: Volt will be Jolt



AJC
06-04-09, 12:10 PM
GM screws up another money maker just like they did back in 2002 when they destroyed the EV-1. I am sooo disappointed in GM I think I will sell my 2009 CTS. GM continues to F**& up and to think I gave GM a chance by purchasing the CTS and going American. GM sold out to the oil companies in 2002 when they destroyed the EV-1 which could have saved GM. This country is in bad shape and this administration is not helping. America is screwing Americans. :mad:

http://priuschat.com/news/toyota-co-produce-volt-with-gm-renamed-jolt

Zymurgy
06-04-09, 12:21 PM
So what does this have to do with the CTS gen II? This is the CTS 2008 and beyond forum. Take your off topic rant elsewhere.

Southern
06-04-09, 12:32 PM
More stupid crap like $40,000 electric cars will have to be jettisoned in order for GM to focus on cars like the CTS, SRX, Malibu and Cruze.
GM of course appreciates you giving them a chance.

928S
06-04-09, 12:38 PM
GM CEO Fritz Henderson, Press Conference, June 1, 2009...

"Today marks the beginning of what will be a new company, a New GM, dedicated to building the very best cars and trucks, highly fuel efficient, world class quality, green technology development, and with truly outstanding design. And above all, the New GM will be rededicated in our entirety as a leadership team to our customers. A number of our cars and trucks from the Chevy Volt, the Buick LaCrosse, the Chevrolet Camaro and Equinox, the GMC Terrain and the Cadillac SRX, amongst others, are already world-class or in the case of advanced technology, are breaking new ground. We need to make sure that all of our products are world-class and that will be our focus going forward. The days when General Motors would have 15 launches of which we would count on five or six of them being hits and the rest of them being okay are history. We need to make sure every single one of our vehicle launches is an outstanding car or truck."

V-Eight
06-04-09, 12:50 PM
****, I hate Toyota

The Tony Show
06-04-09, 01:00 PM
GM sold out to the oil companies in 2002 when they destroyed the EV-1 which could have saved GM.

:rofl:

First off, that's an April Fool's joke from a Prius web site. So if you want to go sell your Cadillac because some clever jokester on a forum fooled you with a made up story that can be debunked by a simple Google search, go right ahead.

Second, GM leased the EV1s to people at a catastrophic financial loss. The batteries alone cost over $30,000 to make, and the only reason the car existed in the first place were dumb federal regulations of the time that required all manufacturers to build a certain number of Zero Emissions cars. GM lost hundreds of millions on the EV1 program.

You need to read a book or two and stop learning your history from phony documentaries. Oh, and since this has nothing to do with CTS, moved to the lounge.

AJC
06-04-09, 01:16 PM
:rofl:

First off, that's an April Fool's joke from a Prius web site. So if you want to go sell your Cadillac because some clever jokester on a forum fooled you with a made up story that can be debunked by a simple Google search, go right ahead.

Second, GM leased the EV1s to people at a catastrophic financial loss. The batteries alone cost over $30,000 to make, and the only reason the car existed in the first place were dumb federal regulations of the time that required all manufacturers to build a certain number of Zero Emissions cars. GM lost hundreds of millions on the EV1 program.

You need to read a book or two and stop learning your history from phony documentaries. Oh, and since this has nothing to do with CTS, moved to the lounge.

1st of all I am not selling my CTS - just wanted to make a point.
2nd I read many books and if you can THINK out of the box maybe you can state something with some facts. I have more degrees that you have hair on your head.

Rodya234
06-04-09, 01:18 PM
If you can't recognize such a bad photoshop and obvious April fool's joke, you need to turn off your computer and never go on the internet again.


I'll gladly buy your CTS though. Is it DI?

The Tony Show
06-04-09, 01:24 PM
1st of all I am not selling my CTS - just wanted to make a point.
2nd I read many books and if you can THINK out of the box maybe you can state something with some facts. I have more degrees that you have hair on your head.

