DaVinci 0 #101 September 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteIf volt's MSRP was at 30000. It might have done so much better. Right now it is at 40000. People who can afford 40000 car aren't looking for gas saving or a shitty car. Interior sucks, there are no space for cargo. It is practicaly Chevy cruze that has electric motor, and chevy cruze starts at 16k. I much rather wanna buy 15k worth of 86 octane gasoline. Exactly. It's not the concept of the Volt that's the problem. It's the shitty execution. QFT Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #102 September 5, 2012 QuoteI think Chevy priced it high in order to try to twist the govt's arm into giving away huge tax funded incentives. I doubt it. If that were the case they would have dropped the price when tax incentives did not prove attractive enough for people to want the car. I think they priced it at $40k because they generally suck at making and selling cars. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 893 #103 September 5, 2012 I WISH there was an alternative to the trucks. I could really go for a big diesel dually. I'm always hauling something, or throwing a ton of stuff in the bed. Or both! I like our camper. A lot. Which EV has a decent tow rating??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #104 September 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteAnd that, big, heavy, gas guzzling, global warming, planet destroying, polar bear killing, trucks, SUVs and full sized sedans are. Cigarettes still sell pretty well, too. People don't always make the best choices. Putting the climate change aspect to the side, I'd bet that most people who buy a large truck or SUV don't really need one. The household budget impact of an F-150 is probably twice that of a Prius, depending on driving habits. It always boggles my mind when I see people driving giant trucks that have clearly never left the road, and probably never had anything bigger than a suitcase in the bed. These are the same people who slow down to 2mph going over speed bumps in their vehicle designed for the Baja 500. Who are you to dictate what people "need"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #105 September 5, 2012 I didn't say that no one needs a truck. I said that a lot of people don't need a truck. I don't really understand why Toyota can't make a hybrid Tacoma or Tundra. I think they'd fly off the lot. Of course, I don't understand why they don't sell diesel versions of those in the US either. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 893 #106 September 5, 2012 Sorry - I didn't mean to reply directly to you....I was fully agreeing with what you said. How has the GM hybrid school bus sized SUV been selling? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #107 September 5, 2012 QuoteWho are you to dictate what people "need"? I knew that was coming, I really did. I'm not saying people can't have a giant truck to go to the grocery store. It's just stupid. There's a difference between saying that people don't need something, and people can't have something. If they want it, then they can buy it, but they shouldn't simultaneously bitch about the fuel bill whilst driving a three ton dualie around with 10 pounds of groceries as the big haul of the week. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #108 September 5, 2012 Agreed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #109 September 5, 2012 QuoteDepends on where you look I suppose. They'll just ask for more like most of the airlines have done multiple times. GM builds some good stuff, but their new vehicle price points seem too high. Is it because their costs are high or are they just overinflating so people think they are getting a better sale price? I love my '05 SSR, but wouldn't have paid what they wanted for it new.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #110 September 5, 2012 Quote Who are you to dictate what people "need"? I'm going to be less kind that Dan and say: "because this self centered behaviour hurts America." Buying 6000lb, 15mpg vehicles with hundreds of pounds of steel brush guards that never get touched means higher gas prices and higher trade deficits and a weaker dollar. When we first saw $4 gas in 2008 coupled with the start of the recession, people started driving the speed limit, driving less, and buying fuel efficient cars again. Gas consumption dropped a mere 8% and the prices plunged back into the 2s. If you want cheap gas, you want CAFE standards to double. If you want us to stop collaborating with dictators, you want our consumption to drop substantially. If you want America to remain a superpower, you need this consumption to drop substantially. It's a matter of national security. All that said, I think the F150 is the wrong car to bitch about. A much higher percentage of them get used for its design intent than due most of the SUVs that drive around LA and rarely see rain, let alone snow and god forbid they get touched by mud. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #111 September 5, 2012 "If you want America to remain a superpower, you need this consumption production to drop increase substantially. It's a matter of national security. " We are in agreement! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #112 September 5, 2012 >If you want America to remain a superpower, you need this consumption production >to drop increase substantially. It's a matter of national security. You can always reduce consumption. You cannot always increase production. You can yell political catchphrases at a dry well all day; it won't do anything. When people first started pumping oil the EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) was very high; 100:1 in some cases. You just dug a hole and oil came pouring out. Now we've drilled all those easy locations, and have to turn to things like shale oil, tar sands, deep water drilling etc. Nowadays the EROEI on tar sands is 3.0. Shale oil is 5.0. New oil finds are around 8.0 and dropping. This means you need a lot more energy (in the form of oil) to pump the oil out than you did before. Once this gets under 2 then oil becomes very expensive. This actually helps for a while because expensive and difficult technologies like tar sands become palatable, and the money to develop them becomes available. Once it gets under 1 then nothing in the world will help you get more oil. Sure, you'll always be able to drill for more, and any idiot will be able to stand up and propose "DRILL BABY DRILL!" as a solution - but for every gallon of oil you drill it will require more than a gallon of oil to get it out, and no political rhetoric in the world can force that to make sense. (As references, EROEI on corn ethanol is 1.3, on sugar ethanol is 5.0, on wind is 18, on photovoltaic is 6.8.