Motortrend COTY Vs Limbaugh: ZING!

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by ViperTomcat

Wind and Solar power simply are not reliable enough to sufficiently supply a fleet of plug in hybrids. To fully charge a plug in car could potentially draw as much power as a small house.

Not potentially...it will draw as much as a house. Just not all at once. But that's only about 9KWh. Where the 'bargain basement' windmill today can produce about 1.2MWh during average conditions.

Solar......has lots of room to grow when we're talking about things like PV panels and reflective dishes. Where I was referring to it is in residential applications. Passive solar power to do things like heat our houses, and grow plant-life for fuel harvesting. These applications would help take a strain off the grid.

Originally Posted by ViperTomcat

Ideally what should be done is advance clean coal technology and nuclear power to beef up the power grid so that it doesnt crumble beneath the burden of the plug in hybrid group. California and other large urban centers are already having problems with the power grid, it will only get worse unless something is done to dramatically increase power output. Until then cars like the Leaf and others will only cause problems for the current situation, not solutions.

Not necessarily, because the cars are presumed to be charging at night. During off-peak hours. What could happen is the draw may increase powerhouse efficiency, because they don't need to manipulate generation levels so much.

Many of the problems that plague the grid have to do with infrastructure. Poor transmission lines and plants, dead draws, etc. Wasted electricity....goes right into the dirt. It's a one-way trip out of the plant. This is one of the things the "smart grid" hopes to decrease dramatically...feedback from substations will help regulate output so there is no loss.

Originally Posted by ViperTomcat

The US has enough domestic oil reserves (off shore, Alaska, etc) to be nearly 100% self sufficient for the next 75 to 100 years, but politics are standing in the way.

Which is great for a rainy day...but if we use it for day-to-day usage and 50-60years rolls by.....then what?

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by ViperTomcat

Wind and Solar power simply are not reliable enough to sufficiently supply a fleet of plug in hybrids. To fully charge a plug in car could potentially draw as much power as a small house.

Ideally what should be done is advance clean coal technology and nuclear power to beef up the power grid so that it doesnt crumble beneath the burden of the plug in hybrid group. California and other large urban centers are already having problems with the power grid, it will only get worse unless something is done to dramatically increase power output. Until then cars like the Leaf and others will only cause problems for the current situation, not solutions.

The US has enough domestic oil reserves (off shore, Alaska, etc) to be nearly 100% self sufficient for the next 75 to 100 years, but politics are standing in the way.

Clean coal is about as real as efficient solar or reliable wind

[20Camaro11]

power supply won't be that big of an issue. With the exception of nuke plants, most power plants run well below capacity from 10pm-6am usually at a financial loss for those hours. So if demand increased while people sleep and charge their cars, the entire electric grid becomes more efficient. Electric utilities would see quicker ROI and the overall effect on rates could likely be neglible in respect to the influence exerted on the rates by the introduction of EVs. The plants are always burning coal/gas to stay online, so would a plant rather burn say a million pounds of coal to produce 1000 Mwhrs, or 1.5 million pounds to produce 2500 mwhrs?

[King Sun]

I think the main reason people are hating on this car because its been hyped for the past 1 or 2 and on top of that its a "chevy". People are going to hate and look at extra thinks to pick at it just because its a electric american car.

[1bad65]

Originally Posted by ViperTomcat

California and other large urban centers are already having problems with the power grid, it will only get worse unless something is done to dramatically increase power output. Until then cars like the Leaf and others will only cause problems for the current situation, not solutions.

Exactly. And lets not forget the 'Gray Outs' California had just 10 years ago.

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Regarding power, let's just say that the problems we have today are our own doing. Between the government-cheapened dollar causing import prices to go up, to almost every domestic supplier getting sued by some local earth-muffin hippy group whenever they try to expand or build a new power generating plant, we've been screwing ourselves for a long time. There's a lot of energy opportunities around that we just don't take advantage of.

On the Volt, I agree that it's probably the most innovative car to come out for 2011. But I understand where Rush is coming from with his criticism. This seemed a lot like Obama winning the Nobel peace prize.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Why people who don't know what they're talking about should just shut the hell up.

If you're going to attack someone, you might want to use a real sentence.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Whats better, burning Virginia coal or Saudi oil?

