• 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!

Automaker Fisker recalls some 2,400 Karmas for cooling fan issue

Let's talk some physics for a moment. The first law of dynamics, simply put, states that energy can neither be created, nor destroyed. Only altered. So, in the case of cars, we are taking energy that is stored in oil, and releasing it. Where did that energy come from? The sun. Think of it as fosselized sunlight. It's sunlight that hit the earth millions and millions of years ago. It was not destroyed, only altered, by plants. Specifically, marine plants. Which died before they could alter it, themselves, in the form of growth, or reproduction, or whatever they were using it for. Once they died, they sank to the bottom of the ocean, and got covered in dirt. Preserved. You see, usually, when a plant dies, it rots, and decomposes, and eventually becomes very energy rich soil. It is altered. But in this case, it was trapped under higher pressure, and mud. For millions of years. It rotted, and became, over that span of time, the oil we now know and love. When we burn it, we release that stored energy, and it gets used, generally for motion of some form or another.

Now, you take an object, any object. To move said object, it requires energy. If I were to move that object, with, say, my hand, it would require the same amount of energy actually being applied to the object, than, if, say, someone ELSE moved the object, or, if, say, the wind moved said object. Because, the object had not changed weight, or shape, or texture, from one method of movement to another.

Why all of this? To explain something really quite simple. No matter what we use, be it electricity, oil, natural gas, hydrogen, or wind...a car requires the same amount of energy being applied to it, in order to achieve the same amount of motion. The question is, from where can we derive the most energy, and, of the options, which is the most efficient, and these days, more importantly, which is less harmful to our environment. Where does electricity come from? Why, mostly, from fossil fuels, just like oil. Only, coal does not have NEAR the energy potential that oil has. It has less stored energy. In essence, then, it is less efficient. We can also generate electricity from the wind, and from water, by working in reverse...which is to say, by turning MOTION into electricity, instead of the other way around. But we can only ever generation as much energy this way as those forces can generate motion. In other words, not nearly enough to power all the worlds automobiles, as we currently stand.

In my mind, trying to make a car that runs on electricity is a step backwards. We already had them in the early 1900s, and ditched them, for the very same reasons they are not too popular now. Think about what electricity is, and what it takes to transport it. What happens when you try to power, say, a drill, with a 5 foot plug, from a wall socket? It runs fine, to tax to the grid at all. Now, whip out a 500 foot extension cord, and try to do the same. Not gonna work out so well for you. This is the inherent problem with it, as an energy source. Oil, on the other hand, does not release it's store of energy without a catalyst, typically, heat. Ideal.

But what of that other elusive source? Hydrogen?
 
...and more and more people are moving from the hellhole wastelands of the suburbs into the cities, so driving trends are changing in a electric-vehicle friendly direction.

Meh, for me gas and diesel are still the best options. Electric would only take me so far, and since I road trip constantly, and is threfore is highly impractical, and I just don't like hybrids. For one, the styling on those things is gayer than a bag full of rainbows and AIDS (looking at you Honda and Toyota), but mostly because they drive like ****, and the dumbasses who designed them somehow came to the conclusion that changing the traditional layout of the controls would be a wonderful idea. (It isn't). I'm a bit ashamed to admit that I drove my grandmothers Prius when I came back home from Korea and didn't yet have a car, and I can honestly, and sternly state that whoever designed that abomination should have been fired. It has the worst visibility of any vehicle I have ever operated, and it looks like a cross between a woodlouse and a pregnant cockroach. Great for soccer moms and old ladies, I guess, but the dominant hybrids on the market are crap.

Automakers need to pull their heads out of their asses and make hybrids that look and feel like real cars. Build a hybrid truck, an SUV, a van, something that's practical that the average American would actually want to drive. I would love to have a small SUV with that kind of fuel mileage, simply because I travel a lot, but I don't want something the runs on estrogen and broken dreams that's going to make me feel like a bitch every time I look at it.
 