Really? I'm not the one who fell for a stupid April fool's joke and bad Photoshop, then posted a rant saying I was going to sell my car without even bothering to Google the story to find out it's bogus. If you'd like some facts, here's 5 for you:

1- Fake story
2- Fake picture
3- EV1 never would have been profitable for GM
4- I'm bald, so comparing your degrees to my hair is a bad idea
5- They don't teach common sense in College

Playdrv4me
06-04-09, 01:29 PM
http://astartupaday.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/jump-to-conclusions-door-mat.jpg

AJC
06-04-09, 01:40 PM
Really? I'm not the one who fell for a stupid April fool's joke and bad Photoshop, then posted a rant saying I was going to sell my car without even bothering to Google the story to find out it's bogus. If you'd like some facts, here's 5 for you:

1- Fake story
2- Fake picture
3- EV1 never would have been profitable for GM
4- I'm bald, so comparing your degrees to my hair is a bad idea
5- They don't teach common sense in College

All BS aside:

GM was on the right track in 1997 when they introduced the EV-1. If they continued on that track GM would of been way ahead in electric car technology but because of their greed they are way behind Toyota. I have a problem with the US falling behind to the Asian auto industry when we had a running start. GM decided to make big SUV's instead. :eek:

Playdrv4me
06-04-09, 01:52 PM
All BS aside:

GM was on the right track in 1997 when they introduced the EV-1. If they continued on that track GM would of been way ahead in electric car technology but because of their greed they are way behind Toyota. I have a problem with the US falling behind to the Asian auto industry when we had a running start. GM decided to make big SUV's instead. :eek:

The EV program was not financially feasible for GM, they'd be in worse shape now if they had continued down that path at such an early stage. Keep in mind Toyota is ***NOT*** a leader in electric vehicle technology, they WERE at the forefront in HYBRID vehicle technology and guess what? They killed off their EV lease programs too. FACT: GM currently has more Hybrid vehicles and more vehicles that get over 30MPG than anyone else, so who's really winning there? The Hybrid versions of the Tahoe and Yukon have not proven to be good sellers.

GM has admitted its focus on SUVs was a serious mis-step.

The Tony Show
06-04-09, 02:14 PM
Consumer demand and profit were both in the corner of big SUVs. Toyota introduced the Prius to America at the same time they came out with the Tundra to offset the hit to their Corporate Average Fuel Economy, not a prophetic vision of the future of high gas prices. GM decided to put their research money into Plug-in hybrid and Hydrogen fuel cell technology instead, since two mode Hybrids are a band-aid for the problem. Those technologies have taken longer to pan out, at the expense of public perception.

It's also interesting to note that the production of a battery pack for a Prius does more damage to the environment and uses more fuel oil than the average Hummer will do in its lifetime. How is that?


The Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius’ battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist’s nightmare.

All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn’t end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce ‘nickel foam.’ From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?

Wait, I haven’t even got to the best part yet.

When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius’s arch nemesis.

Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,” the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.

The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.

And exactly how much pollution do those ships that carry the batteries all over the world do? According to a new study, 15 of them do more harm to the environment than all of the cars in the world combined.


Says James Corbett, professor of marine policy at the University of Delaware: "Ship pollution affects the health of communities in coastal and inland regions around the world, yet pollution from ships remains one of the least regulated parts of our global transportation system." It sounds serious, but how bad could it be? Staggeringly, if a report by the UK's Guardian newspaper is to be believed. According to their story, just one of the world's largest container ships can emit about as much pollution as 50 million cars. Further, the 15 largest ships in the world emit as much nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide as the world's 760 million cars.

And then there's the fact that simple changes in driving can produce a nearly 40% improvement in fuel economy. In the completely unscientific test done by Top Gear, they found that a Prius Hybrid driven aggressively around their track averaged lower fuel economy than the 8 cylinder, 420hp BMW M3 that was following it. Thanks to the more powerful engine, the M3 didn't need to work nearly as hard to maintain the aggressive pace, which resulted in lower fuel consumption. There's also more scientific studies, like THIS ONE (http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/01/Autos/driving_for_mpg/index.htm).

Bottom line? Hybrids are dumb, and the only real way to eliminate our reliance on oil is to build clean nuclear power plants to charge a nation of plug-in cars, or build a Hydrogen fueling infrastructure for fuel cell cars. The part no one wants to talk about is the revenue the Federal Government makes on gasoline- if people stop buying gas, the Government goes broke (well......more broke than it already is). So then what? Naturally, the Government will have to start taxing the hell out of hydrogen or electricity to replace the lost revenue from gasoline, rendering the switch to less expensive forms of fuel meaningless to you, the end user. At that point, the only benefit to driving a hydrogen or electric car is being more environmentally conscious, which as I show above, is NOT a benefit of driving a Hybrid.

The problem isn't the carmakers- it's that no solid infrastructure exists to support alternative fuels, and when (if) it finally does, we the consumers will not be paying any less to fuel our vehicles.

dcsquared5
06-04-09, 02:14 PM
http://astartupaday.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/jump-to-conclusions-door-mat.jpg

haha! i love that. "it's a mat, with different conclusions on it...that you can jump to!"