Domestic oil.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Not only that...the argument against electricity is not very solid. It's much more efficient to burn a fuel in one central source than a million little engines. Easier to control emissions (research the output of a modern coal-fired generating station...you may be surprised), and cheaper per mile in terms of energy cost.

You're forgetting that there is a 4.5-5% loss in the transmission of electricity from the big generator to the destination, as well as an additional 5-10% loss in charging batteries for remote consumption and another 5-15% loss in discharge of the battery. By the time you add it all up the dreaded physics kicks in and the much maligned fossil fuel is more green than the electron.

Also...where do you think gasoline comes from? A gas vein in the ground like gold? No, it's heated and separated out from all the other goodies found in crude oil. Which means nearly as much burning of nasty stuff as electrical generation.

You seem to forget that we need those "goodies" too. Unless you want to stop using lubricants, jet fuels, plastics, asphalt, etc. then we're always going to be refining crude oil. You make it sound as if 100% of the energy put into refining oil to make gasoline is wasted.

A better way to think of it is that gasoline is a free byproduct of making iPods and Soda Bottles.

Finally...the future holds promise in the way of electrical generation. Solar, wind, biomass, and even nuclear if our leaders can get a clue...all of these can help contribute to our total energy production. In concert with simple conservation to help balance the load of these new cars and trim our electrical requirements across the country, it's not as impossible as some would believe.

Solar and wind are pipe dreams. There's no way they can supply our needs. Perhaps a solar array in orbit would be the answer, but since we have no way to put anything in orbit beginning next year... scratch that.

I'm all for nuclear, but since it's been maligned more than oil and we have not started a new plant in 30 years, I won't hold my breath.

Until then we should just all go green and burn oil and cut down on the polluting electricity we are all using.

[chevydude26]

first of all when you have to bribe people to buy a car with a tax credit...thats not a good sign

currently based off the price of the volt...there is no true way your going to save actual money comparable to say buying the chevy cruz...in my opinion if any car deserves to be car of the year its the mustang 5.0 with it being able to get near m3 level of performance...in a sane world that would have won...

so what is the point of the car if it doesn't save you money ...it doesn't look like a 40,000 dollar car ...you can buy a buick lacrosse or a lexus with that money and you'd be happier...

the point of the car is for people to feel good about the environment when in reality the car does diddly squat when it comes to environmental impact since the majority of global warming....err climate change has pretty much been exxagerated for mere political purposes....per the leaked science memos known as climate gate earlier in the year

and to the people who say who cares what rush says...well motor trend decided to respond and well so are all of you so obviously the opinion stings and hits where it hurts...

and yes the response from motor trend was childish and full of ad homined attacks...and shame on the mods here for telling us to stay out of politics and then doing it themselves...

[chevydude26]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

I want to suggest that we keep any discussion on taxes and policy very civil.

On the topic, having the ability to speak to the public does not make you any smarter or more entitled to your opinion than anyone else. In the case of this story, a radio show host demonstrated his detachment from reality by criticizing a well-reviewed product that has been embraced by the mainstream press and those who plan to buy it.

what gives the mainstream press higher value opinions than anyone else?? The mainstream press is actually more wrong than they are correct...

you do know the majority of journalists favor liberalism by a 4-1 margin...

like somebody else said take away that tax credit and see how long this car lasts...mods here are something else i tell you...they must all work for the UAW no doubt about it...tell me i'm wrong

and like i said...what is the purpose of the car other than making people feel good about themselves for saving the planet and saving "energy" when there is no cost benefit and the comparables are actually much better cars more comfortable and better looking...

[chevydude26]

Rush's response to this motor trend article

"RUSH: The other day I sort of chided Motor Trend magazine for jumping on this bandwagon of the Chevrolet Volt, and the guy at Motor Trend has responded to me very nastily. He said I should drive one and that I have probably never seen one. I should ask General Motors for a loaner and they'd probably give me one for a weekend but I probably couldn't fit in it. Well, the thing is I have seen a Volt. I've seen a Volt. They showed me a Volt after it was on the assembly line. I took a trip to Michigan. I spent a long afternoon with Bob Lutz of General Motors. They showed me the Volt. I saw the thing. They showed me how it was gonna work. I read how it's gonna work, 40 miles to the charge and 375 miles on the backup gasoline engine. They've reviewed this and it's not even on sale. You can't even go buy it, and yet of all the cars out there, it's the car of the year. I find it strange. I've always thought, "Can Consumer Reports be bought off?" Because some of the things that they say are the best value... you know, as a consumer, I'm well versed on this stuff, and this isn't the case. And there are some people that think -- not me, I'm not saying they have, but I read the comments to the story at Motor Trend, and there are some people that think Motor Trend's been bought off by somebody to promote this thing, General Motors, General Electric, or what have you.