Let's talk some physics for a moment. The first law of dynamics, simply put, states that energy can neither be created, nor destroyed. Only altered. So, in the case of cars, we are taking energy that is stored in oil, and releasing it. Where did that energy come from? The sun. Think of it as fosselized sunlight. It's sunlight that hit the earth millions and millions of years ago. It was not destroyed, only altered, by plants. Specifically, marine plants. Which died before they could alter it, themselves, in the form of growth, or reproduction, or whatever they were using it for. Once they died, they sank to the bottom of the ocean, and got covered in dirt. Preserved. You see, usually, when a plant dies, it rots, and decomposes, and eventually becomes very energy rich soil. It is altered. But in this case, it was trapped under higher pressure, and mud. For millions of years. It rotted, and became, over that span of time, the oil we now know and love. When we burn it, we release that stored energy, and it gets used, generally for motion of some form or another.

Now, you take an object, any object. To move said object, it requires energy. If I were to move that object, with, say, my hand, it would require the same amount of energy actually being applied to the object, than, if, say, someone ELSE moved the object, or, if, say, the wind moved said object. Because, the object had not changed weight, or shape, or texture, from one method of movement to another.

Why all of this? To explain something really quite simple. No matter what we use, be it electricity, oil, natural gas, hydrogen, or wind...a car requires the same amount of energy being applied to it, in order to achieve the same amount of motion. The question is, from where can we derive the most energy, and, of the options, which is the most efficient, and these days, more importantly, which is less harmful to our environment. Where does electricity come from? Why, mostly, from fossil fuels, just like oil. Only, coal does not have NEAR the energy potential that oil has. It has less stored energy. In essence, then, it is less efficient. We can also generate electricity from the wind, and from water, by working in reverse...which is to say, by turning MOTION into electricity, instead of the other way around. But we can only ever generation as much energy this way as those forces can generate motion. In other words, not nearly enough to power all the worlds automobiles, as we currently stand.

In my mind, trying to make a car that runs on electricity is a step backwards. We already had them in the early 1900s, and ditched them, for the very same reasons they are not too popular now. Think about what electricity is, and what it takes to transport it. What happens when you try to power, say, a drill, with a 5 foot plug, from a wall socket? It runs fine, to tax to the grid at all. Now, whip out a 500 foot extension cord, and try to do the same. Not gonna work out so well for you. This is the inherent problem with it, as an energy source. Oil, on the other hand, does not release it's store of energy without a catalyst, typically, heat. Ideal.

But what of that other elusive source? Hydrogen?
I dont pretend to understand the physics and engineering requirements for an H car, but as I understand it, there is simply no way to make the conversion cost effective, just as converting stations would also be ineffective. But if they could...happy days! Heck...why not downward design a low yield nuclear reactor for the purpose of powering automobiles. Surely the breakthroughs we have made in micro and nano-technology could facilitate such a thing.
 
I dont pretend to understand the physics and engineering requirements for an H car, but as I understand it, there is simply no way to make the conversion cost effective, just as converting stations would also be ineffective. But if they could...happy days! Heck...why not downward design a low yield nuclear reactor for the purpose of powering automobiles. Surely the breakthroughs we have made in micro and nano-technology could facilitate such a thing.

Considering all the religious extremists that blow **** up, and the fact that the average human is a ****ing idiot, do you really think that's such a great idea?
 
For the record, the current Corvette Z06...which has 505hp, can travel at speeds CLOSE to 200mph, and was, at one point, a record holder at Nurburgring, get's around 25mpg highway(s'long as you can keep your right foot out of it), and 18 or so city. And that car is BLISTERINGLY, violently fast. It has a push rod motor that can trace it's basic, overall design, all the way back to the 40s. And...GASP...leaf springs.


Car companies are trying to reinvent the wheel, and the fact is, they're using expensive products for consumer research and testing. Are hybrids dangerous? No. Not that sort of testing. But neither are they all THAT economic, when you consider the amount of capitol and time put into their development. But they HAVE to have SOMETHING, to show us progress, right? Because every moron with a wallet in this country seems to think that "keep moving forward", "progress", or, dare I say it, "An American REVolution"...along with whatever other catch phrase or buzzword you can think of, means something completely new, and anything short of that, simply isn't real progress. I'll go back to my old Civic HX, designed in the late 80s, built till the mid 90s, which got GREAT gas mileage, and had LOW emissions. But car companies feel they can't give us americans that sort of car, even though similar things are all the rage in Europe...because, here in the US, it's just not green enough. Never mind that it's MORE green than the stuff these same companies are CALLING green, lol.

