View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently November 24th, 2014, 11:17 am



Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next
 Cost To Drive a Volt 
Author Message
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Cost To Drive a Volt
M2K, I understand where you're coming from, but please lisien to my viewpoint. The Volt or any other electric vehicle isn't ready for prime time yet, so stop attemping to cram them down our throats. As Blieskies said earlier, BluRays and HDTVs didn't become popular until the prices came down. The same will be true for the Volt or any other electric vehicle that hits the market. This is fact and it's time that you deal with reality. The truth hurts sometimes.

Produce an electric car that gets 300 miles per charge and costs around $20K and I might buy one. Until then, I have no interest.

_________________
Image


February 26th, 2012, 4:34 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9946
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: Cost To Drive a Volt
slybri19 wrote:
M2K, I understand where you're coming from, but please lisien to my viewpoint. The Volt or any other electric vehicle isn't ready for prime time yet, so stop attemping to cram them down our throats. As Blieskies said earlier, BluRays and HDTVs didn't become popular until the prices came down. The same will be true for the Volt or any other electric vehicle that hits the market. This is fact and it's time that you deal with reality. The truth hurts sometimes.

Produce an electric car that gets 300 miles per charge and costs around $20K and I might buy one. Until then, I have no interest.


The day I arrive at your house and put a gun to your head and force you to purchase a Volt is the day I am "attempting to cram them down your throat". Until then, I am simply trying to give facts where some are missing. GM isn't producing these cars in high numbers and removing any other choices on the market, are they? Did they stop selling trucks? Did they stop selling sedans? So explain the supposed idea that this is being forced on anyone? Blu Rays and HDTVs were on the market before they were affordable to most people. Did you feel that they were being crammed down your throat?

And as for the "produce a car that gets 300 miles per charge and costs around $20k".....is ANY car company doing that right now? The answer is NO! That should be an indication that the technology to do that simply isn't there yet. But until then there are MANY people who want the OPTION of being able to have an advanced hybrid vehicle available to them. GM has produced that vehicle, and that's just not good enough.

I find it funny that people on this forum, the very same people who just a few years ago were bashing GM, Ford and Chrysler for making gas guzzling trucks and supposedly forcing those on the public (even though those vehicles were in HIGH demand), are now condemning GM for the Volt. ALL HAIL TOYOTA for building a Prius, whose technology is behind that of the Volt, but let's kiss their badonkadonk anyways because they are Toyota. Let's bash GM for having a couple cars have fires that killed no one, but it's OK that Toyota had issues with their cars that killed people, and then tried to cover it up and hide behind the American legal system.

Let's face facts......GM, Ford and Chrysler will NEVER do anything right in your eyes for the simple fact that they are the "Big 3", and everyone knows the only thing they want to do is screw over the American Consumer and sell them absolute junk at the highest possible price.

_________________
I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.


February 27th, 2012, 9:24 am
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12203
Post Re: Cost To Drive a Volt
**Warning, anecdotal story ahead**
We just bought a 2008 Prius and love the fact we're now getting 50+ MPG; and that's mostly on the highway. For those that may not know, the Prius is mainly a short-trip / in city vehicle so that's where it supposed to get the better mileage. The Honda Civic Hybrid is supposed to be the opposite; more highway and less city; at least that's my understanding on it.

I would really like to see the Volt in action and would've considered buying one, except its rather new and we usually like to wait for all the 'bugs' to get worked out before thinking about forking over lots of $$$$ for something; hence going w/Prius...its been around a very long time.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


February 27th, 2012, 1:34 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9946
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: Cost To Drive a Volt
Here is some further FACT information regarding Volts, gathered from current drivers of the Volt, or from OnStar:

Facts include:
Average cost to charge the Volt for 35 miles of EV driving: $1.50
MPG of the Volt in extended-range mode: 35 city / 40 highway or 37 combined
Average cost per mile so far from Volt drivers: $.03 - .06
Cost per mile of a conventional vehicle that gets 30 mpg with gas at $3.90 per gallon: $.13

And although I am not a firm believer in everything posted on its website, Snopes has even gotten into the debate with some facts and figures:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/chevyvolt.asp

Obviously this idiot is a Rush Limbaugh slappy. Limbaugh was the one who stated that the Volt "dies" after 40 miles, a COMPLETE falsehood. And all of this stemming from the fact that Limbaugh and others didn't agree with Obama completing the loans process to the car companys that GWB started.

But I guess it would have been better for our economy to allow close to a million people more to be out of a job, and numerous other companies and businesses that rely on GM and Chrysler to die out as well, all because the banks were giving out bad loans.

