[peeb]

They need to get rid of the gas engine - it adds cost, weight and complexity. Those who want a hybrid can buy a prius.

[OreoCookie]

… so the cars would even start (to provide heating for the essential car fluids, possibly also for the interior)

Well, and who said you'll get the electricity for free … 
Rules of Acquisition #162: Even in the worst of times, someone makes a profit.

[Eug]

Bob Lutz Drives the Volt, Calls It 'Electrifying' | Autopia from Wired.com

General Motors has finally realized that SUVs are a dead end and is shifting its focus to small cars. The board of directors -- which has already said it's willing to take a few years' losses on the Volt -- has given the car the green light for production and allocated the money to put it in showrooms by the end of 2010. There was never any doubt the Volt would be built, but the board's decision sets it in stone.

Everything we've heard suggests the Volt will start out as a low-volume vehicle like on the order of 30,000 units. GM concedes it won't be building them by the hundreds of thousands for awhile yet, but promises the Volt won't be a one-off vehicle like the EV1. "It's definitely not a niche product, but the numbers are still being rounded into shape," spokesman Robert Peterson told Wired.com. The goal is to make it a global model and a centerpiece of the Chevrolet brand.

How much you'll pay for one remains an open question, and one answered by the price of the lithium ion batteries. "They're over $1,000 a kilowatt hour," Tom Turrentine, director of the Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Research Center at UC-Davis, told Wired.com. "The Volt battery is 16 kilowatt hours. That's $16,000 just for the battery."

When Lutz unveiled the Volt at the Detroit auto show in 2007, he said it would go for about $30,000. That number has steadily climbed as time's gone on, driven in part by the need to develop a stereo and navigation system, wipers and other accessories that won't drain the car's Li-ion battery. All sorts of numbers have been tossed around, from $35,000 up, but all Peterson will say is GM wants the car to be "affordable."

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

… so the cars would even start (to provide heating for the essential car fluids, possibly also for the interior)

Well, and who said you'll get the electricity for free …
Rules of Acquisition #162: Even in the worst of times, someone makes a profit.

Yeah, the electrical outlets were for either block heaters or sometimes just battery blankets. Every winter would see -30C weather (without the windchill).



Where I live now (Toronto), most people have never heard of them. I've never had a problem starting my Prius, but it does rarely get below -20C. I wonder if I could put a block heater in the Prius easily. Hmmm...

[SirCastor]

I remember when I moved to Montana for School and I saw plugs hanging out of everyone's car. I was confused. I had never heard of such a weird idea.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I wonder if I could put a block heater in the Prius easily. Hmmm...

Sweet. Apparently the Prius is designed with a spot for the block-heater connection standard on all models, and it's really easy to install. It's $150 from Toyota, but some Prius dude is selling them for $59. I guess I'm getting one then. I never needed one before 2007 since I had a garage, but now I park outside.

P.S. The Prius geeks say it noticeably improves their gas mileage in the winter, esp. for short trips. It runs at about 400-450 Watts, so for 3 hours, that's 1.3 kW, or less than 15 cents.

[Uncle Skeleton]

My guess is that "noticeably" improved gas mileage is a smaller differential amongst prius geeks than in the general population. Like for example, if it was <1 MPG gained, they would notice, whereas in most cars without automated scorekeeping it wouldn't even be detectable. Also, diminishing returns at higher mileage, etc etc. IOW, I'd be interested to see what difference it ends up making in your case. What do you mean by 3 hours? You would turn it on and then wait 3 hours to drive?

[art_director]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

I remember when I moved to Montana for School and I saw plugs hanging out of everyone's car. I was confused. I had never heard of such a weird idea.

That weird idea allows many people to get to work every day in the winter. We have the same in MN. Must agree, though, it is strange.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Sweet. Apparently the Prius is designed with a spot for the block-heater connection standard on all models, and it's really easy to install. It's $150 from Toyota, but some Prius dude is selling them for $59. I guess I'm getting one then. I never needed one before 2007 since I had a garage, but now I park outside.

P.S. The Prius geeks say it noticeably improves their gas mileage in the winter, esp. for short trips. It runs at about 400-450 Watts, so for 3 hours, that's 1.3 kW, or less than 15 cents.

It seems the battery might be cause for concern in colder parts, like here in MN. Anyone read anything about that side of the technology?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by art_director 

It seems the battery might be cause for concern in colder parts, like here in MN. Anyone read anything about that side of the technology?