Not saying that car companies shouldn't invest in these new technologies, lord knows I can't believe we still don't have a workable hydrogen car, even though GM built one back in the late 90s, or something like that. But what I AM saying is, I feel that we the consumers are getting the hose in the deal, because WE"RE the one's doing the product testing for them, WE'RE the ones being sold something on a false pretense...that these cars are both economical, and good for the environment.

The problem with those hydrogen cars was the fuel cells. A motor being used to seperate out hydrogen just cannot over the long run also be used to power the car. Something about the law of conservation of energy and matter.

Take that same hydrogen powered vehicle that ran on that fuel cell (about 300 mile range if I remember right) and add bottles of compressed hydrogen and oxygen and it would go until the bottles were empty, refill bottles, repeat as necessary. The biggest problem with hydrogen is storing it. It's rather dangerous stuff if it gets near a spark and oxygen. Say like when that Semi runs over your hydrogen powered sub-compact. So unless someone comes up with a way to store, say enough electricity to seperate the hydrogen/Oxygen on demand, you will have to store it.

Forget the Fisker, now here is a hot car
1106chp-01-+1971-chevrolet-chevelle+front.jpg
 
Let's talk some physics for a moment. The first law of dynamics, simply put, states that energy can neither be created, nor destroyed. Only altered. So, in the case of cars, we are taking energy that is stored in oil, and releasing it. Where did that energy come from? The sun. Think of it as fosselized sunlight. It's sunlight that hit the earth millions and millions of years ago. It was not destroyed, only altered, by plants. Specifically, marine plants. Which died before they could alter it, themselves, in the form of growth, or reproduction, or whatever they were using it for. Once they died, they sank to the bottom of the ocean, and got covered in dirt. Preserved. You see, usually, when a plant dies, it rots, and decomposes, and eventually becomes very energy rich soil. It is altered. But in this case, it was trapped under higher pressure, and mud. For millions of years. It rotted, and became, over that span of time, the oil we now know and love. When we burn it, we release that stored energy, and it gets used, generally for motion of some form or another.

Now, you take an object, any object. To move said object, it requires energy. If I were to move that object, with, say, my hand, it would require the same amount of energy actually being applied to the object, than, if, say, someone ELSE moved the object, or, if, say, the wind moved said object. Because, the object had not changed weight, or shape, or texture, from one method of movement to another.

Why all of this? To explain something really quite simple. No matter what we use, be it electricity, oil, natural gas, hydrogen, or wind...a car requires the same amount of energy being applied to it, in order to achieve the same amount of motion. The question is, from where can we derive the most energy, and, of the options, which is the most efficient, and these days, more importantly, which is less harmful to our environment. Where does electricity come from? Why, mostly, from fossil fuels, just like oil. Only, coal does not have NEAR the energy potential that oil has. It has less stored energy. In essence, then, it is less efficient. We can also generate electricity from the wind, and from water, by working in reverse...which is to say, by turning MOTION into electricity, instead of the other way around. But we can only ever generation as much energy this way as those forces can generate motion. In other words, not nearly enough to power all the worlds automobiles, as we currently stand.

In my mind, trying to make a car that runs on electricity is a step backwards. We already had them in the early 1900s, and ditched them, for the very same reasons they are not too popular now. Think about what electricity is, and what it takes to transport it. What happens when you try to power, say, a drill, with a 5 foot plug, from a wall socket? It runs fine, to tax to the grid at all. Now, whip out a 500 foot extension cord, and try to do the same. Not gonna work out so well for you. This is the inherent problem with it, as an energy source. Oil, on the other hand, does not release it's store of energy without a catalyst, typically, heat. Ideal.

But what of that other elusive source? Hydrogen?

I'm not sure what the long introduction has to do with your conclusion that electricity is not a good answer for powering cars. For one thing -- while you are correct that it takes X amount of power to move a car Y distance -- hybrids and electrics have the ability to reclaim some of the wasted energy from braking. For another, direct drive electronic drivetrains are inherently more efficient than oil-based drivetrains which lose a lot of power through the transmission. And ultimately, electric vehicles are the most flexible option as the power source can be updated at any time. Not ready for primetime yet, but getting closer all the time.
 
