I'd rather have a first gen CRX HF.
1
2
3
4
5
6
-
June 4, 2009 4:07 p.m. TJ Reader
-
June 4, 2009 8:57 p.m. Adrian_Thompson Reader
But your not the 'average' consumer, Two seats, no airbags, no stability control etc etc
-
June 4, 2009 9:02 p.m. Tom_Spangler New Reader
Adrian_Thompson wrote:
But your not the 'average' consumer, Two seats, no airbags, no stability control etc etc
C&D just did a hybrid comparo with the Prius and Insight, and they threw in the 1998 Chevy (nee Geo) Metro just for comparison purposes. The Metro did match the hybrids for fuel mileage, but was seriously outmatched everywhere else. 0-60 in 20 seconds, for instance. No, thanks.
-
June 4, 2009 10:01 p.m. TJ Reader
Adrian_Thompson wrote:
But your not the 'average' consumer, Two seats, no airbags, no stability control etc etc
I'll take that as I am an above average consumer and not a below average one.
An old CRX would be a lot safer than my Mini in a crash - so it's all relative.
-
June 4, 2009 11:35 p.m. HappyAndy Reader
Well I wouldn't buy a volt, but I am a typical GRM'er and not a typical consumer, but I think that the volt has a chance. Most people commute less than 40 miles a day, and a decent number of those people can afford more than one car, so they will only need to use the volt for commuting, leaving the road tripping to the petrol burner. Also, as the price of gas rises again, (and its already started) those who can afford them will start seriously considering them, and there will be enough buyers to meet the modest production goals.
Keep in mind that this is the first generation of a new product, succeeding generations will have more capability and possibly a lower price. GRM'ers are smart enough to stay away from first generation vehicles, but there are lots of fools, I mean consumers, that have to be the first on the band wagon. If the volt were being made by a more prestigious manufacturer I think that the band wagon would near full already even if the price was considerably higher.
I also would like to add that electric vehicles will one day be successful and affordable and GRM'ers will accept them and possibly even like them. Take the Tesla, for example, The technology that makes it work isn't magical or mysterious. The motor and control systems that it runs on aren't new (industrial vehicles have had similar systems for years, including A/C motors powered by D/C batteries). As lithium ion batteries become cheaper, a Tesla like car for the masses could be a reality. That might not be what the volt is, but the volt might be an important step on that road, and I wish GM much success.
-
June 5, 2009 1:24 a.m. Wally UberDork
John Brown wrote:
If they made this a seven passenger commuter vehicle we could use it for $40,000.00 for carpool duty.
Do you ever carpool with six other people?
-
June 5, 2009 6:02 a.m. John Brown MegaDork
Three times a week.
-
June 5, 2009 6:05 a.m. NYG95GA Dork
All I can say is that I spend 40 grand on something, it had better come with a mailbox and a street address.
-
June 5, 2009 7:09 a.m. DILYSI Dave UltimaDork
NYG95GA wrote:
All I can say is that I spend 40 grand on something, it had better come with a mailbox and a street address.
I'm glad I'm not the only one astounded with the price of cars.
Yeah, I get inflation and all, but still. $50K pickups freak me out. When I was a kid, that's what Ferraris sold for.
-
June 5, 2009 8:33 a.m. poopshovel SuperDork
Any argument about the merits of a 10 -15 - 20 - 25 - 30 year old car Vs a new hybrid or plug in hybrid is meaningless.
OK. Well how about the argument that the rest of the berkeleying world gets brand spankin' new 3 cylinder turbo diesels that get 40-60MPG and beyond. Why not us? Can anyone answer this question for me?
-
June 5, 2009 9:18 a.m. MitchellC HalfDork
Our standards for particulates are a lot tougher. An advantage that a lot of developing countries have over us is that in most places, the density of cars is much less. Go to any big city, though, and the pollution contributes to a constant haze. I would imagine that the crash standards are different, if not more difficult.
-
June 5, 2009 9:53 a.m. John Brown MegaDork
Heres an idea for the OEM., Take the toughest standards in the world... build all the cars to them and reduce the need for extra parts for the rest of the world.