_________________
I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.


Last edited by m2karateman on February 28th, 2012, 9:11 am, edited 1 time in total.



February 27th, 2012, 3:20 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: January 26th, 2005, 9:34 pm
Posts: 10327
Location: Sycamore, IL
Post Re: Cost To Drive a Volt
Wags, I've had 2 Prius' and sold them both right as the warranty ran out, because they both had a lot of problems (I.e. abs issues, wheel sensors, battery shorts, etc etc)

Good luck.

_________________
_____
I have no faith this team will win a game the rest of the year. The kitties finish at 7-9 and Miss the playoffs as GB wins out and takes it from the kitties.
Image


February 28th, 2012, 12:24 am
Profile
Post Re: Cost To Drive a Volt
m2karateman wrote:
Here is some further FACT information regarding Volts, gathered from current drivers of the Volt, or from OnStar:

Facts include:
Average cost to charge the Volt for 35 miles of EV driving: $1.50
MPG of the Volt in extended-range mode: 35 city / 40 highway or 37 combined
Average cost per mile so far from Volt drivers: $.03 - .06
Cost per mile of a conventional vehicle that gets 30 mpg with gas at $3.90 per gallon: $.13

And although I am not a firm believer in everything posted on its website, Snopes has even gotten into the debate with some facts and figures:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/chevyvolt.asp

Obviously this idiot is a Rush Limbaugh slappy. Limbaugh was the one who stated that the Volt "dies" after 40 miles, a COMPLETE falsehood. And all of this stemming from the fact that Limbaugh and others didn't agree with Obama completing the loans process to the car companys that GWB started.

But I guess it would have been better for our economy to allow close to a million people more to be out of a job, and numerous other companies and businesses that rely on GM and Chrysler to die out as well, all because the banks were giving out bad loans.



I'm not doubting you, so don't jump down my throat, but how does it only cost a $1.50 to charge a car for 6-7 hours?

Further, I don't buy ANYTHING that comes from OnStar. It has been proven time and time again that those "MPG" averages on your vehicle are often off by 20-30%, EASILY. I know that my friend's old Dodge Ram said he got about 13.1mpg, but he really only got about 9 if you did the math. Myth busters proved those things lie too, and by wide margins.


That said, IMO the government IS "pushing these things down our throats" when they're forcing companies to install infrastructure to support them, and giving $7,500 tax credits to buy them. That's ridiculous. If people want to "save the environment" let them do it on their dime. If it is economically feasible for GM or anyone else to provide a viable electronic vehicle let them do it. I would rather a government grant for research and development than some silly tax credit that goes "all in" and forces people to do things before the technology is ready. If the government wants to force something it should be natural gas vehicles. GM already makes them (as does BMW, I think), they're on the road, but no one really uses them.


February 28th, 2012, 5:50 pm
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9946
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: Cost To Drive a Volt
wjb21ndtown wrote:
I'm not doubting you, so don't jump down my throat, but how does it only cost a $1.50 to charge a car for 6-7 hours?

Further, I don't buy ANYTHING that comes from OnStar. It has been proven time and time again that those "MPG" averages on your vehicle are often off by 20-30%, EASILY. I know that my friend's old Dodge Ram said he got about 13.1mpg, but he really only got about 9 if you did the math. Myth busters proved those things lie too, and by wide margins.


That said, IMO the government IS "pushing these things down our throats" when they're forcing companies to install infrastructure to support them, and giving $7,500 tax credits to buy them. That's ridiculous. If people want to "save the environment" let them do it on their dime. If it is economically feasible for GM or anyone else to provide a viable electronic vehicle let them do it. I would rather a government grant for research and development than some silly tax credit that goes "all in" and forces people to do things before the technology is ready. If the government wants to force something it should be natural gas vehicles. GM already makes them (as does BMW, I think), they're on the road, but no one really uses them.


http://www.insideline.com/chevrolet/volt/2011/how-much-will-it-cost-to-charge-chevy-volt-in-michigan.html

wjb, please read the article in the link. Michigan has a program that would allow a person to pay a flat fee of $40 per month to charge their Volts. Since most people would be charging in off-peak hours, the cost is much less than you might think. And I highly doubt the energy companies would offer the monthly deal at $40 per, if they knew that it would typically cost a great deal more to charge the car.

Getting back to the original topic, the article originally posted, I feel I've more than shown just how far off base this guy was with his "facts", and when it comes down to it, his dislike of the Volt is more about politics than an unbiased review of the vehicle.