Considering all the religious extremists that blow **** up, and the fact that the average human is a ****ing idiot, do you really think that's such a great idea?
Meh...they could seal it where the components couldnt be accessed. Maybe boobie trap them so if someone tried they would get fried by a short but severe blast of stored capacitance.

Fact is until we find a viable and sustainable power source that has greater energy potential, we are going to be married to fossil fuels. Making more electricity from fossil fuels to power electric cars looks wonderful when you look solely at the electric car and NOT at what it took to get the electricity to the plug.
 
In my mind, trying to make a car that runs on electricity is a step backwards. We already had them in the early 1900s, and ditched them, for the very same reasons they are not too popular now. Think about what electricity is, and what it takes to transport it. What happens when you try to power, say, a drill, with a 5 foot plug, from a wall socket? It runs fine, to tax to the grid at all. Now, whip out a 500 foot extension cord, and try to do the same. Not gonna work out so well for you. This is the inherent problem with it, as an energy source. Oil, on the other hand, does not release it's store of energy without a catalyst, typically, heat. Ideal.

But what of that other elusive source? Hydrogen?

If electricity is just a lousy idea, then maybe we shouldn't use it to power our houses, right? I mean, EVERYBODY lives within 500 ft of a electricity-making coal plant, right?

And I don't see where you're getting your numbers from regarding hybrids that only get 20 mpg and electrics that go only 32 miles. The Chevy Volt gets 40mpg highway (37mpg combined).
Cost to go 25 miles on electric only: $1.08
Cost to go 25 miles on gas only: $2.72
Fuel Economy of the 2012 Chevrolet Volt

The all-electric Nissan Leaf will get 138 miles under perfect conditions. Under realistic conditions, it will get about 70 miles with the A/C on.
Nissan Leaf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And given that a HUGE amount of our existing infrastructure is already devoted to moving electricity around, I don't see how electric cars could possibly be a step backward.
 
I dont pretend to understand the physics and engineering requirements for an H car, but as I understand it, there is simply no way to make the conversion cost effective, just as converting stations would also be ineffective. But if they could...happy days! Heck...why not downward design a low yield nuclear reactor for the purpose of powering automobiles. Surely the breakthroughs we have made in micro and nano-technology could facilitate such a thing.

Not "low yield nuclear reactor" but nuclear battery. Voyager 1 and 2 were launched in 1977 and both have nuclear batteries. Although power is deminishing now, they ran for a good long time. We should of, at least I think so, made more progress in the last 35 years on battery design and output. Unfortunately, nuclear is not well understood and people fear it. If you tell them you want to put nuclear material in their cars, they would piss themselves and immediately start yelling it is bad, no matter what the facts really are. They will claim it will cause mutations like three eyed babies and if you actually built it and tried to use it, people would be hiring lawyers and would be suing you because they would claim every case of the common cold was caused by that nuclear battery regardless of how safe it actually is.

Modern materials could easily make them tamper proof and crash save, but as a usable solution, forget about it, people are just too afraid of anything that says "nuclear".
 
I'm not sure what the long introduction has to do with your conclusion that electricity is not a good answer for powering cars. For one thing -- while you are correct that it takes X amount of power to move a car Y distance -- hybrids and electrics have the ability to reclaim some of the wasted energy from braking. For another, direct drive electronic drivetrains are inherently more efficient than oil-based drivetrains which lose a lot of power through the transmission. And ultimately, electric vehicles are the most flexible option as the power source can be updated at any time. Not ready for primetime yet, but getting closer all the time.

The problem with it, at least for me, is "refueling". Takes a very long time to charge a battery, and when one travels as much as I do, it's just not practical.
 
Green cars (actually any cars) that cost $100K have a small market and are a foolish product for our gov't to invest in. The party of the "little guy" investing in toys for the rich and famous, using borrowed money and backed by the taxpayers, is insane. Safety recalls are no big deal, since only experience (over time) can show these types of problems. Like all hybrid technology, it is inefficient in either mode; in the electric mode (about the first 32 miles) it must carry the added dead cargo weight/bulk of the IC engine and the fossil fuel source and in the IC mode (all travel beyond 32 miles, and at only 20mpg) it must carry the added dead weight/bulk of the electric power plant and batteries. Since the basic technology is not new, the mileage is poor and the price is high - just what exactly is so good about these cars?

