Chevy Volt a Failure - GM to Layoff 1,300

This would give me comfort as a Volt owner. It sounds like GM has a handle on it:

"But according to GM’s Manager, Electric Vehicle and Hybrid Communications, Kevin Kelly, what GM has fully disclosed already is it does not quite know all the potential scenarios that could play out for aging Volt and Ampera batteries – but “we’re working diligently on it every day” he said of potential re-use scenarios and related questions. "

 

Battery technology won't improve in the next ten years. Nor will aftermarket companies in any way offer competing batteries. Nor will used batteries ever become available from other Volts.

And certainly no one has ever replaced the internal combustion engine in a high-mileage car before.

 

Which fails to mention that the cost of replacing that nifty battery essentially negates the taxpayer-funded savings on Obama's wondercar.

 

Nope.

It simply assumes that the cost of replacing the battery will come down.

 

Research I am reading suggests that, over the next 8 years (which is probably a pessimistic estimate for the expected life of a Volt's battery), battery technology (expressed in $/kwh) is expected to improve substantially. How much is the question. McKinsey types have forecasted that today's $8,000 battery will cost around $2,500 by 2025. Although you might not be able to buy today's battery then because tomorrow's battery might be capable of holding a greater charge.

 

I'm wondering about two parts of this sentence:

1) You know, right, that development on the Volt started well before Obama was even a candidate for president, let alone actual president, right?

1) You know, right, that the tax credit for hybrids and plug-ins was enacted in the early 2000's, by the GOP?

 

Already got that figured out: At 99,998 miles, I'm going to figure out a way to short out the battery and get it replaced under warrenty. I want to make sure Ragu has to subsidize both the first and second half of my car ownership.

 

We're both incorrect.

It was 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Improvement_and_Extension_Act_of_2008#Energy_Improvement_and_Extension_Act_of_2008

 

As I've stated before, a diesel doesn't require a battery change that requires the car to be literally pulled apart. You talk about new batteries like it's no big deal, but that's going to require a very exhaustive and expensive repair with a high clusterf*%k likelihood.
And what about the car's ECU? Is there a chance of the new battery scrambling the ROM in the ECU? A new battery, a power surge and bam, you're out a lot of money. There's just a lot of unknowns in this technology I find unsettling.

If you're not going to keep the car over 100K miles, that's one thing, but if you intend to "run the wheels off it," this doesn't sound like a hot idea at all.

When my Dad decided, in all his wisdom, that a 77 GMC Suburban diesel was the perfect vehicle for his 16-year-old son, he'd already clocked 250K on the odo. When I sold that bucket with 300K on it when I bought an Accord, the family friend I sold it to as a hunting truck got another 100K out of it with no problems. Diesels are capable of going a long way, if you're the kind like me that runs the wheels off a car, in a pinch. There are semi trucks on the road with 500k, 750k, even a million miles on them. A diesel engine, due to the high pressures involved, is way overbuilt.

And no, I'm not a descendent of Rudolf Diesel. I just like the engine he built and its efficiencies that are still amazing today.

 

A clean diesel is more expensive to own and operate than the unleaded regular equivalent. Even FoxNews and the Washington Times aren't sure:

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/9/is-diesel-worth-the-additional-expense/?page=all

www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/05/09/energy-in-america-diesel-fueled-cars-making-comeback/

They seem to make a little more sense in Europe.