I drive my Prius in Toronto. The NiMH batteries for the electric engine are not what I'm really concerned about. I'm more concerned about starting the car and the initial usage. The Prius starts with a standard 12V battery. So, like any car, it's easier to start with a warm engine (and preferably a warm battery). However, like I said, I've never actually had a problem starting my 4 year old Prius. This is more pre-emptive than anything.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

My guess is that "noticeably" improved gas mileage is a smaller differential amongst prius geeks than in the general population. Like for example, if it was <1 MPG gained, they would notice, whereas in most cars without automated scorekeeping it wouldn't even be detectable.

People report up to 3-4 mpg improvement for short haul type driving. Why? Presumably because the Prius warms up the engine at the expense of gas mileage, to minimize emissions. ie. A cold running Prius pollutes more than a warm Prius, so to compensate, Toyota actually designed the Prius to waste gas in order to reduce emissions. Sounds odd but it's true. An engine block pre-warmed by an electric heater will waste less gas. They say it doesn't make that much difference if your driving is primary long distance however. ie. You're not going to save much if you're only warming the thing up once, and then driving 500 km.

Furthermore, they report that the heater for inside the car warms up a bit faster if you use a block heater. So, it'd be a slight comfort improvement too.

What do you mean by 3 hours? You would turn it on and then wait 3 hours to drive?

If you know it's going to be cold and you need to go to work at 7:30 am, you set a timer to have the thing come on at 4:30 am, and then leave as usual at 7:30 am.

Personally, I probably would only use it maybe 20 days a year, but for only $59, it's worth it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The thing is, we had electric cars that could drive up to 240 km on a single charge *9 years ago*.

And 9 years ago they cost $80,000 to produce.

See the problem?

[art_director]

Originally Posted by subego 

And 9 years ago they cost $80,000 to produce.

See the problem?

That figure doesn't take into account the fact that some of the technologies could be used in later models of vehicles. Corporations take such things into account, especially car manufacturers. When they soak R&D dollars into anything they try to figure out how to make the most of the investment. One example would be GM using the same chassis for the Chevy Cavalier and the Saab 9-3.

All this said, your point is valid, they were darn expensive to produce and thus were dropped from the lineup.

Another thing most people don't know is that car manufacturers don't sell and advertise to consumers, they sell and advertise to their dealer networks. Happy dealers buy cars and unhappy dealers do not. That's the simple way in which the car business works. If dealers aren't behind a car it dies.

[olePigeon]

Don't forget that we'd need to build a few more power plants to supply the electricity to vehicles, especially between 3PM and 10PM when everyone is at home charging their cars.

Should probably lift the nuclear ban, could use a few more power plants.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Don't forget that we'd need to build a few more power plants to supply the electricity to vehicles, especially between 3PM and 10PM when everyone is at home charging their cars.

Should probably lift the nuclear ban, could use a few more power plants.

Obviously one of the challenges is where the juice comes from. Several ideas are in the works, as you might expect.

[subego]

Originally Posted by art_director 

That figure doesn't take into account the fact that some of the technologies could be used in later models of vehicles. Corporations take such things into account, especially car manufacturers. When they soak R&D dollars into anything they try to figure out how to make the most of the investment. One example would be GM using the same chassis for the Chevy Cavalier and the Saab 9-3.

Correct.

I'd also like to point out that the decision to destroy them after the program makes far more sense as an accounting decision than some dark conspiratorial final nail in the coffin.

If they had sold them off then they'd have to maintain them. For decades.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by subego 

Correct.

I'd also like to point out that the decision to destroy them after the program makes far more sense as an accounting decision than some dark conspiratorial final nail in the coffin.

If they had sold them off then they'd have to maintain them. For decades.

I'm not sure how destroying them was the best decision but you make a good point. Once the leases ran out they wanted those cars off the road.

[subego]

Originally Posted by art_director 

I'm not sure how destroying them was the best decision but you make a good point. Once the leases ran out they wanted those cars off the road.

Best ≠ accounting.



Seriously though, anything other than destroying them would have cost more money, and I can't think of a (literally) any justification for it beyond sentimentality.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by subego 

Seriously though, anything other than destroying them would have cost more money, and I can't think of a (literally) any justification for it beyond sentimentality.

