honda the S2000, but I understand when a company kills off something that's not profitable.
Post #322,711 by drook 3/11/10 3:57:58 PM Reply	You're not hearing what I'm saying They didn't kill it because it was unprofitable. They actively worked to sabotage it. They were trying to prove to CARB that a zero-emission vehicle wasn't feasible, but they forgot to tell the engineers and the sales staff that. They hired all new salespeople with no experience. They made commercials that sounded more like a warning than a sales pitch. They made prospective owners -- excuse me, lessors since they flat refused to actually sell one at any price -- made them fill out a form acknowledging all the "shortcomings", then followed up with calls from corporate to ask, "Are you really, really sure you want one of these?" They bought the rights to technology that would double the range and refused to use it. They killed it because they were afraid it might actually be profitable, which would undercut their legal position with the state of California. And I'm seeing the same level of commitment to the Volt that they showed to the EV1. -- Drew
Post #322,713 by SpiceWare 3/11/10 4:27:34 PM Reply	guess we'll see in 7 months
Post #322,715 by Ashton 3/11/10 5:15:50 PM Reply	Well.. that's.. Beep'nBox's rilly-Freeish Market Inaction responding to a nasty gummint directive seeking something Good. The fuels.. Where what they want is the ... Baddest insolent chariot that keeps the profit-margin max -- next quarter. (When first Euro cars hit the US and started taking sales in late '50s early 60s, the quip on campus was: when Murica makes a 'small car' it will be the heaviest, lousiest handling gas-guzzling small car the world has ever seen. Ayup, some thought the Thunderbird a 'sports car'... and so it went. I'm still waiting for a Detroit reply to the NOVA special (with Click n'Clack for comic relief) wherein Amory Lovins showed his carbon fibre modules, each liftable by a human and glued into place to form the next generation car -- while beating crash-test dynamics etc. Exit, therefore: massive steel-sheet bending machines and much else that adds to expense but not performance. Carbon fibre is expensive. Now. And what similar products might be developed that cost less? Doesn't matter to Detroit CIEIOS. At least -- not yet, it seems. Murica runs on Redmond-logic: find a better solution out there? Buy/or cheaper yet: bankrupt that company and kill the idea. Long enough.. But hey! maybe we Could grow up.

Welcome to IWETHEY!