Naming a car Karma is just asking for problems.
 
Delorean made awesome cars,but i wont argue on them being too expensive.delorean made the early supercars that were used as a base design for many cars in the 80's.what killed them was the fact they cost 25k in the late seventies,back when a new car was around 5k or less.

kinda odd though these new electric cars share the same outrageous cost to benefit ratio.

I must take issue with this because the Renault engine used was crap and will always be crap.

Of all the engines he could have used he went for Renault.

Bad mistake.
 
All this drama over better fuel saving/lower emissions cars/technology.


In the early 90s, Honda had a civic model called the HX. No hybrid, no electric, just good ol gas motor. As I recall, mine got about 40-45mpg on average, and if I was tight that month, and drove carefully, I saw 50mpg, easily. What happened to that? The fact is, the technology exists, and has existed, to achieve better fuel economy, and better emissions. The question is, why wasn't it ever implemented, and when it was, why was it fazed out? Honda stopped making that HX in...95, or 96, I think. When I traded mine in, it had 275K miles on the clock, with NO major work done to the motor.

Because the ojority of the car buying public do not want an econobox with no air or any other options.

The Chevy Sprint 3 cylinder was a quick little car that got great gas milage, but it would never take over for a mid size car for somebody that has a family.
 
The problem with it, at least for me, is "refueling". Takes a very long time to charge a battery, and when one travels as much as I do, it's just not practical.

That is a problem, especially if you live outside of town or travel much. And using pure electric for long distance travel, forget about it. It is practical for a lot of people, but then, those same people would also benefit from a good public trans system. For some of us, we would have to purchase two vehicles, the electric one and one for other uses, not to mention they don't even make an electric pickup. So lets see $35K for a leaf, it's all electric, then you need another vehicle if you actually need to travel more than 100 miles for the day. The Volt at least you get the option of running it on gas after what is it now 130 miles they claim. So maybe you won't need a second vehicle with it if it meets your needs, but with price starting at around $31K, how many average Americans can even afford it.

But my biggest problems with hybrids and electric cars is Why the hell do they have to make them so damned small? I'm 6'3 around 250lbs and already have pain and joint issues, no way am I folding myself into one of those little boxes at any price.

Now we have our government, blame Obama or whoever, that invest all this money into a company that is making a luxury sports car. Why aren't they investing that money in someone trying to build hybrid/electric pickups, SUVs and delivery trucks instead? Take a look around you when you drive, how many Trucks, SUVs and delivery trucks to you see vs how many luxury sports cars. Giver farmers affordable and usable hybrid/electric pickups and tractors and that would greatly reduce their fuel cost, thus reducing food costs.

And this whole stupid idea of High Speed passenger rail. Screw that for now. We need high speed, electric powered cargo rail first. We burn a lot more fuel moving cargo than people, concentrate on that first.
 
EV refueling is definitely an issue, but there are several approaches, one of which I'm sure will prove satisfactory. Rapid charging technology is one option that could solve problems for commuters, but probably not for long distance drivers. Another possibility is battery electrolyte replacement, which would work similar to fueling a car.

As for hybrids being small -- they aren't all small. My wife drives a Highlander Hybrid which seats seven. It's mechanically identical to the Lexus hybrid SUV. Dodge also makes a Durango hybrid. And if you have some bucks lying around, you can buy a Porsche Cayenne hybrid. Also the Ford Escape hybrid ... among others.
 
Last edited:
That is a problem, especially if you live outside of town or travel much. And using pure electric for long distance travel, forget about it. It is practical for a lot of people, but then, those same people would also benefit from a good public trans system. For some of us, we would have to purchase two vehicles, the electric one and one for other uses, not to mention they don't even make an electric pickup. So lets see $35K for a leaf, it's all electric, then you need another vehicle if you actually need to travel more than 100 miles for the day. The Volt at least you get the option of running it on gas after what is it now 130 miles they claim. So maybe you won't need a second vehicle with it if it meets your needs, but with price starting at around $31K, how many average Americans can even afford it.
Electric is for soccer moms, the volt is for well-to-do soccer moms.