Erm? Selling them to the hundred of people literally lining up to buy them would have been cheaper than paying to destroy them.

[CreepDogg]

Why couldn't they have sold them used 'as-is' with no additional warranty and no promise of support for parts, etc.? There was already a sizable support group for maintenance, and likely would have been a groundswell of aftermarket parts supply.

Car companies don't normally do this as it would send a horrible marketing message, but would be understandable where they were exiting a specialized market such as this, especially if they were upfront about it.

Not sure how I get how it would be a better accounting decision to crush them. Wouldn't there be a positive cash flow (albeit not significant by GM's measure) by selling them to willing buyers?

[art_director]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Why couldn't they have sold them used 'as-is' with no additional warranty and no promise of support for parts, etc.? There was already a sizable support group for maintenance, and likely would have been a groundswell of aftermarket parts supply.

Car companies don't normally do this as it would send a horrible marketing message, but would be understandable where they were exiting a specialized market such as this, especially if they were upfront about it.

Not sure how I get how it would be a better accounting decision to crush them. Wouldn't there be a positive cash flow (albeit not significant by GM's measure) by selling them to willing buyers?

I'm asking the same questions. The only logical explanation is that there was a safety flaw they were concerned about.

[peeb]

There was not - the cars had passed US safety regulations.

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Erm? Selling them to the hundred of people literally lining up to buy them would have been cheaper than paying to destroy them.

Only if they...

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

sold them used 'as-is' with no additional warranty and no promise of support for parts, etc.

Which would be a...

1) Marketing Disaster: Car companies want you to think about how good their warrantees are (as was pointed out).

2) Liability Disaster: What happens when some unforeseen safety issue crops up 5-10 years down the road?

3) Strategic Disaster: Seeing as it was a pretty much foregone conclusion that GM would get back into the market eventually, why would they want to stimulate it upon their exit?

4) Branding Disaster: This one is huge. The thing will always have the GM name on it, and they would have given up control of what happens with that in perpetuity. Those batteries would need to be disposed of sooner or later. They have the GM name on it. When aftermarket batteries start exploding, they'll be exploding in GM car. "GM" will be the first two letters of every headline, even if they ostensibly had nothing to do with it... which isn't strictly true because they didn't offer an option of their own.


All for the sum total of 1,000 happy customers?

[art_director]

Originally Posted by peeb 

There was not - the cars had passed US safety regulations.

Doesn't account for long term liability.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by subego 

Which would be a...
1) Marketing Disaster:
2) Liability Disaster:
3) Strategic Disaster:
4) Branding Disaster:
All for the sum total of 1,000 happy customers?

Great - just so we've scotched the nonsense that it was simply the cheapest thing to do. Of course, you miss the strategic political reasons, but that's just your blind spot showing.

[Chongo]

Interesting, very interesting
Good Morning Yahoo!

[peeb]

He's running his SUV on biodiesel - why is this news?

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Great - just so we've scotched the nonsense that it was simply the cheapest thing to do.

As someone who finds people who change their position without acknowledging it to be extraordinarily irritating, I would understand this response if that was what I was doing. However, if I'm going to tee-off on someone for changing their position the least I do beforehand is skim through the thread to make sure they've actually changed position.

Had you scrolled just two posts from the post you took issue with you would have seen my statement:

"If they had sold them off then they'd have to maintain them. For decades."

The person I was responding to had acknowledged this. There was no reason to further qualify my statement, that qualification had already been made.

When you presented your statement, I made the choice just to bring you into the discussion as is, assuming if you were interested in actual discussion you could (and should) catch-up on your own.

I was clearly mistaken.

Originally Posted by peeb 

but that's just your blind spot showing.

Since you have demonstrated zero interest in determining the context of my statements, you'll understand if I'm somewhat dubious of your qualifications to make such a claim.

[ElRae]

TOLD. YOU. SO.