The Tony Show
06-04-09, 02:29 PM
As a post script to my essay, let me add that I support the idea of building more nuclear power plants and having a nation of plug in cars. I know they'll jack my electric bill through the roof, but at least (in theory), the cost would be stable. The single biggest problem with oil is that it's all in the hands of lunatic thugs in countries ravaged by wars, which makes the prices subject to outlandish swings.

With a good nuclear infrastructure and plug in cars like the Volt, the cost of fueling a car would be more predictable, we'd do less harm to the environment and, most importantly, stop financing gold plated mansions for brutal dictators with our money. Win/win/win.

C&C
06-04-09, 03:24 PM
I'm with Tony on this one 'all the way'. Detroit built what the public wanted.

"If they built it, they will come" doesn't work (except for baseball in the movies).

Jesda
06-04-09, 05:55 PM
I agree with everything Tony said. He saved me a lot of typing!

CIWS
06-04-09, 07:41 PM
2nd I read many books and if you can THINK out of the box maybe you can state something with some facts. I have more degrees that you have hair on your head.


:histeric:


I almost spit Monster on the keyboard when I read this.
(knows Tony is Follicle impeded)

AMGoff
06-04-09, 07:54 PM
Wow! That's a lot... Seeing as how the average human has about 100,000 hairs on their head - you must be like, umm... wicked smart!

As such, I refuse to believe that this post was meant to be anything other than a really big joke, because it is highly unlikely, dare I say... even impossible for one with such a massive intellect to be as foolish and foolhardy as this.

I mean... The date of the "article" clearly stated April 1st and such a literate person would catch that.... As would they also take the requisite 60 seconds to verify such unbelievable information before logging on to a public forum to post a seemingly real rant - as if they were obviously, truly upset.

So Kudos to you sir for the well-staged farce... :thumbsup: Two of your degrees must have been in theater and creative writing - You really had us thinking you were a complete and utter dimwit! Bravo!

:hopeless: ...err... I mean... :helpless:

rsingl
06-04-09, 10:12 PM
My only comment (courtesy of the great Gary Larson):

billc83
06-04-09, 10:52 PM
...and the only reason the car existed in the first place were dumb federal regulations of the time that required all manufacturers to build a certain number of Zero Emissions cars.

Just to clarify: the Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate was not a federal regulation; that was all California. They wanted to force all automakers, not just GM, to have zero emission vehicles for sale to the public. This was the origin of the Ford Ranger Electric and Toyota RAV4 Electric, as well as the EV-1.

Tony's post, even with the author being a sufferer of alopecia, is otherwise correct. General Motors did not make one stinkin' cent because of the EV-1, nor would they likely have for a long time had production been started. It was just not profitable.

What I want to know is: why GM is spending all this money on developing the Volt? Can't they just dust off the EV-1 blueprints, pop some Lithium-Ion batteries in there and have an electric vehicle good-to-go?

Night Wolf
06-04-09, 11:11 PM
Start at Part 1, end at part 2.

YouTube - Who Killed The Electric Car (in 2 Parts) [Part 1 of 2]

The Tony Show
06-04-09, 11:29 PM
About as honest and unbiased as a Michael Moore film. :yawn:

Night Wolf
06-04-09, 11:37 PM
About as honest and unbiased as a Michael Moore film. :yawn:

Have you even seen it?

The blame was not put on any single group. There is some pollitical stuff in there, but as far as the EV-1 itself goes.... probably some of the best behind the scenes information we'll end up getting. I found alot of the points to be rather interesting.

Had it came out now, I think it would be very different. It came out in the mid 90's when gas was cheap and the largest SUV was the craze, trying to push the EV-1 in that market would be like trying to push something even bigger and more "opposite of going green" then the H2 today.

Red_October_7000
06-04-09, 11:46 PM
About as honest and unbiased as a Michael Moore film. :yawn:

Truly. The EV1 was an experiment. Nothing more. It's sad from a car-lover's point of view that they're gone, but that's about it. Just like the Chrysler Turbine cars (my dad's Uncle worked for Union Carbide, who made the turbine blades, so he got to have one as a company car. It owned.) they served their purpose. Hybrids like the Prius are a hack, pure and simple, to get around the fuel econ tests, just like the old Doug Nash 4+3 transmissions, and before that the practice of doing the tests with what could generously be described as nonstandard shifting practices (basically starting off in the highest gear the car will move in (2nd or 3rd if you had a big engine) and shifting up as soon as possible without stalling out). In real life Prius-type hybrids suck because they can run their tricks in the city but not the highway at all, and get terrible highway fuel economy (Seriuosly, a Corvette gets better.) because the battery becomes just so much deadweight and the wheezy little motor has to drag around the battery and electric drive which are doing nothing. On the other hand Escalade type hybrids make better sense as they don't really notice the extra weight but the returns are proportionally much greater (payoff in 5 years instead of 10) , and you still have a useful utility vehicle rather than an eco-mentalist penalty box.

