TheEEStory.com

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle.ASpx?...

Are GM on a hiding to nothing, when the market will go to the best option (including operating cost) for the cheapest price?

In this fast paced environment of rapid change this poses the question of whether the EESU will be overtaken before it - too - gets to market.

This article is too funny. EV Innovations congradulates GM for being the SECOND car company to break the three didget barrier.

http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id...

I think the concern is that the thing won't be commercially viable. Whether it can break the three 'didget' barrier or not is irrelevant.

GM volt will be the biggest failure EVER

The Volt is a hail Mary play. No guts, No glory. It's too early to call this one. Part of this article is GM posturing for more federal money.

p.s. nice to see the mittens again.

I don't think GM is the only company whose only interest in EVs is as a means of attracting grants.

The same phenomenon was apparent during the 'starwars' era. Everybody knew it wouldn't work, but were happy to pretend it would in order to get the money.

The chinese BYD E6 will be on the market in volume next year. Planned production for 2009 400,000 units and for 2010 there are 700,000 cars planned.

A serious compatitor for GM Volt and Zenn! By the time that vehicle hits the North American and European markets they will have all their technical bugs out.

svetan wrote:

The chinese BYD E6 will be on the market in volume next year. Planned production for 2009 400,000 units and for 2010 there are 700,000 cars planned.

A serious compatitor for GM Volt and Zenn! By the time that vehicle hits the North American and European markets they will have all their technical bugs out.

Not to mention the Toyota Prius. With improved battery technology on a vehicle that has been listed as the highest quality family car in Consumer's Reports for a couple of years, it wouldn't take much to change it to an electric hybrid like GM Volt.

I've owned my Prius for 2.5 years and I love it. It would be very difficult for me to buy a car that is foreign made with no/little dealer network without some solid evidence that it is of the highest quality and not another lemon.

The volt is just an attempt to keep GM's service depts in business.It's all about the maintenance money.

manthan33 wrote:

GM volt will be the biggest failure EVER

In what sense ?

I'm sure they can easily sell all the cars they make initially. EREV is going to be choice of a lot of people with "range anxiety".

I think a lot of green people hate GM and won't buy, which will hurt, and anti-EV people will be hating and bashing it all the way, but I think it'll succeed.

It's the smart choice, if GM can market it, and people will give it a chance.

The Prius is a good car, but it's not as good. It cost more initially and the price came down, and I expect the Volt will too.

You can get it converted for $11k which puts it just barely below a Volt, but without a warranty and with a setup that wasn't designed into the car. Even then the performance isn't up to the spec the Volt shows.

The Volt is the way to go because it will cut fuel consumption for the greatest number of people using the least battery material to do so.

The leaf will cut 100% of fuel for 1 person, two Volts will cut 85% for 2 people, do some minor math and it's clear the right way to go.

On top of that you don't have to have 2 cars, you don't have any worries about range and you get a nice looking, nice driving car that's comfortable to sit in.

GM's got a lot of negative press, that's the only bad thing about the Volt.

more negative press for GM...

http://www.wheels.ca/newsFeatures/article/781505

I think you guys are being too hard on GM. That disclosure is only a cold dash of reality. Shows that GM does not have their head in the sand, and is realistic about their project. This does not mean that GM should give up and not compete, or that they want to give up. They are after more money to complete their plans for the Volt, and I for one, think they should get the loan.

This is the kind of bullsh#t we have to deal with in the states. Why can't GM just be honest and clear, instead they are choosing to confuse ignorant masses that are trying to come around and warm-up to the EV market. Mileage is base on the range of the vehicle with one fill-up or one charge. This 230 MPH is just an embarrassing convolution. It's is too bad I actually like the looks of the volt.

I agree that the 230mpg advertising is meaningless. But I think this is calculated from government EPA formula, and as such is "legal". Welcome to the surealistic world of advertising.

It seems to me that GM is being truthful about their mpg claim. After all the small hp ice is being run off a 10 or so gal gas tank and that gas tank is being used to produce power for the battery recharging. If the gas tank is only needing a refill about every 2300 miles, then the mpg issue is not an issue.

