• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GM: Volt will get 230 miles per gallon

230 miles per gallon?

What a joke. It only goes 260 miles on gas alone. How in the world can they say it gets 230 mpg, when it can't go more then 300 miles with electric and gas combined?

Talk about selling a lemon and false advertising.

I think on the EPA Fuel economy tests the Volt would get the 230 miles per gallon. But that is a standard test with a standard range and would not reflect all conditions or trips, a few short trips a day, with plugging in after each and you may never use gas, a lot of long trips with rarely plugging the thing in and the economy rating will drop drastically
 
Most mileage ratings are qualified by "your mileage may vary."

I'd be willing to bet we'd save a lot more gas by slowing down to the speed limit and avoiding fast acceleration and sudden stops than by promoting expensive new technology before it's really competitive with old, proven technology.
 
obama so owns this car, it is so totally his, it might as well be called the obamamobile

if it does not sell...

at $41,000 (after a 7500 dollar credit) it's simply not worth the price

if it's such a good product why the need for the deduction incentive in the first place?

it is totally bizarre that any us president would put himself in a position where his own political credibility is totally on the line, dependent on the movement of some lemon of a product off hundreds of show room floors

the dummy simply cannot see 2 moves ahead, he continually puts himself in these parlous positions

the only reason for any normal american to buy this latest, trendiest govt motors edition is to demonstrate to his or her neighbors just how much she cares

not a good enough reason for most moms and dads, even in flush times

polls and election results might suggest that many more americans are DISinclined to purchase a product associated with our poor, put upon prez

good luck with your volt, barry

i hear it takes only premium gas, how chic
 
I have mad Toyota <3. We bought two junkers two years apart. $500 each. Put 150k on one and 200k on the other. Long live Toyota!!

P.S.: I swear that engine will keep running even after all the doors fall off.

Buy Toyota, help put me back to work.
 
Most mileage ratings are qualified by "your mileage may vary."

I'd be willing to bet we'd save a lot more gas by slowing down to the speed limit and avoiding fast acceleration and sudden stops than by promoting expensive new technology before it's really competitive with old, proven technology.

Well actually most cars get their optimum gas mileage at 55-60mph. So if that's the speed limit than yes going the speed limit helps. Excellerating at 1/4 throttle instead of 3/4 throttle and breaking over much longer distances can improve gas mileage by about 15%. Using cruise control whenever possible in non-hilly regions can save you up to 12%. Also, don't accellerate on hills. If you are likely to be stopped 2 or more minutes then you should shut your engine off. This is all via edmunds.
 
I have mad Toyota <3. We bought two junkers two years apart. $500 each. Put 150k on one and 200k on the other. Long live Toyota!!

P.S.: I swear that engine will keep running even after all the doors fall off.

I love my 96 Toyota Camry. Sure it's not exactly 'cool' for a 20 year old to be driving such a car, but it's most certainly 'cool' to save the cash when compared the other college students with their soupped up dodges, gm's and fords... All of my cars/trucks will be Honda or Toyota.
 
Everything about beaters makes sense, IMO. No having depreciation the minute you drive off the lot. No car payments, lower insurance, tabs cost less. Wins all the way around, if you get a good one.

I love my 96 Toyota Camry. Sure it's not exactly 'cool' for a 20 year old to be driving such a car, but it's most certainly 'cool' to save the cash when compared the other college students with their soupped up dodges, gm's and fords... All of my cars/trucks will be Honda or Toyota.
 
Everything about beaters makes sense, IMO. No having depreciation the minute you drive off the lot. No car payments, lower insurance, tabs cost less. Wins all the way around, if you get a good one.

Yes, if you get a good one, and if you stick with Toyota, Honda, or Subaru, you're likely to get a good one. I had a Honda Accord that went for nearly 200,000 miles before I got the new car itch and sold it to buy a new Chevy Impala. The family that bought the old Honda had fewer problems than I had with the new Chevy, and that was before GM became Government Motors. Now, I have a Camry and a Tundra, and don't go in for "unschedualed maintenance" any longer.