_________________
I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.


February 29th, 2012, 10:34 am
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12203
Post Re: Cost To Drive a Volt
conversion02 wrote:
Wags, I've had 2 Prius' and sold them both right as the warranty ran out, because they both had a lot of problems (I.e. abs issues, wheel sensors, battery shorts, etc etc)

Good luck.
Thanks for the info. Ours is 2008 with just over 30K. The factory warranty is over, but we were able to get an additional / extended warranty to 72K that covers the hybrid system (as well as the "normal" stuff). Hopefully it will be sufficient; time will tell.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


February 29th, 2012, 10:55 am
Profile
Online
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3866
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Cost To Drive a Volt
Quote:
Let's face facts......GM, Ford and Chrysler will NEVER do anything right in your eyes for the simple fact that they are the "Big 3", and everyone knows the only thing they want to do is screw over the American Consumer and sell them absolute junk at the highest possible price.



M2k

I dont have any hatred towards the big 3. I dont even blame them for their troubles. The Unions that pushed em to the brink of BK... WHOLE different story.

And I still say that if 2 of the big three werent bailed out you my friend would still be working....but it would just be for Tesla, Honda or one of the many potential up and commings that would have jumped all over buying whole factories at discount. this is just my opinion mind you,but when you look bad boat travel died and it was suppposed to be catastophic. travel by train flatlined. that was supposed to bring the country to a stand still..but it never happened.

It is of my philosophy that when something dies out, something new will take it's place.

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


March 2nd, 2012, 6:26 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2815
Post Re: Cost To Drive a Volt
Volt production stopped and 1300 layed off.

http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation ... chevy-volt

And are blaming the media for poor sales:

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer. ... les/406771


March 2nd, 2012, 9:00 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9946
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: Cost To Drive a Volt
regularjoe12 wrote:
Quote:
Let's face facts......GM, Ford and Chrysler will NEVER do anything right in your eyes for the simple fact that they are the "Big 3", and everyone knows the only thing they want to do is screw over the American Consumer and sell them absolute junk at the highest possible price.



M2k

I dont have any hatred towards the big 3. I dont even blame them for their troubles. The Unions that pushed em to the brink of BK... WHOLE different story.

And I still say that if 2 of the big three werent bailed out you my friend would still be working....but it would just be for Tesla, Honda or one of the many potential up and commings that would have jumped all over buying whole factories at discount. this is just my opinion mind you,but when you look bad boat travel died and it was suppposed to be catastophic. travel by train flatlined. that was supposed to bring the country to a stand still..but it never happened.

It is of my philosophy that when something dies out, something new will take it's place.


Here's the problem with that...if GM and Chrysler dies, so does a number of other American based businesses, including Ford. Parts suppliers, local small businesses, etc., they would all go under. Now, you would expect that some other companies will "pick up the slack" so to speak, but that would not have been the case. Why? Because it was all about not being able to get loans. Those companies would not have been able to finance getting those shuttered factories, they would not have had the cash to pay the full amount, and in truth, they would not have been able to absorb all the properties and personnel devastated by the shut downs of those companies.

What you are left with is a number of car companies who operate the majority of their business outside the United States, taking money made from the American consumer here and investing it in their own countries. The money that walks out the door with them is not returned through sales of American made products that are shipped overseas. Name one other product other than automobiles that are designed and made here in the United States that help offset the trade deficit? Food? Livestock? But the numbers on those is dwindling rapidly. The automobile industry is the last big ticket item America manufactures that is sold overseas.

I could understand if there were other U.S. based auto manufacturers to take over for GM or Chrysler, but there isn't. Tesla could barely afford one or two plants, let alone dozens. They couldn't hire 1/100th of the employees laid off by GM and Chrysler, and then ultimately Ford. There would not be an even switch. And, we've already seen what happens with Toyota, Honda and Nissan when they are forced to grow rapidly. When that happens, oversights occur and quality control is reduced greatly. Toyota has already said part of the reason for it's recent quality issues is based on their rapid growth in the last decade. Honda and Nissan have experienced similar growing pains. What if they chose NOT to grow their business in the United States? Without any American based companies, our government would basically be begging them to build plants and create jobs here.