I think it's *entirely* appropriate to castigate GM for trumpeting its meaningless and highly inflated "230 MPG" figure. It's dishonest and misleading, and they know that perfectly well. The ad campaign *should* backfire on them.

If the real numbers are 40 miles on electric power (under ideal conditions), and 50 MPG thereafter, they should be honest enough to quote *those* figures. Those are likely an ideal which few in the real world will reach anyway, but it would at least be appropriate to use those figures for comparison to other PHEVs.

Tec wrote:

I don't think GM is the only company whose only interest in EVs is as a means of attracting grants.

The same phenomenon was apparent during the 'starwars' era. Everybody knew it wouldn't work, but were happy to pretend it would in order to get the money.

But it did work. It bankrupted the Soviet Union and, though a couple of decades later, we are beginning to be able to intercept missiles early in their flights and destroy them. Likely the EESU will push this capability forward.

The Prius has allways bothered me because it is such complex technology. You have two different power plants two different engines with different torques and different rpms and somehow the transmission has to deal with this and provide power to the wheels. And so the computer system that controls this vehicle has to be more complex and so on and so on. I worry that when some of these things do have problems, the local dealer won't have a soul who has a clue how to trouble shoot and repair these difficult systems. I have had my Silverado pickup into the chevy dealer with the check engine light on and it seems like it is all they can do to deal with those type problems. But, the Prius must be designed well because I have not heard of anyone having these type problems as of yet. Now contrast that with the Volt, which if I understand it, is just an electric vehicle with
an onboard generator. We have all agreed that an EV should require a lot less maintenance that an ICE. Then lets make another leap. What if we put an EESU into a Volt and extend the Electric Operated range to say 100 miles. (We know that GM has had discussions with EEstor). Isn't this the ideal EV? 100 miles would certainly cover 95% of the average persons driving and this would be at very cheap per mile electirc only operation and then if you did need to travel further, you have the backup system there to do the job. Would this not put the Volt into a very competitive situation even against the Prius ?

buckshepherd wrote:

The Prius has allways bothered me because it is such complex technology. You have two different power plants two different engines with different torques and different rpms and somehow the transmission has to deal with this and provide power to the wheels. And so the computer system that controls this vehicle has to be more complex and so on and so on. I worry that when some of these things do have problems, the local dealer won't have a soul who has a clue how to trouble shoot and repair these difficult systems. I have had my Silverado pickup into the chevy dealer with the check engine light on and it seems like it is all they can do to deal with those type problems. But, the Prius must be designed well because I have not heard of anyone having these type problems as of yet. Now contrast that with the Volt, which if I understand it, is just an electric vehicle with
an onboard generator. We have all agreed that an EV should require a lot less maintenance that an ICE. Then lets make another leap. What if we put an EESU into a Volt and extend the Electric Operated range to say 100 miles. (We know that GM has had discussions with EEstor). Isn't this the ideal EV? 100 miles would certainly cover 95% of the average persons driving and this would be at very cheap per mile electirc only operation and then if you did need to travel further, you have the backup system there to do the job. Would this not put the Volt into a very competitive situation even against the Prius ?

Make the backup system one that can recharge the energy storage system. This is the concept behind Kamen's EV. He uses a Stirling engine. I imagine an EV with an EESU could easily accomodate a Stirling engine that runs off of natural gas. It could be added as an option for those wishing to have a long-range EV.

http://www.dekaresearch.com/stirling.shtml

Like Weir, Kamen is another super-secretive guy. He lives on a hill about 2 miles away from my house. Impressive digs.

Last edited Sat, 22 Aug 2009, 4:07pm by DAP

greg woulf wrote:

snip...
The Prius is a good car, but it's not as good. It cost more initially and the price came down, and I expect the Volt will too.

You can get it converted for $11k which puts it just barely below a Volt, but without a warranty and with a setup that wasn't designed into the car. Even then the performance isn't up to the spec the Volt shows.

It can be done for only $3K now. Check this out....http://enginer.us/

I'm going to get it done myself.

buckshepherd wrote:

The Prius has allways bothered me because it is such complex technology. You have two different power plants two different engines with different torques and different rpms and somehow the transmission has to deal with this and provide power to the wheels. And so the computer system that controls this vehicle has to be more complex and so on and so on.