-
June 5, 2009 9:57 a.m. joey48442 SuperDork
TJ wrote:
Really? Real mini or new MINI?An old CRX would be a lot safer than my Mini in a crash - so it's all relative.
Joey
-
June 5, 2009 10:38 a.m. aircooled SuperDork
I agree and hope that the Volt is a first steep to more interesting vehicles to come (sadly, probably from offshore). Having a whole new set of variables to deal with when racing and modifying them will be very interesting. I am not sure though that a lot of people will want to spend 40 grand on a car they use to just drive to work, but then again, they aren't planning on selling that many.
-
June 5, 2009 10:58 a.m. John Brown MegaDork
Price an Escalade or RX330...
-
June 5, 2009 12:13 p.m. MitchellC HalfDork
Also, when was the last time that anything from GM even approached "cutting edge?" The Volt is risky, but look where being mediocre has gotten the auto companies.
-
June 5, 2009 12:29 p.m. GameboyRMH SuperDork
poopshovel wrote:
Any argument about the merits of a 10 -15 - 20 - 25 - 30 year old car Vs a new hybrid or plug in hybrid is meaningless.
OK. Well how about the argument that the rest of the berkeleying world gets brand spankin' new 3 cylinder turbo diesels that get 40-60MPG and beyond. Why not us? Can anyone answer this question for me?
Because everyone in the US, and much of the western world, won't accept a car that doesn't look like it will utterly obliterate anything it crashes into.
-
June 5, 2009 12:59 p.m. John Brown MegaDork
MitchellC wrote:
Also, when was the last time that anything from GM even approached "cutting edge?" The Volt is risky, but look where being mediocre has gotten the auto companies.
Right, seeing as how they have let more patents expire than most companies have filed for.
-
June 5, 2009 1:19 p.m. poopshovel SuperDork
GameboyRMH wrote:
poopshovel wrote:
Any argument about the merits of a 10 -15 - 20 - 25 - 30 year old car Vs a new hybrid or plug in hybrid is meaningless.
OK. Well how about the argument that the rest of the berkeleying world gets brand spankin' new 3 cylinder turbo diesels that get 40-60MPG and beyond. Why not us? Can anyone answer this question for me?
Because everyone in the US, and much of the western world, won't accept a car that doesn't look like it will utterly obliterate anything it crashes into.
See, I don't know that there's a ton of truth to that. I know that's the stereotype, but I see lots of Honda Fits, Toyota Yaris's and the like on the road, and every rich idiot and their brother I talk to gets their pants all slippery talking about the smart car.
Our standards for particulates are a lot tougher.
Really? Are they that much tougher than Canada or the UK? (Seriously, I'm just asking. I don't know.) I know 3 cyl. diesels are everywhere up in the great white north.
-
June 5, 2009 1:21 p.m. MitchellC HalfDork
I am by no means denying GM's strong legacy. However, sitting still for an instant is long enough to lose ground vs. the competition. I of course don't know the decisions in the boardroom, but I see the products that are out on the road. They may have been profitable, but few appeared innovative.
This doesnot mean that there were not any highlights... the LSX, Saturn, and Pontiac and Cadillac over the last few years have stood out to me. It has seemed to be the exception more than the rule, though.
-
June 5, 2009 1:33 p.m. MitchellC HalfDork
poopshovel wrote:
Our standards for particulates are a lot tougher.
Really? Are they that much tougher than Canada or the UK? (Seriously, I'm just asking. I don't know.) I know 3 cyl. diesels are everywhere up in the great white north.
California standards are more difficult to pass than the rest of the country's, and if an automaker can't sell a car in California (or any of the other states that use its CARB standards), it's probably not going to bring it stateside.
-
June 5, 2009 1:48 p.m. DILYSI Dave UltimaDork
Our retarded emissions laws are a big reason we don't get better stuff. At some point, you can either get cleaner or more efficient. We picked cleaner.
One thing that bothers me is that emissions are measured in parts-per-million instead of parts-per-mile. If it was parts-per-mile, then a car that got better mileage could get worse emissions and still pass. As long as it's parts-per-million, there is no incentive to get better mileage.