And while I am no big fan of the Union, it wasn't just them that pushed the Big Three to the brink. It was the banking industry. It was the government, which pushed the banks to give loans that were extremely risky. It was people taking out loans they knew they couldn't afford, but did it anyways. It was a culmination of many things. The car companies were skating on thin ice, no doubt. Their profit margins were way too low. But, who was to blame for that? You could say the Unions, but you could also say it was our government, who so easily allowed foreign competition to sell their vehicles here without import tariffs, creating tax free zones for foreign companies to build plants, and then allowing those areas to be declared "Trade Free Zones", meaning that anything made on that sight was not subject to import tariffs or trade restrictions. Yet, our government was very well aware of the trade restrictions the Big Three faced in Japan, Korea, China and Eastern Europe. Places that forced GM, Ford and Chrysler to use a certain percentage of parts from "local" companies. Countries that demanded modifications to vehicles that forced the companies to build plants there to build region specific designs to be sold there, on the promise that they were an "emerging market", only to have those same governments give bigger breaks to their own local car companies. Believe me, our government could very easily turn the tables on the Japanese, Korean and other foreign car makers by saying, "what ever restrictions and demands your government levies on our companies will be levied to you equally here in the United States." But, they don't. And that is a small part of the reason why the United States has such a HUGE trade deficit. Our government doesn't make foreign companies play by the same rules. Now, you could say that is part of capitalism and free trade. But when you allow others to find the loophole and take advantage of it to a point where your own companies are on the brink of collapse, it's time to enforce those same rules and see just exactly how they like it.

_________________
I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.


March 3rd, 2012, 1:14 am
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2747
Post Re: Cost To Drive a Volt
Quote:
Believe me, our government could very easily turn the tables on the Japanese, Korean and other foreign car makers by saying, "what ever restrictions and demands your government levies on our companies will be levied to you equally here in the United States." But, they don't. And that is a small part of the reason why the United States has such a HUGE trade deficit. Our government doesn't make foreign companies play by the same rules. Now, you could say that is part of capitalism and free trade. But when you allow others to find the loophole and take advantage of it to a point where your own companies are on the brink of collapse, it's time to enforce those same rules and see just exactly how they like it.


Even if those foreign governments completely embargoed our automobiles, we should absolutely not retaliate. It would crush our own automotive industry, but the American economy as a whole would come out ahead--they're sending us cars they subsidized at a discount. Awesome.

I wouldn't have bailed out the car industry at the time nor the banking industry. M2k's right in asserting that it was the financial bubble that sent the car companies over the edge--but they weren't exactly innocent. What business does GMAC have in investing in mortgages?

And yes, I accept the fact that it would've caused significant cascading effects leading to the bankruptcy of suppliers, Ford Motor company, and probably seriously distressing Toyota and Honda. Not bailing out the banks would've been 10x worse.

But I still would've let them go under. Why? I believe the debt crisis and economic stagnation we'll experience over the next decade or so will be far worse than the short-term pain. But we'll see.


March 3rd, 2012, 2:19 am
Profile
Post Re: Cost To Drive a Volt
m2karateman wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
I'm not doubting you, so don't jump down my throat, but how does it only cost a $1.50 to charge a car for 6-7 hours?

Further, I don't buy ANYTHING that comes from OnStar. It has been proven time and time again that those "MPG" averages on your vehicle are often off by 20-30%, EASILY. I know that my friend's old Dodge Ram said he got about 13.1mpg, but he really only got about 9 if you did the math. Myth busters proved those things lie too, and by wide margins.


That said, IMO the government IS "pushing these things down our throats" when they're forcing companies to install infrastructure to support them, and giving $7,500 tax credits to buy them. That's ridiculous. If people want to "save the environment" let them do it on their dime. If it is economically feasible for GM or anyone else to provide a viable electronic vehicle let them do it. I would rather a government grant for research and development than some silly tax credit that goes "all in" and forces people to do things before the technology is ready. If the government wants to force something it should be natural gas vehicles. GM already makes them (as does BMW, I think), they're on the road, but no one really uses them.


http://www.insideline.com/chevrolet/volt/2011/how-much-will-it-cost-to-charge-chevy-volt-in-michigan.html

wjb, please read the article in the link. Michigan has a program that would allow a person to pay a flat fee of $40 per month to charge their Volts. Since most people would be charging in off-peak hours, the cost is much less than you might think. And I highly doubt the energy companies would offer the monthly deal at $40 per, if they knew that it would typically cost a great deal more to charge the car.

Getting back to the original topic, the article originally posted, I feel I've more than shown just how far off base this guy was with his "facts", and when it comes down to it, his dislike of the Volt is more about politics than an unbiased review of the vehicle.