Speaking of all this, President Obama -- and I called this one -- President Obama's administration has bought almost 25% of the Ford Motor Company and General Motors company hybrid cars sold since he took office, accelerating federal purchases as consumer demand wanes. In fact, the headline, it's a Bloomberg story: "Obama Bolsters U.S. Hybrid Automobile Sales in Waning Consumer Market." Nobody wants one. Hardly anybody wants one. So the regime is out there buying them for itself so that other members of the regime can run around and drive these cars. "The U.S. General Services Administration, which runs the government fleet, bought at least 14,584 hybrid vehicles in the past two fiscal years, or about 10 percent of 145,473 vehicles the agency purchased in that period, according to sales data obtained by Bloomberg under a Freedom of Information Act request. In fiscal 2008, hybrids accounted for less than 1 percent of government purchases." Now it's up to 25%.

"The government is boosting investment in a technology that has failed to win broad acceptance after more than a decade in the marketplace." Do you ever get a discount buying an iPhone? A discount buying an iPad? Does Apple have to pay you to go out and buy one of their products? Well, the Volt, they're gonna pay you half of what it costs you in a form of a credit and the other hybrid deals. The government's buying them up to make it look like there's volume purchases. In the case of GM Obama is just buying the cars from himself. The consumer demand just isn't there for these cars, and they're having to trump it up. They're gonna force us into these cars if they have the time and if they have the wherewithal.

"Jeff Schuster, director of forecasting at J.D. Power & Associates in Troy, Michigan, 'At some point, the reality is that for this technology to be accepted, it needs to be done without a government crutch. But without a huge gas-price increase or further government demand, the natural demand just isn’t to be there.'" Now, about 3,100 of the hybrids purchased by the regime were paid for out of the Porkulus package. (laughing) So the regime bought its own hybrids from the Porkulus spending. In one pocket and out the other. "'This is the beginning,' said Sara Merriam, a spokeswoman for the GSA in an interview. Another 5,600 were bought with proceeds from selling older cars in the government fleet, she said. A majority of fiscal 2009 hybrid sales came after Obama took office in January 2009." So there you have it. Very popular technology, so popular that the government is buying 25% of these things, a waning consumer market.


END TRANSCRIPT"


http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...111.guest.html

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by chevydude26

first of all when you have to bribe people to buy a car with a tax credit...thats not a good sign

Pretty much from day 1, the anticipated price of the Volt was $40k. And there was a lot of support for the car at that price. Then, people found out there would be a tax credit and demand rose. And after GM announced pricing, they increased scheduled production volume. Odds are, the Volt would sell in the numbers GM wants just fine without the tax credit. In fact, I bet there will be a lot of dealers charging an extra 5-10k of 'market adjustment' on the cars.

Originally Posted by chevydude26

currently based off the price of the volt...there is no true way your going to save actual money comparable to say buying the chevy cruz...in my opinion if any car deserves to be car of the year its the mustang 5.0 with it being able to get near m3 level of performance...in a sane world that would have won...

Who said it was about saving money? As Bob Lutz said "With the Volt we have the perhaps noble motive of eliminating fossil fuels and perhaps the somewhat less noble motive of kicking Toyota in the teeth"

As for the 2011 Mustang, first its arguable as to whether it would even qualify. It was a powertrain change not a redesign or significant refresh (like 2010 was). But that asside, performance (of intended function) and value are 2 only metrics for COTY. Efficiency are engineering excellence are two others. And the only car out there that rivals the Volt for efficiency is the Leaf, and nothing comes close to it engineering wise.

Originally Posted by chevydude26

so what is the point of the car if it doesn't save you money ...it doesn't look like a 40,000 dollar car ...you can buy a buick lacrosse or a lexus with that money and you'd be happier...

