Volt pricing announced. Starts at $41,000*

[All-Or-Nothing]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

I believe it is true. Leaf does not have a thermal management system like the Volt does. Range will decrease drastically because of that.

Once again.....wrong. It absolutely has a way of controlling battery temps. I will post a link after I get back. Kind of busy right now.

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by All-Or-Nothing

Once again.....wrong. It absolutely has a way of controlling battery temps. I will post a link after I get back. Kind of busy right now.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nissan+leaf+bat...mal+management

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/01/nissan-leaf-2/

It also appears Nissan has cut corners on the most critical aspect of electric vehicle technology — the battery pack. The key engineering trade-off Nissan has made is opting not to include active thermal management, where the temperature of the pack is controlled by an HVAC system similar to what cools the passenger cabin on a hot day. Instead, Nissan has opted to use only an internal fan that circulates the air within the sealed pack to evenly distribute the heat, which escapes by passive radiation through the pack’s external case.

Volt's thermal management system is vastly superior.

[motorhead]

This is half the car the chevy volt is. If I was forced to buy this kind of a car, I would pay the 40 for the volt before I would pay a dime for that nissan crap. The volt just makes more sense from what I've been reading.

[All-Or-Nothing]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nissan+leaf+bat...mal+management

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/01/nissan-leaf-2/

Volt's thermal management system is vastly superior.

I am not denying that the Volts active management is a better system but to say they have no way to control the temps is just not true. Their passive system will be more than enough to control the temps of the battery pack.

I'll just give you what Nissans answer is to that question.

"If it wasn’t our pack and it wasn’t our engineers and we weren’t working on it for 17 years … we wouldn’t make the statement if we weren’t confident in our ability to do so"

[All-Or-Nothing]

Active versus Passive

Volt says To-May-To and the Leaf says To-Mah-To



Having said this each car has a different advantage over the other. Just depends on what side the consumers fall.

[Supermans]

Well, I do agree with the moderators that this is not a car to buy if you want to save money (which that is how it will be marketed, "save money on gas") However we all know in time it will get cheaper and this technology may find its way into every vehicle at some point in time to meet more strict CAFE standards which we know are coming. At that point it is goodbye V8 and hello to supercharged 4-6 cylinder/hybrid's.. Not that there is anything wrong with that however I will miss the sound of the V8 when it does..

GM and other car companies were given money in grants to research and develop this. The US Government has invested billions and so forth. Obviously GM doesn't have to make a profit on this Volt to survive since it is US Government owned. That is why Ford is not throwing all their money into this type of vehicle, only using certain grant money and a small percentage into the R&D. They will probably share R&D with other car companies down the road about this so they may be handling this the "free market" way as best as possible. GM on the other hand, are already losing money on the VOlt selling it at $41,000 and then on top of that they lose another $7,500 (they meaning the Government which is GM for all intents and purposes for this comparison) That is why I stated above that perhaps the initial $7,500 tax rebate fora all electric car purchases had good intentions however it should have only applied to GM vehicles to keep the money within the United States Economy mostly. Yes I know foriegn car companies have factories in the US and so forth however it is GM that needs to make a profit for our economy to turn around. Overall I see all of your points and my ideas mean very little since I do not know all the details and information behind how much money was involved with the R&D and grants over the years..

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Ok, DG, you are real close to making me redundant. Well said.

Its much better than a couple weeks ago where we seemed to be disagreeing a lot

[All-Or-Nothing]

The debate will heat back up when Ford releases the Electric Focus. It too will have a range around 100 miles.


http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/...ic-ford-focus/

[Supermans]

Originally Posted by All-Or-Nothing

The debate will heat back up when Ford releases the Electric Focus. It too will have a range around 100 miles.


http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/...ic-ford-focus/

Hmm, this would be in the LEAF category of 100 miles on a single charge. The Volt is still a better vehicle technologically, however we should place it in the Luxury electric category or another name since it will not be in the "money saving electric" category at first. I didn't even know FOrd had their own electric.. This is why I mentioned above that GM should lose some money selling their volt in the same price segment and whipe out the competition since they are technologically in a higher level in the "fuel range" area. THey can market the car as being able to go 600 miles on a single tank of gas for example while the other all electrics can only go 100 before they need an 8 hour recharge.. GM just needs to make the car affordable from the get go and not wait four years while these other car companies catch up and build a user base..