But my biggest problems with hybrids and electric cars is Why the hell do they have to make them so damned small? I'm 6'3 around 250lbs and already have pain and joint issues, no way am I folding myself into one of those little boxes at any price.
Because most of them are made by the Japanese, who also apparently know nothing about automotive styling and design. Ford, Chevy, and Lexus are making them now, but I'd wait a while until they figure out how to make them not suck.

Now we have our government, blame Obama or whoever, that invest all this money into a company that is making a luxury sports car. Why aren't they investing that money in someone trying to build hybrid/electric pickups, SUVs and delivery trucks instead? Take a look around you when you drive, how many Trucks, SUVs and delivery trucks to you see vs how many luxury sports cars. Giver farmers affordable and usable hybrid/electric pickups and tractors and that would greatly reduce their fuel cost, thus reducing food costs.
I'd just have one for long distance travel, honestly. Only problem I have with hybrids is that the ones I've had to operate are crap when it comes to actually driving the godamned things. More and more are coming out, which means there will be improvements, but so far gas and diesel are still far superior to all the alternatives. Honestly, I believe non-petroleum based diesel is the best way to go. It would make us energy independent since we can manufacture it here in the US, it can be made cheaply in mass quantities, it'll open up all kinds of new jobs and industry, and vehicles don't have to make any sacrifices in performance and quality. hell, automakers won't even have to change much, just replace the ICE with a diesel, and make some tweaks to the drivetrain.

And this whole stupid idea of High Speed passenger rail. Screw that for now. We need high speed, electric powered cargo rail first. We burn a lot more fuel moving cargo than people, concentrate on that first.
Yeah, freight is a big one. Trucks will never be taken off the road, but if the majority of freight moved could be done by electric rail, that would just be a huge win for all involved.
 
The problem with it, at least for me, is "refueling". Takes a very long time to charge a battery, and when one travels as much as I do, it's just not practical.

At the present time, electric is just not for you. That may change down the road, but if it doesn't work for you now, it just doesn't. Still, electrics can charge up much faster than you think. With the 440V public chargers, many electrics can charge up in 30 to 45 minutes. You can go see a flick, and have a fully charged car when you return.

The Volt at least you get the option of running it on gas after what is it now 130 miles they claim.

The Volt has a range of over 300 miles.
 
At the present time, electric is just not for you. That may change down the road, but if it doesn't work for you now, it just doesn't. Still, electrics can charge up much faster than you think. With the 440V public chargers, many electrics can charge up in 30 to 45 minutes. You can go see a flick, and have a fully charged car when you return.
Yeah, but unless charge stations become readily available, electric will remain useless for travel. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but better options exist. Plus the maintenance on an electric car has to be considered as well. Those parts aren't cheap, and neither is having them changed out.


The Volt has a range of over 300 miles.
I know you're talking to DV, but I get roughly 410 miles on a single tank of gas, driving highway. I could likely go further with a smaller diesel-powered vehicle. Combine that performance with clean burning non-petroleum based fuel, and that's a win-win, imo.
 
Yeah, but unless charge stations become readily available, electric will remain useless for travel. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but better options exist. Plus the maintenance on an electric car has to be considered as well. Those parts aren't cheap, and neither is having them changed out.



I know you're talking to DV, but I get roughly 410 miles on a single tank of gas, driving highway. I could likely go further with a smaller diesel-powered vehicle. Combine that performance with clean burning non-petroleum based fuel, and that's a win-win, imo.

And what is the predicted enviromental impact of bad batteries and battery manufacture? Few people even seem to take this into consideration. We put less crap into the air, but where do we store all those chemical batteries when they can no longer be used. Isn't that one of the arguments about Nuclear, where do we store the waste?

Man, I wish that we had diesel powered SUVs, light trucks, etc. Wonder what the mileage difference would be on a Volt if it used a 1.4L TD instead of the 1.4L gas motor? Considering the torgue difference at low end, a diesel can turn a generator a lot more efficiently than a gas motor can. Most gas motors have to be up around 3000+ rpm to maximise efficiency in the engine under heavy load, a TD would chug along very efficiently at less than 2000 rpm, heck, a lot of diesels used in industry for generators and such cannot even reach a 1000 rpm. Quick someone out there swap a VW TD motor into a Volt and tell us what you get.
 