Your user title and avatar suggest that you want a convertible SS. There is a pretty good chance that it will run you about 40k too, maybe a bit less if you don't select too many tick boxes. Regardless, it won't look like a 40k car either and overall it won't be as nice of a car as the Buick or Lexus. As for being happier, well that depends on what makes one happy, doesn't it? Obivously a performance enthusiast would be happier with a ~40k Camaro than a ~40k Lexus. But what of an 'eco enthusiast'? Or how about a tech geek? What would they be happier with? Not nearly as cut and dry.

Originally Posted by chevydude26

the point of the car is for people to feel good about the environment when in reality the car does diddly squat when it comes to environmental impact since the majority of global warming....err climate change has pretty much been exxagerated for mere political purposes....per the leaked science memos known as climate gate earlier in the year

And? If they want to drive happy-shiny-cars to save the planet, so what? Its not as if the Volt is the only car GM's going to build from here on out.

Originally Posted by chevydude26

and to the people who say who cares what rush says...well motor trend decided to respond and well so are all of you so obviously the opinion stings and hits where it hurts...

I believe he questioned the credibility of one of the biggest names in automotive news, while he has absolutely no credibility when it comes to talking about cars.

Originally Posted by chevydude26

and yes the response from motor trend was childish and full of ad homined attacks...and shame on the mods here for telling us to stay out of politics and then doing it themselves...

Ad Hominen Attack: attacking someones beliefs rather than their argument. They clearly disected what argument they could, so on the whole its not an AH fallacy. Beyond that, they called into question his experience with the car and cited instance of hypocrisy. That could be construed as an ad hominen attack, but I'd say that they are supporting premises for their main argument that Rush Limbaugh does not have the credibility to question their credibility.

Besides, Rush Limbaugh isn't exactly a role model for crafting formal arguments. don't think his supporters have a whole lot of room to question the tactics of those who oppose him.

As for politics, use the report button when you see a post that breaks the rules. Every staff member, including administration, will see the post and decide if its going too far into politics.

Originally Posted by chevydude26

what gives the mainstream press higher value opinions than anyone else?? The mainstream press is actually more wrong than they are correct...

In this particular case? The fact that they've driven and tested the car against every other new car being offered, something which Rush hasn't done.

btw, Rush has been more wrong on the Volt than he's been right.

Originally Posted by chevydude26

you do know the majority of journalists favor liberalism by a 4-1 margin...

And you do know that the majority of automotive journalists favour high performance cars by (I'm guessing here) a 100:1 margin. Certainly at least 10:1

Originally Posted by chevydude26

like somebody else said take away that tax credit and see how long this car lasts...mods here are something else i tell you...they must all work for the UAW no doubt about it...tell me i'm wrong

and like i said...what is the purpose of the car other than making people feel good about themselves for saving the planet and saving "energy" when there is no cost benefit and the comparables are actually much better cars more comfortable and better looking...

Well its impossible for me to work for the UAW since I live in Canada. And I don't think cops in Texas are part of the UAW either. So clearly, you are wrong.

As for the point of the Volt, what is the point of any car? No matter what you buy, there will almost be something that has more of what you want. Either faster or cheaper or more efficient or better looking or whatever. But you buy that particular car because it has the right combination of what you want, what you like, and value. That is universal. Some place a high value on 'techy-ness' others don't. Some place a high value on power, others don't. Some want to minimize their environmental impact, others don't.

Now just what are those 'comparable cars' that look better and are more comfortable? There aren't any cars that are comparable to the Volt. But I suppose the car thats most like the Volt would be the Prius, and from anything I've seen its agreed that the Volt is superior in design (interior and exterior), engineering, comfort, dynamics, effiency, and quality. So that can't be what you're talking about. The Leaf? Only thing it has on the Volt is a bit more room, and it can drive farther on electricity. Oh, and its cheaper. So is the Prius. Or is it those Buicks and Lexuses you mentioned earlier, the ones that have absolutely nothing at all in common with the Volt besides 4 wheels and a price tag?

[VR Code R6P]

I do agree it is silly to name the Volt, "Car of the Year" when it is not even out for the public to drive.............

Rush sometimes has a "rough way" when presenting his view, but he usually gives you the facts.