M2, this thing still only gets 30mpg while on running on the generator, even if you get your first 25 miles for $1.50 it still doesn't outweigh the cost of buying the vehicle, and it doesn't justify the govt. spending tens of millions of dollars in tax incentives on this thing, and hundreds of millions of dollars conditionally bailing out GM, on the condition that they got the Volt plant up and running.

And I'll add - I do think the Big 3 generally puts out junk. Ford has been doing a lot better lately, but Chrysler and GM, IMO are only putting out slightly better junk. My gf drives a brand new Malibu. She likes it, but IMO that thing is a piece of poop. I drive a 2002 BMW 330ci. At 10 years old with over 90k miles on it it still drives better, handles better, has less wind noise, road noise, and suspension noise than her brand new car. IMO that's just flat out ridiculous, as is the amount of plastic in her car. It's as if it is meant to be disposable.


March 6th, 2012, 6:18 pm
Post Re: Cost To Drive a Volt
Blueskies wrote:
Quote:
Believe me, our government could very easily turn the tables on the Japanese, Korean and other foreign car makers by saying, "what ever restrictions and demands your government levies on our companies will be levied to you equally here in the United States." But, they don't. And that is a small part of the reason why the United States has such a HUGE trade deficit. Our government doesn't make foreign companies play by the same rules. Now, you could say that is part of capitalism and free trade. But when you allow others to find the loophole and take advantage of it to a point where your own companies are on the brink of collapse, it's time to enforce those same rules and see just exactly how they like it.


Even if those foreign governments completely embargoed our automobiles, we should absolutely not retaliate. It would crush our own automotive industry, but the American economy as a whole would come out ahead--they're sending us cars they subsidized at a discount. Awesome.

I wouldn't have bailed out the car industry at the time nor the banking industry. M2k's right in asserting that it was the financial bubble that sent the car companies over the edge--but they weren't exactly innocent. What business does GMAC have in investing in mortgages?

And yes, I accept the fact that it would've caused significant cascading effects leading to the bankruptcy of suppliers, Ford Motor company, and probably seriously distressing Toyota and Honda. Not bailing out the banks would've been 10x worse.

But I still would've let them go under. Why? I believe the debt crisis and economic stagnation we'll experience over the next decade or so will be far worse than the short-term pain. But we'll see.


IMO we had to bail out the banks. To not bail out the banks would have killed the FDIC that insures all of those bank accounts, the money supply, the dollar, and it would have caused panic, killing good banks that didn't need to be bailed out in the process.

I would have let the auto industry go bankrupt. The ONLY group that got bailed out in that whole mess was the UAW (which is why Obama bailed the auto industry out, it wasn't because he's "pro business"). If the Big 3 would have had to file BK (or at least Ford and GM) NOTHING different would have happened, EXCEPT the UAW wouldn't now own 18% of GM, and Italy wouldn't now own Chrysler (I love how people still consider Chrysler and "American" car company, when it's owned by Italians, and is likely to move its headquarters over there).


March 6th, 2012, 6:21 pm
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2747
Post Re: Cost To Drive a Volt
Quote:
IMO we had to bail out the banks. To not bail out the banks would have killed the FDIC that insures all of those bank accounts, the money supply, the dollar, and it would have caused panic, killing good banks that didn't need to be bailed out in the process.


Yes we had to bail them out. But we fixed nothing. Now they are bigger, more important. So when they fail again (which is inevitable) we will have to bail them out again and again and again.

So, if we're going to do that, why not just nationalize them? The same extends for the car companies: if they are really that important to the American economy, just nationalize them and let the taxpayers profit when times are good, and not just take it in the behind when times are bad.

Quote:
The ONLY group that got bailed out in that whole mess was the UAW


The government was on the line for the pensions. It was cheaper to bring the car companies back to profitability rather than take the hit via pension insurance.

Quote:
I love how people still consider Chrysler and "American" car company, when it's owned by Italians, and is likely to move its headquarters over there


I really doubt this. The European economy is continuing to collapse. Fiat is actually losing money while Chrysler is profitable, and Sergio bought a house here. They also said they wanted to merge with a third car company (which I would guess would be an Asian company).

But you do bring up an interesting point: calling ANY corporation an American/Japanese/Italian company is foolish. Publicly traded companies are owned by the shareholders, and the shareholders can be of any nationality. If I owned Toyota stock, when they pay a dividend, I get that money. The money doesn't flow back to the mother country necessarily. That's disingenuous, old fashioned thinking that is no longer true in a globalized economy.

That said, when the Big 3 do well, southeast Michigan benefits, but the USA as a whole is no better off from Ford profiting or Toyota profiting.


March 6th, 2012, 10:02 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.