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #113 September 6, 2012 Quote"If you want America to remain a superpower, you need this consumption production to drop increase substantially. It's a matter of national security. " We are in agreement! Bill gave the science answer, I'll go the simpler route. We waste a fuckload of energy unnecessarily. It's much easier to fix the consumption side than to increase the supply side. And again, if we want to remain a super power into the 21st and then 22nd century, we need to conserve our finite supply of domestic oil, not burn it all up now. Your advocacy for the latter will doom the nation. Just examine the fate of 1930s Japan. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #114 September 6, 2012 QuoteQuote"If you want America to remain a superpower, you need this consumption production to drop increase substantially. It's a matter of national security. " We are in agreement! Bill gave the science answer, I'll go the simpler route. We waste a fuckload of energy unnecessarily. It's much easier to fix the consumption side than to increase the supply side. And again, if we want to remain a super power into the 21st and then 22nd century, we need to conserve our finite supply of domestic oil, not burn it all up now. Your advocacy for the latter will doom the nation. Just examine the fate of 1930s Japan. Japan did not have domestic supplies. Try again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #115 September 6, 2012 Quote Japan did not have domestic supplies. Try again. those too stupid to learn from history will repeat the lessons. a supply deficit is a deficit...that's all that matters. Save that right now we have the luxury of time to fix our wasteful, lazy, treasonous ways. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #116 September 6, 2012 >Japan did not have domestic supplies. Try again. The earliest written references to oil wells and natural gas come from Japan and China. By the 1930's they had burned through their supply and were reliant on the US for oil. How'd that work out for them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #117 September 6, 2012 Quote>Japan did not have domestic supplies. Try again. The earliest written references to oil wells and natural gas come from Japan and China. By the 1930's they had burned through their supply and were reliant on the US for oil. How'd that work out for them? Ok, I know that your panties are in a collective bunch. Take a deep breath and I will break it down for you. There is a thing that I like to call progress. This wonderful phenomenon evaporates most of the boogie-men that keep you up at night. By any rational estimate we have over two centuries of fossil fuels left in the United States. Given the rate of technologic progress we will have NO problems meeting our energy needs in the future. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #118 September 6, 2012 >There is a thing that I like to call progress. This wonderful phenomenon >evaporates most of the boogie-men that keep you up at night. Agreed! It gives us the Volt, the Leaf, wind power, solar power, alternative fuels, cleaner conventional energy, smart grids and more efficient engines of all sorts. Yet oddly some people attack such progress every chance they get. >By any rational estimate we have over two centuries of fossil fuels left in the >United States. Yep. Japan had 50 million barrels around 1920. I bet there was a Japanese planner saying "we have centuries of fuel left at our current rates of usage." Let's see what the math says about the US: 220 billion barrels of conventional oil sources (i.e. oil, not kerogen) 20 million barrels a day at current use rates Time till depleted - 30 years Now let's assume that right wingers convince the US that there's no shortage and we can use as much oil as we please. That means our current rate of expansion continues; approximately 1.4% a year. Now we run out in 24 years. 24 < 200. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #119 September 6, 2012 That depends on what definition of "<" you use.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #120 September 6, 2012 You are confused. I said fossil fuels not just oil. Believe it or not you can make oil out of coal! It is cutting edge stuff; the technology has only been around for about a century, so I don’t blame you for not understanding. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #121 September 6, 2012 QuoteYou are confused. I said fossil fuels not just oil. Believe it or not you can make oil out of coal! It is cutting edge stuff; the technology has only been around for about a century, so I don’t blame you for not understanding. we certainly have a lot of coal. Yet perhaps you already put out of your mind the fact that we import a lot of oil for some reason. If coal were such a great answer, why aren't we using it, then? We wouldn't have to give a shit if Iraq takes over Kuwait or if it threatened the Saudis. We wouldn't care if Israel nuked Iran. Oil is the easiest to use and given the choice, we want that every time. So how intelligent is it to waste the finite supply of readily available oil as quickly as possible? The only justification you can provide that isn't garbage is that we're lazy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #122 September 6, 2012 No, there is another concept, I like to call economics, which postulates; when the cost of gasoline from oil exceeds $5 a gallon it becomes feasible to get that gasoline from coal, tar sands and oil shale. It is very complicated; I don't expect you to understand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #123 September 6, 2012 QuoteNo, there is another concept, I like to call economics, which postulates; when the cost of gasoline from oil exceeds $5 a gallon it becomes feasible to get that gasoline from coal, tar sands and oil shale. It is very complicated; I don't expect you to understand. hmm...maybe Pedophile State doesn't teach economics very well. In the rest of the world, where you're allowed to look at actual data and facts, we saw how cutting demand in the US by a mere 8% dropped the price to the mid $2 range. Seems a hell of a lot more attractive than paying for $5 coal gas. But you're right...this is very complicated stuff...taught by the second day of a freshman economics class. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #124 September 6, 2012 And just what caused the drop in demand? Was it the Volt, the Prius, higher millage requirements? Oh that’s right it was a near economic collapse. Simply put more energy use = prosperity; less energy use = poverty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #125 September 6, 2012 QuoteAnd just what caused the drop in demand? Was it the Volt, the Prius, higher millage requirements? Oh that’s right it was a near economic collapse. Simply put more energy use = prosperity; less energy use = poverty. Not really. The collapse didn't kick in until fall. Gas prices were through the roof all summer long. How much did the increased fuel costs contribute to the collapse? I don't know. But I do know that there were a lot, lot fewer RVs, camper trailers and boats (on trailers) out on the highways that year. Because people couldn't afford to feed them. You could pick up a powerboat for next to nothing by the end of summer 08. Again, before the banking collapse/housing bubble blowout."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