-
June 5, 2009 8:36 p.m. Adrian_Thompson Reader
poopshovel wrote:
GameboyRMH wrote:
poopshovel wrote:
Any argument about the merits of a 10 -15 - 20 - 25 - 30 year old car Vs a new hybrid or plug in hybrid is meaningless.
OK. Well how about the argument that the rest of the berkeleying world gets brand spankin' new 3 cylinder turbo diesels that get 40-60MPG and beyond. Why not us? Can anyone answer this question for me?
Because everyone in the US, and much of the western world, won't accept a car that doesn't look like it will utterly obliterate anything it crashes into.
See, I don't know that there's a ton of truth to that. I know that's the stereotype, but I see lots of Honda Fits, Toyota Yaris's and the like on the road, and every rich idiot and their brother I talk to gets their pants all slippery talking about the smart car.
Our standards for particulates are a lot tougher.
Really? Are they that much tougher than Canada or the UK? (Seriously, I'm just asking. I don't know.) I know 3 cyl. diesels are everywhere up in the great white north.
Yes, we have the toughest standards in the world for things like that. Alfa Driver, this is your field, please step in with some tech.
-
June 6, 2009 7:42 p.m. Schmidlap Reader
poopshovel wrote:
I know 3 cyl. diesels are everywhere up in the great white north.
They are? The only car that I can think of that we would possibly get with a 3 cylinder diesel here would be the Smart car, but much like the Smart cars in the US we get the gas version, not the diesel version.
I think we got the Grand Cherokee diesel a year before the US got it, but we don't have any engines you can't get. Canadian emissions usually mimic US emissions laws very closely in order to keep the prices of cars down and the selection up.
Bob
-
June 6, 2009 10:12 p.m. Toyman01 Reader
Adrian_Thompson wrote:
Toyman01 wrote:
It doesn't have to make sense. If automotive buying decision had to make sense no one would ever buy anything other than a base Focus or a base F150, they would then keep that vehicle for 10 years. Car purchsing is 99% emotion and 1% logic. Everyone on this forum proves that. No one NEEDS a toy car, we want themThe economics just don't add up. Even if I could replace my three work vans with electrics, the numbers just don't work. I would have to spend 120k on an inadequate car to save 15k per year in fuel costs. That's an 8 year re-coop replacing a fleet that averages 13mpg. That doesn't include the cost of charging. So about the time you broke even, it would be time to replace them. If I can't make the numbers add up replacing a full size van, how can the numbers work replacing a car that gets 25-30mpg. That doesn't even get into the fact that the cars aren't as capable as a Yugo.
Toyman01 wrote: The people buying these will be the same self righteous ones that bought the Prius. It will make them feel good about themselves. They can pat themselves on the back because they are saving the planet.
Precisly you've just proved it your self. And don't forget those same irrational people who buy Prius's (Priii??) are called the general public and they are the same people who also buy Miata's, Mustangs, etc etc for GRM readers to buy used 10 years down the line.
I guess that's why all my cars are over ten years old. I have managed the keep my emotions under control when spending tens of thousands of dollars.
Toy cars hardly qualify in a discussion about daily transportation. Toy cars are emotion and most of us wish we could spend 40 K on our toy cars. Most of us are probably lucky to get 4 K. I know wish for an extra 4 k often. There is a time for emotion and a time for logic and emotion should always be tempered by logic.
Somehow I doubt a person spending 40K on a car is really worried about gas prices so why is he/she buying it. Either for that warm fuzzy feeling it gives them for saving the planet, or to show off at the next garden club meeting and to show the "Jonses". They aren't buying it to save money. I guess they could call it their Toy Car.
I have nothing against electric cars and I hope GM pulls it off. Having a ZEV will help their CAFE standards and maybe they will still be able to build a car with HP. Unfortunately the Volt just isn't a viable solution to the problem at this point. By the time a used one is cheap enough for me or most people to buy it, it will need 5K worth of batteries. I would have much rather seen them spend the R&D on high power fuel efficient gas and diesel power plants. Then maybe we really would have a car that was practical, fun to drive and efficient.