That's just anti-Prius FUD. It's a proven, simple system really, but I grant you that pure EVs will be even simpler. I look forward to seeing vehicles with no ICE at all.

All GM is saying here is that it needs 5.7 Billion of the 25B loan money to finish developement on it's Volt ICE. this so the Volt can be released on schedule in 2010. the reason for the article is because GM has already been turned down 3 times for the loan. GM says that if they do not get the funds, it could delay release of the Volt and competitors could pass them up with similar or superior technology.

The Volt design is superior to any other hybrid design out there. there is no competition. But other companies are already "moving in" on this design. last year, both Chrysler and Ford revealed very similar designs.

Since GM is owned by the US and Canadian Governments, and the Government is who is handing out the loans, I am sure GM will eventially get what they want.

seslaprime wrote:

Since GM is owned by the US and Canadian Governments, and the Government is who is handing out the loans, I am sure GM will eventially get what they want.

I'm not so sure, they have already been turned down multiple times. Why?

Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and...and...not Chevrolet (or GM) anymore...for those of you old enough to remember that jingle...

Goooose4 wrote:

Tec wrote:

I don't think GM is the only company whose only interest in EVs is as a means of attracting grants.

The same phenomenon was apparent during the 'starwars' era. Everybody knew it wouldn't work, but were happy to pretend it would in order to get the money.

But it did work. It bankrupted the Soviet Union and, though a couple of decades later, we are beginning to be able to intercept missiles early in their flights and destroy them. Likely the EESU will push this capability forward.

Star Wars didn't bankrupt the Soviet Union - Saudi and Kuwaiti oil at $10.00 a barrel did.

Of course that led to the Iraqi invasion of Q8, which led to the US invasion of Iraq, which led to the second US invasion of Iraq, which has cost $3T - which is bankrupting the US. Oh, and $10.00/bbl Saudi oil also led to the bankruptcy of the FSLIC, which cost us $500B ... (Almost all of the failed S&Ls were in the Oil Patch states - and it costs more than $10.00 to lift a barrel of US oil, since the 1970s or so).

Nissan has been given the inside track.

http://energytechstocks.com/wp/?p=2164

The part of interest:
"The good news for Nissan was that the Obama administration chose it for a large-scale demonstration of the feasibility of electric vehicles in the U.S. A total of up to 5,000 Nissan LEAF EVs will be deployed in five separate U.S. markets. “This (test) will tell us if a vehicle like that has a shot of making it in the U.S.,” Millikin said, adding that it could give Nissan a big advantage in the expected battle for EV market dominance."

DeedleTwo wrote:

Goooose4 wrote:

Tec wrote:

I don't think GM is the only company whose only interest in EVs is as a means of attracting grants.

The same phenomenon was apparent during the 'starwars' era. Everybody knew it wouldn't work, but were happy to pretend it would in order to get the money.

But it did work. It bankrupted the Soviet Union and, though a couple of decades later, we are beginning to be able to intercept missiles early in their flights and destroy them. Likely the EESU will push this capability forward.

Star Wars didn't bankrupt the Soviet Union - Saudi and Kuwaiti oil at $10.00 a barrel did.

Of course that led to the Iraqi invasion of Q8, which led to the US invasion of Iraq, which led to the second US invasion of Iraq, which has cost $3T - which is bankrupting the US. Oh, and $10.00/bbl Saudi oil also led to the bankruptcy of the FSLIC, which cost us $500B ... (Almost all of the failed S&Ls were in the Oil Patch states - and it costs more than $10.00 to lift a barrel of US oil, since the 1970s or so).

Huh?? A lot of the individual facts are correct, but are you sure you don't have a few non sequiturs tossed in for good measure?

Last edited Mon, 24 Aug 2009, 2:32am by Goooose4

Tec wrote:

I think the concern is that the thing won't be commercially viable. Whether it can break the three 'didget' barrier or not is irrelevant.

It would if you put a diesel in it!

Robw wrote:

Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and...and...not Chevrolet (or GM) anymore...for those of you old enough to remember that jingle...

lol in Australia it was :
"Football Meatpies Kangaroo's and Holden Cars"

Holden or GM-Holden.

mark