And what is the predicted enviromental impact of bad batteries and battery manufacture? Few people even seem to take this into consideration. We put less crap into the air, but where do we store all those chemical batteries when they can no longer be used. Isn't that one of the arguments about Nuclear, where do we store the waste?

Man, I wish that we had diesel powered SUVs, light trucks, etc. Wonder what the mileage difference would be on a Volt if it used a 1.4L TD instead of the 1.4L gas motor? Considering the torgue difference at low end, a diesel can turn a generator a lot more efficiently than a gas motor can. Most gas motors have to be up around 3000+ rpm to maximise efficiency in the engine under heavy load, a TD would chug along very efficiently at less than 2000 rpm, heck, a lot of diesels used in industry for generators and such cannot even reach a 1000 rpm. Quick someone out there swap a VW TD motor into a Volt and tell us what you get.

The Chevy Volt. What a useless car that is.

It's base price is roughly double what a fully loaded Chevy Cruze is...yet it is smaller inside, has a smaller trunk and seats 20% less people.

And this was the car that was supposed to save GM?

The only people that buy Volt's are either green fanatics or automotive ignoramuses.
 
The Chevy Volt. What a useless car that is.

It's base price is roughly double what a fully loaded Chevy Cruze is...yet it is smaller inside, has a smaller trunk and seats 20% less people.

And this was the car that was supposed to save GM?

The only people that buy Volt's are either green fanatics or automotive ignoramuses.

The Volt was and is not supposed to save GM
 
The Volt was and is not supposed to save GM

During the auto bailout hearings, GM repeatedly called the Volt 'the future of GM' (or words to that effect). The Volt was over and over again used by the GM execs as a reason to save GM...that the future was bright thanks to vehicles like the Volt. They put the Volt front and center as a reason (not the only one of course) to save GM.

And the media often asked if the Volt could save GM.

I am not going to argue with you, the Volt WAS, in essence, indirectly supposed to save GM.

You disagree...fine.


Turns out it's a bit of neat technology that is a near complete waste of time as a car - again, unless you are a green fanatic...and an ignorant one at that.
There are TONS of ways to own a car and save the planet that are far better then to buy the pathetically expensive Volt.
 
Last edited:
During the auto bailout hearings, GM repeatedly called the Volt 'the future of GM' (or words to that effect). The Volt was over and over again used by the GM execs as a reason to save GM...that the future was bright thanks to vehicles like the Volt. They put the Volt front and center as a reason (not the only one of course) to save GM.

And the media often asked if the Volt could save GM.

I am not going to argue with you, the Volt WAS, in essence, indirectly supposed to save GM.

You disagree...fine.


Turns out it's a bit of neat technology that is a near complete waste of time as a car - again, unless you are a green fanatic...and an ignorant one at that.
There are TONS of ways to own a car and save the planet that are far better then to buy the pathetically expensive Volt.

The Volt was and is a sales pitch to help with GM's image. Designed before the crisis, and was and is more of technology development vehicle.

The Silverado is vastly more important to GM
 
The Volt was and is a sales pitch to help with GM's image. Designed before the crisis, and was and is more of technology development vehicle.

The Silverado is vastly more important to GM
I never said it was important to GM...only an idiot would think it was on it's pathetically low volume.

I just said (in essence) it was peddled that way by the media and indirectly by GM during it's begging - er - bailout hearings.
 
Yeah, but unless charge stations become readily available, electric will remain useless for travel. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but better options exist. Plus the maintenance on an electric car has to be considered as well. Those parts aren't cheap, and neither is having them changed out.

I know you're talking to DV, but I get roughly 410 miles on a single tank of gas, driving highway. I could likely go further with a smaller diesel-powered vehicle. Combine that performance with clean burning non-petroleum based fuel, and that's a win-win, imo.

As it stands now, yeah electrics aren't good for long distance travel. In Israel and Australia they're trying out cars that can have the battery changed in 5 mins. Such cars would be great for long distance travel, but we haven't invested in the technology so we're not there, yet. Range and cost will improve over time. Don't buy one until it fits your needs. That puts pressure on the automakers to constantly improve their product.
 
Back
Top Bottom