GM should have been allowed to follow Studebaker, Rambler, and DeSoto. Do you miss those brands? Do you wish the goverment had bought them to keep them from going bankrupt?

How about Stutz Bearcat? Even I'm not old enough to remember those.
 
I was born in '58, so I got nothing. I have read bits and pieces about what happened.
 
I was born in '58, so I got nothing. I have read bits and pieces about what happened.

What happened to Studebaker, Nash, and DeSoto is that they lost out to better competitors, and went under. Probably the same happened to Stutz Bearcat as well. The difference is that the taxpayers didn't try to bail them out, then borrow a few tons of money from China to pay the tab.
 
What happened to Studebaker, Nash, and DeSoto is that they lost out to better competitors, and went under. Probably the same happened to Stutz Bearcat as well. The difference is that the taxpayers didn't try to bail them out, then borrow a few tons of money from China to pay the tab.

Oddly enough Buick is the #2 car brand in China.
 
This just in: GM (Government Motors) has just unveiled a new model:

ObamaCarimage0011.jpg
 
What happened to Studebaker, Nash, and DeSoto is that they lost out to better competitors, and went under. Probably the same happened to Stutz Bearcat as well. The difference is that the taxpayers didn't try to bail them out, then borrow a few tons of money from China to pay the tab.

FYI, DeSoto was a Chrysler brand that they got rid of just like Pontiac and now Mercury. It was not a seperate company.

Back in the early days there were alot of car companies, but they had to thin the heard.

When it was down to the BIG THREE, they always thought it would be that way and it is so engrained in the american whatever, I don't think people can just let them go that easily.

By the way, Nash was bought by Rambler which was bought by American Motors, or turned into that, which was bought by Chrysler so actually even though the name is not still on the street the company is.
 
FYI, DeSoto was a Chrysler brand that they got rid of just like Pontiac and now Mercury. It was not a seperate company.

Back in the early days there were alot of car companies, but they had to thin the heard.

When it was down to the BIG THREE, they always thought it would be that way and it is so engrained in the american whatever, I don't think people can just let them go that easily.

By the way, Nash was bought by Rambler which was bought by American Motors, or turned into that, which was bought by Chrysler so actually even though the name is not still on the street the company is.

and now Chrystler has been bought by Fiat.

The point is, when the company is no longer competitive, it should be allowed to go bankrupt or be absorbed by other, more efficient companies.

Would it be better for GM to be owned by the government, or by another company, say Toyota for example?
 
and now Chrystler has been bought by Fiat.

The point is, when the company is no longer competitive, it should be allowed to go bankrupt or be absorbed by other, more efficient companies.

Would it be better for GM to be owned by the government, or by another company, say Toyota for example?

Realistically the only companies that may have wanted to buy GM would have been Chinese ones. Perhaps Peugeot. GM has three things of any value to other car companies. It's Chinese business, its trucks, and some of its technology. The Chinese business and its technology would be most important to Chinese companies. There was no way GM would have been sold to Chery or Geely
 
and now Chrystler has been bought by Fiat.

The point is, when the company is no longer competitive, it should be allowed to go bankrupt or be absorbed by other, more efficient companies.

Would it be better for GM to be owned by the government, or by another company, say Toyota for example?

The government still has a huge stake in Chrysler, it's definitely not all Fiat.
 
Is the only alternative to the US going from the "big three" to the big one government ownership of the industry? Surely, capitalism can do better than that, can't it?
 
Is the only alternative to the US going from the "big three" to the big one government ownership of the industry? Surely, capitalism can do better than that, can't it?
The free market would have let GM and Chrysler fail.
The Obama got in the way of that, and should be cursed for it.
 
The free market would have let GM and Chrysler fail.
The Obama got in the way of that, and should be cursed for it.

Yes, the Obama and Congress. I wonder how much money they'll be able to borrow and print before the whole house of cards simply collapses?
 
Yes, the Obama and Congress. I wonder how much money they'll be able to borrow and print before the whole house of cards simply collapses?
You mean on the day that ammunition becomes the only valid currency?
Beats me -- but in that, I shall be a rich man.
 
Back
Top Bottom