Love,

- $

PS: Now that everyone is seeing the true stupidity of SUVs, I shall begin my war against hybrids. Watch and enjoy:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ooN9INJxxy4

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ElRae 

PS: Now that everyone is seeing the true stupidity of SUVs, I shall begin my war against hybrids. Watch and enjoy:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ooN9INJxxy4

Yes, this is very popular in the developing countries. They have been following this for years

-t

[Arkham_c]

I have yet to see a vehicle that is both considered to be fuel efficient and will hold my family (wife and 4 kids). It doesn't exist yet. I've got a 27 MPG Lexus that I drive to/from work that seats 5, and a 9 year old Ford Expedition that seats 8. I can't get rid of the Expedition until something better comes along... but what? I'd love a 27 MPG vehicle with 6-8 seats big enough for actual people to sit in, but I haven't seen one.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by Arkham_c 

I have yet to see a vehicle that is both considered to be fuel efficient and will hold my family (wife and 4 kids). It doesn't exist yet. I've got a 27 MPG Lexus that I drive to/from work that seats 5, and a 9 year old Ford Expedition that seats 8. I can't get rid of the Expedition until something better comes along... but what? I'd love a 27 MPG vehicle with 6-8 seats big enough for actual people to sit in, but I haven't seen one.

There's no reason that a vehicle that fulfills that role needs to be getting some fantastic fuel efficiency. It would be nice if our 7 seat vehicles got 30mpg (which really isn't that amazing), but if you're moving 6 people, it's not a big deal. It's when you're using and spending the same amount of energy to move just one person that it becomes obnoxious and wasteful.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

There's no reason that a vehicle that fulfills that role needs to be getting some fantastic fuel efficiency. It would be nice if our 7 seat vehicles got 30mpg (which really isn't that amazing), but if you're moving 6 people, it's not a big deal. It's when you're using and spending the same amount of energy to move just one person that it becomes obnoxious and wasteful.

It's a big deal if you're taking those six people on vacation, or they participate in regular family activities together. Of course, the long-distance family vacation is soon to be an endangered species, as our living standards decline to levels closer to what other second-tier countries experience, but that's another topic altogether.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

It's a big deal if you're taking those six people on vacation, or they participate in regular family activities together. Of course, the long-distance family vacation is soon to be an endangered species, as our living standards decline to levels closer to what other second-tier countries experience, but that's another topic altogether.

I can see your point, but I think we're approaching two branches of the same tree. My point is that, per person, the fuel efficiency of an SUV is not that bad compared to the efficiency of a sedan, assuming that all seats are occupied.

Your point (I think), is that the cost of utilizing a vehicle that carries so many people is unreasonably high, and there are no economically better alternatives for transporting the same number of people.

[Arkham_c]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

I can see your point, but I think we're approaching two branches of the same tree. My point is that, per person, the fuel efficiency of an SUV is not that bad compared to the efficiency of a sedan, assuming that all seats are occupied.

Your point (I think), is that the cost of utilizing a vehicle that carries so many people is unreasonably high, and there are no economically better alternatives for transporting the same number of people.

In the case of families with kids though, it's not a question of one vehicle or six vehicles though. At worst, we could be in two vehicles. The thing is, we generally go to dinner or travel, or whatever with this vehicle. We vacationed in Florida this year, and spent probably $500 on gas alone.

With adults, I definitely see your point -- when I drive to work, 90% of the cars on the highway have one person in them (mine included). I suspect when my Lexus wears out, I'll be getting a small electric "commuter" car, and keeping some sort of larger petroleum-powered or hybrid vehicle for my family.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Arkham_c 

I have yet to see a vehicle that is both considered to be fuel efficient and will hold my family (wife and 4 kids). It doesn't exist yet. I've got a 27 MPG Lexus that I drive to/from work that seats 5, and a 9 year old Ford Expedition that seats 8. I can't get rid of the Expedition until something better comes along... but what? I'd love a 27 MPG vehicle with 6-8 seats big enough for actual people to sit in, but I haven't seen one.

I think our standards have changed. When I was a kid they'd just throw us all in the back seat of the Pontiac and drive for 10 hours to grandma's. You can fit a family like that in a medium-sized sedan if you want to. But we all feel the need today to have minivans with DVD players as soon as we have a kid or two and a dog.

[Uncle Doof]

Note also, while we're talking about fitting kids into cars, that legislation here (at least) requires all kiddies to be in a kiddie seat. And you can't fit three of those abreast in the back seat of the average crapbox.
So, if you've got three kids here, you need a minivan.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Note also, while we're talking about fitting kids into cars, that legislation here (at least) requires all kiddies to be in a kiddie seat. And you can't fit three of those abreast in the back seat of the average crapbox.
So, if you've got three kids here, you need a minivan.

