It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


GM says new Volt to get 230 mpg in city driving

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 06:01 AM
reply to post by tothetenthpower

Did they say how much replacement batteries will be? I wonder if they will account for what batteries may cost in the next 10 years?

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 06:14 AM
Great , another car they can build in huge numbers of then leave to rust quietly in the factory parking lot because no one can afford to buy them. Well done GM. Real forward thinking on a way to escape going under.
How about using the engine to replace all the other GM cars that are on the roads already?

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 07:22 AM
In my opinion electric cars are not the way to go. The technology is already obsolete. They are not some miracle cure.

- Mining the nickel for batteries is extremely polluting
- When the batteries go bad where do they end up? A dump?
- No way the batteries will last 10 years like gm says, at least in the forseable future, I have read priuis owners are reporting 3ish years. - Where will all the electricity come from for electric cars? More Nuclear plants? Wind farms? Who knows at this point?
-Hybrids still use gas so if everyone eventually switched then gas will just be 20 dollars a gallon.
- Pure electric cars take forever to charge, until they charge faster its a dead end.

It obviously has positives, the posibilty of better performance and there is only a few moving parts.

I think hydrogen makes more sense, the problem is the technology is not ready and it requires a whole new infrastructure.

My 2 cents

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 07:57 AM
reply to post by drock905

What about this car?
BMW 760

This technology is already available for a couple of years.
Given it is still way over most ppl's budget,
and gov's don't stimulate hydrogen fuel stations that much.
(GOV: first cars, then fuel stations.... Car-manufacturers: first stations, then cars)

I think we're more ready than we're being told!

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 07:57 AM

Originally posted by drock905
I think hydrogen makes more sense, the problem is the technology is not ready and it requires a whole new infrastructure.

It's simple. You just make hydrogen on the fly...

My biggest gripe (in the other thread) is this:

In 100 years of technological advancements, we still base our main forms of transport on a finite resource (oil), we also are supposed to believe that we only have wheels and aerofoils. Look at computers and other electronic advancements for christs sake.

Ain't fooling me.

Tesla has given us the key, we just need to find which one unlocks the door. Supposedly it's in his patents which are public, not just the hidden ones.

edited for quote stuffing up

edit 2,763 to add this:

Battery tech is horribly polluting and inefficient. Lithium ion batteries die after a few years (seen the lifespan of many a laptop battery pass my old work desk). Most laptops that I've repaired will last approx 6 months to 1 year (if it's a dodgy sony battery or abused) and up to 3 or 4 years if looked after and dis-charged every week or so, not kept at 100% 24/7. This causes some cells to deactivate pretty much as they are not being loaded, then ya wonder why your laptop turns off when you pull the power out. This info can help maintain a battery in almost any lithium ion or similar type device you have - ipod/phone etc etc.

More widespread use of batteries in electric cars is an environmental disaster waiting to happen. Anyone looked at videos of lithium cells going critical? They explode/burn/smoke and smoulder and have killed people previously! What happens when your electric car gets the rear end ripped off by a semi? You survive to burn to death as your battery goes up in smoke while trapped in the wreckage. It's like a punctured petrol tank but worse as it's much more spontaneous. A bad batch of batteries could be susceptible to spontaneous combustion under normal operating conditions, as previously seen with laptops.

Batteries are a dead end with charge times (with 'currently' (ho ho ho..) available technology). One solution you could look into is high storage capacitors. Charge very quickly.... They too have toxic chemicals, but less so than a Li Ion battery.
A quick, taxpayer funder top-up charging system could be installed in major intersections when the road is next surfaced. But wait, petrol companies loose this way....

my 2c.

[edit on 12/8/09 by GhostR1der]

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 09:36 AM

Originally posted by manbird12000
The stupidity of the whole thing reveals itself when you see that in order to save xx amount of dollars, you have to spend 10 fold.

If I sold you a light bulb that lasts forever and you would never have to change it, that would be a good thing wouldn't it? I spend about $15 bucks a year on light bulbs and roughly $600 dollars in a lifetime, so that would be a great thing to have.

Now, what if the bulb costs $1,000 dollars? Well, that would be more than the amount of money I would have spent on the normal bulbs to begin with!!!!!

Same thing goes for this VOLT car. It only will last about 6 years or so, which will only give you about $6,000 worth of gas a price tag of $40,000!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then after the car breaks down you have to buy another 40K car or perhaps a $20k car with normal MPG!!!

It's the most dumb thing I've ever seen revealed in the public eye.

No, it ain't. It's good marketing. The dumbness comes from people who'll buy it. Them "environmentalists" don't know how much energy it costs to make a new car, even a hybrid/electric one.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 10:10 AM

Originally posted by truskeptic
Cord had the first major electric car in 1908 and it was killed by the oil companies also (Jay Leno owns one). Rayovac made a 'almost instant' recharge battery in 1932 and the patent was bought and buried by Gm.

Cord=Ford I presume.

And that Rayovac battery that you speak of, where can I find more information about it. I have not had much luck searching for information on the topic.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 10:40 AM

Originally posted by manbird12000
How can the savings in gas make it worth buying when The half decent car you quote is half the cost of the VOLT?

So assuming you're not already in the market to buy a $40k+ car, how can $6,000 dollars worth of Gas savings be incentive enough to plunk down $40k+ ?

I see your reasoning and all, but I fail to see how it applies to new buyers or those looking to replace their current vehicles.

Sure, the car might need maintenance done every few years. But, as far as I'm concerned, thats the status quo anyway.

Wait a few years. Cost comes down, technology gets better, etc.

Never said it wasn't a scam, either, just said this is a good buy for first-timers or those looking to replace (who are willing/able to blow 40k for a vehicle) - or at least in the near future it will be.

*Edit - It's also all we have to work with, even if these companies hold other tech, etc. If someone has a problem and the conviction and believe we can have something amazing to drive - why don't we get on top of it, eh? America is in need of inventors, innovators, employers, ultimately production.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by shanerz]

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 10:48 AM

Originally posted by manbird12000
You should just go buy a hummer that gets 6 mpg for $50,000, those never need tune-ups.

On the contrary, my friend has a H1 hummer and is taking it in today for repairs that were a result of daily driving. Also the hummer has only 32k miles on it.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 11:08 AM
The only thought that came to me when I saw this was "How is David Rockefeller going to kill this thing?" This car would free us on our dependence from oil, and Rockefeller would lose money. Now how will he do it?

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 11:23 AM

Originally posted by The Killah29
The only thought that came to me when I saw this was "How is David Rockefeller going to kill this thing?" This car would free us on our dependence from oil, and Rockefeller would lose money. Now how will he do it?

Still uses petrol it's a hybrid.... they'll just raise prices if consumption decreases. Same S^^t different day.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:05 PM

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by dariousg

Look at the article again, it says combustion engine in it, which is why I called it a hybrid car. Not a true electric car.

The Volt will join a growing fleet of cars and trucks powered by systems other than internal combustion engines.

Unlike the Prius and other traditional hybrids, the Volt is powered by an electric motor and a battery pack with a 40-mile range. After that, a small internal combustion engine kicks in to generate electricity for a total range of 300 miles. The battery pack can be recharged from a standard home outlet.

Yes, it does say combustion engine in it but as I pointed out, it's for the Prius, not the Volt. It's a moot point though because the cost of this vehicle is stupid. What they are selling is on the hype of 'global warming' and being 'green' by going with the electric car.

I guess, in essence, it's a mixture of both. A 'small' internal combustion engine with the primary electric engine. We're both right. *But I was more right*! LOL Okay, I take that back. *NOT!*

[edit on 12-8-2009 by dariousg]

new topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in