On the Gripping Hand a Volt makes the most sense as it is not a hybrid but rather an electro-motive vehicle, a century-old (Ferdinand Porsche made some of the first), tried-and-tested design (engineers from GM's Electro-Motive railway engine division helped design it) that simply adds a battery pack for flexibility in use.

thebigjimsho
06-05-09, 01:41 AM
This thread has a high BS quotient...

ewill3rd
06-05-09, 09:39 AM
Could someone please show me how electricity is generated with zero emissions PLEASE!!????

I am so tired of all the tree huggers crying because we are not overloading the electrical grid and trying to force people to use electricity to power transportation instead of something that is well established.

GM has been leading the way for decades in ULEV and zero emissions vehicles. Any retard with access to any form of information should be able to determine that.
They are working their tails off... even in Chapter 11... to develop hybrid electrics that don't need to be plugged in, and zero emissions hydrogen vehicles.

I call "Troll" on this one.
Nice catch, look at all the attention you got. :lol:

V-Eight
06-05-09, 10:11 AM
The single biggest problem with oil is that it's all in the hands of lunatic thugs in countries ravaged by wars, which makes the prices subject to outlandish swings.
.

Canada? Although I knew what you were getting at, the largest reserves are in the Middle East.

AJC
06-05-09, 11:03 AM
OK - all I wanted to do was to start a interesting topic with some interesting responses. :bouncy:

This form needed a topic like this because it was starting to get :yawn:

Jesda
06-05-09, 12:48 PM
http://picsordie.com/images/vmmset1q0hwccnbpvxg.gif

The Tony Show
06-05-09, 02:58 PM
Uh oh- it looks like Mitsubishi will not make the same mistake as General Motors, as they are on the eve of launching a fully electric vehicle in Japan!

The MiEV will feature little to no interior room, a thunderous 64hp electric motor, and a generous 100 mile range for light footed drivers. I also can only assume that it will fare as well in frontal crash tests as fellow itty bitty cars like the Smart and Yaris, which you can see here: (http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/cadillac-forums-lounge-member-introductions/167073-tiny-cars-fail-crash-test-involving.html)

All this for the low, low price of only $47,000. For comparison's sake, you can buy a brand new Chevy Malibu with 100 more hp, a 5 star crash rating and tons of interior space that gets 30mpg highway for around $18,000. Assuming an annual usage of 12,000 miles per year and combined mpg of 25 at $2.75 per gallon, the Malibu costs around $1,320 per year to fuel.

That means that you can drive the Malibu for 22 years before the fuel cost equals the price difference between it and the MiEV (and that's not even including the additional sales tax you'd pay on $47k vs. $18k, or the electricity cost of "fueling" the MiEV).

What a bargain. (http://jalopnik.com/5280147/production-all+electric-mitsubishi-i+miev-gets-eye+popping-47k-price)

Night Wolf
06-05-09, 04:58 PM
I am sold on electric motors being used to power vehicles. 100% torque at any RPM - including 0. I can only imagine what it would be like to wheel and rock crawl with a properly set up electric vehicle.

It wasn't until I worked with the airlines in the past that I really first hand started to see what electric motors could do. We had a couple electric golf carts, one with a pintle hitch. Just a standard Club Car. Other then the aircraft, and the huffer which weighed about half of a plane, if it had a tow point, we'd tow it with the cart. It was never made to tow that much weight, but never broke (and it was trashed by the mechanics) I was surprised. The heaviest thing was the 400gallon water cart, which was ~3,500lbs or so loaded. It slowed it down, but it'd still tow it.... stopping was the fun part tho. We also had an electric crane, electric Genie etc... Seeing various electric vehicles used in the industrial work environment really made me think about it's use as a personal vehicle. Of course diesel-electric trains are probably the best example of electric motors at work.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e363/InoventionsEast/cid_893.jpg

Playdrv4me
06-05-09, 06:00 PM
Of course diesel-electric trains are probably the best example of electric motors at work.

And among the most efficient.