I can fit three car seats in the back of my Civic. I probably couldn't fit three infant seats, but if you've got three infants, your problems aren't going to be solved with a minivan.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Note also, while we're talking about fitting kids into cars, that legislation here (at least) requires all kiddies to be in a kiddie seat. And you can't fit three of those abreast in the back seat of the average crapbox.
So, if you've got three kids here, you need a minivan.

We've always managed fine with station wagons. In the old Mercedes E-class station wagon, you could even fit five children (two in the back) with seat belt and all. There was certainly no necessity to get a van if you have three kids (more than three and you'd want something larger, yes).

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

We've always managed fine with station wagons.

You're not quite getting it, methinks.

For the most part, we've always managed fine with popping a load of kids in the back of a station wagon. Until a few years back when it was made illegal for them to be there without a stupid bulky kiddie seat. No way you can fit three of those seats side by side in the back of an average car.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Arkham_c 

I have yet to see a vehicle that is both considered to be fuel efficient and will hold my family (wife and 4 kids). It doesn't exist yet. I've got a 27 MPG Lexus that I drive to/from work that seats 5, and a 9 year old Ford Expedition that seats 8. I can't get rid of the Expedition until something better comes along... but what? I'd love a 27 MPG vehicle with 6-8 seats big enough for actual people to sit in, but I haven't seen one.

http://www.chevrolet.com/hybrid/

[sek929]

Wow a whole 21MPG in the city (where hybrids do best).

What a joke.

[Macrobat]

Not for a full-size SUV, it isn't.

[TheWOAT]

We got an HHR, seats 5 adults comfortably, but room for 2 car seats in the back. Gets 30 mpg HWY, 22 city. Not bad for 17k (assuming we only have 1 or 2 kids)

[Dakar the Fourth]

It's hideous, but the numbers ain't bad.

[TheWOAT]

Well, I also half own a 51 Chevy pickup that has the look the HHR is modeled after... so I kinda like the look, but most people I know think its uglier than a Pacer.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

You're not quite getting it, methinks.

For the most part, we've always managed fine with popping a load of kids in the back of a station wagon. Until a few years back when it was made illegal for them to be there without a stupid bulky kiddie seat. No way you can fit three of those seats side by side in the back of an average car.

I just told you that the E-class my parents used to own had a separate second back seat. Even if you couldn't fit three big baby seats in the back, there was still the second back seat in the back -- and, of course, the front seat (as long as you can switch off the airbag; in modern cars, this may happen automatically).

In any case, once your children are older, you can easily fit them in the back. My brother and my sister were both two years apart, so after some time, you can get more compact baby seats. Volvo, I believe, (among possibly other car manufacturers) offer integrated baby seats/mountings for baby seats also in the middle.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Not for a full-size SUV, it isn't.

And the extra cost of buying a hybrid doesn't factor in?

It's an exercise in GM jumping on the "Me too!" wagon of living green, and it's lame. You need a Tahoe, buy the one that's proven to be tough as nails and leave the hybrids for cars that can actually achieve some sort of decent mileage. If you are concerned about MPG then you shouldn't be buying a Tahoe, period. If you actually need such a vehicle the cost of gas is negligible since there are no alternative vehicles with the same capabilities.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by sek929 

If you actually need such a vehicle the cost of gas is negligible since there are no alternative vehicles with the same capabilities.

Except the hybrid version of the same vehicle

Anyone can try to get better fuel economy with the same size/type vehicle, and the worst performers should be making the MOST effort to do that, since they have the most to gain from it. Going from 15->18 gains more than going from 50->100. We had a whole thread about that here once.

[sek929]

What about the added cost of buying and repairing a vehicle twice as complicated as your run-of-the-mill internal combustion engine? How about replacing the toxic battery array after 7 years? GM SUVs (like suburban and tahoe) are legendary for their reliability and longevity...that has yet to be seen from any hybrid.

Not sold.

[Macrobat]

LMAO!

That's an easy statement to make, considering the hybrids haven't been around long enough to make an argument.

For what it's worth, I haven't heard of anyone complaining about the "high maintenance costs" of hybrids.

Don't get me wrong, not a hybrid fan.

[PB2K]

check this movie of a Landrover that can't even get through an inch of wetness

SUV's are stupid cars for stupid people. The only reason to buy one is because it makes you forget you entirely belong to the bank. It happened in the States and then it happened in Europe.