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

Thus proving that the Volt isn't cost effective. You would be paying a $20k price premium to save $800 a year on fuel, a figure based on the assumption that the electricity would be free, and the notion that the Volt will actually go 40 miles on electricity alone. The conditions that allow 40 miles on the batteries are so idealized, that a Camaro SS would probably get 35-40 mpg under the same conditions.



I agree with this. Diesels or small conventional 4-cyl cars are much more cost effective.



I think the market would better police safety standards than the government. People's demand for safety alone would by itself make the cars exactly as safe as the buyers want them to be. In some ways, threshold government standards leads automakers to build "good enough" cars that they can advertise as meeting standards to make people feel good. Without them, I believe some cars may actually be safer than they otherwise would have been.



The only explanation can be a high compression ratio. However, doesn't the Volt use an Atkinson-cycle engine like other hybrids? If they did, you'd think it would be able to run on regular. If not, they're losing an easy source of efficiency.

To your market statement, exactly correct.

[MLL67RSSS]

I'm with Skyman 08 and his posts in this thread.

I actually did some contract work at AC/Delco in '94 and helped build and even drove a hybridized Oldsmolbile Achieva.

I applaud GM for not mindlessly jumping on the hybrid bandwagon to build a highly complex (all the computers and systems of a normal internal combustion engine car, PLUS all the computers and systems of an electric motor car, PLUS all the computers and systems to interface them together) that can only achieve similar MPGs of a simple TDI Jetta. A complex and expensive to produce product with a limited profitablity so a fairly limited market of people could feel a little better about themselves thinking they're helping the environment. Remember all that talk of the "carbon footprint" to actually produce and build a Prius was higher than that to build a H2 Hummer? I believe it was a wise decision to not waste their development resources and money on such expensive and limited technology with such limited gains.

I applaud GM for thinking "outside the box" and instead using their resources developing leading edge technology that no one else has innovated and developed to the point of bringing a world class product to the market. It will be interesting to see if the Volt really achieves the over 200 MPG estimates we've heard. That blows any other hybrids MPGs out of the water. Yes of course it is also somewhat complex and expensive with limited profitability similar to the Prius type hybrid, but for much higher gains.

And I agree with what others have said. For over a century Americans have vastly rejected electric vehicle technology and its limited ranges. If and when I'm in the market for a "green" car, knowing that I can hop in the vehicle and get wherever I'm going without having to calculate ranges and worry about being stranded would make it a simple no-brainer desicion, I would hope for most anyone even at the higher cost. Until fuels cell technology and vehicles are developed and available, to me it seems the way to go if you want to go green.

WAY TO GO GM!!!!!! Very good to see you once again be a leader in technology and innovation.

[Angrybird 12]

I hope that the Leaf comes with GPS and the computer keeps tabs on how far from home you are so it can tell you when you need to head back for a recharge.. It could keep recalculating the existing power remaining, and distance to your recharge station by the shortest route, it could then tell you to go to the recharge station and how to get there wth power to spare... sort of like your laptop computer telling you when to recharge it before losing any information...If they ask owners to figure it out for themselves then there will be many Leaves on the ground not running.. Heck many people can't even keep gas in their car without running out.. hard to walk to a power outlet to recharge your car.. better keep a LONG extension cord LOL...

[Sax1031]

The Volt's mpg numbers will be nowhere near 200.

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by Sax1031

The Volt's mpg numbers will be nowhere near 200.

More than likely you are correct in real world driving... on another note, I wonder how you figure the efficiency of an entirely electric car? MPKWH?