Motortrend COTY Vs Limbaugh: ZING!

[20Camaro11]

cheap gas won't last forever....their is a finite supply of fossil fuels to be had. So it is advantageous for the consumer and the manufacturers to start developing vehicles that use less fossil fuels. Right now...without subsidies, Hybrids and EV's are not cost competitive on a efficiency basis. 10 years from now, we very well could be singing a different tune. People naysaying progress now are comparable to people in past who doubted the earth rotated around the sun, thought the earth was flat, .....

[motorhead]

Originally Posted by bigearl

Just for fun, ya should search Motor Trend and go back a few pages to when a lot of the "Camaro vs" articles were coming out. Apparently at that time, many of you didn't find MT's opinion as reliable and enjoyable as you do now.

So for future reference, it's good journalism when they like Chevy. It's bias hack paid-off-by-hyundai when they don't?

Got it. Consistancy is not just a river in Egypt.

I got called out in another thread for making the very same observation just the other day.

[el ess A]

Originally Posted by 20Camaro11

cheap gas won't last forever....

Niether will cheap electricity. It's already been said by someone that lives in a famous house in D.C. that electricity costs necessarily must go up in price in the near future. So plug in stations may not be all that cheap in a few years themselves. SOMEONE always exploits money out of "cheap" fuels where they don't end up being cheap. Always. I get the feeling that "recycle" and replacement costs for the batteries will kill current technology cars.

The point is, whichever fuel that is used needs to be somewhat close to on par as what costs are now to be viable and sustainable. Sure, hydrogen/electric technology likely beats the pee out of fossil fuel, but it's not cost efficient yet to be a real contender.

I do agree they're on the right path, but to tout the Volt as some sort of breakthrough and "efficient" at this point is a bit of a stretch.

Until that time, the public isn't buying it, and I don't want to either.

[Xanthos]

Originally Posted by el ess X

I do agree they're on the right path, but to tout the Volt as some sort of breakthrough and "efficient" at this point is a bit of a stretch.

Efficient? Maybe not yet.

Breakthrough? I don't see how you could consider it anything but.

Personally, I also want to see GM do more work with their eAssist system.
- X

[1bad65]

Originally Posted by 20Camaro11

People naysaying progress now are comparable to people in past who doubted the earth rotated around the sun, thought the earth was flat, .....

What??

The Volt needs electricity to run. And 49% of US electricity is generated in coal burning plants. The more Volts we sell, the more electricity we will need. And the more electricity we need, the more coal we burn. I myself think global warming is a hoax, but even those who believe in it can't say with a straight face that the above formula is progress.

Source:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...pa/figes1.html

[King Sun]

Originally Posted by 1bad65

What??

The Volt needs electricity to run. And 49% of US electricity is generated in coal burning plants. The more Volts we sell, the more electricity we will need. And the more electricity we need, the more coal we burn. I myself think global warming is a hoax, but even those who believe in it can't say with a straight face that the above formula is progress.

Source:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...pa/figes1.html

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by 1bad65

What??

The Volt needs electricity to run. And 49% of US electricity is generated in coal burning plants. The more Volts we sell, the more electricity we will need. And the more electricity we need, the more coal we burn. I myself think global warming is a hoax, but even those who believe in it can't say with a straight face that the above formula is progress.

Source:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...pa/figes1.html

True, which is why we as a country need to put more research into cheap, renewable ways of generating electricity if we are to switch over to electrically driven vehicles. Solar and wind are all well and good for areas able to produce good amounts of it, but I'm still holding out hope that we manage to get a breakthrough in fusion power generation.

[ColdCamaroSS]

Originally Posted by 1bad65

I'd say they do. He has an audience of millions, he is the highest paid radio personality ($50 million/year), and he didn't need a bailout.

Yeah, and I bet everyone on here pays more in taxes than he does.

[1bad65]

Originally Posted by ColdCamaroSS

Yeah, and I bet everyone on here pays more in taxes than he does.

Oh boy, the old 'the rich don't pay taxes' argument.

[20Camaro11]

I

Originally Posted by el ess X

Niether will cheap electricity. It's already been said by someone that lives in a famous house in D.C. that electricity costs necessarily must go up in price in the near future. So plug in stations may not be all that cheap in a few years themselves. SOMEONE always exploits money out of "cheap" fuels where they don't end up being cheap. Always. I get the feeling that "recycle" and replacement costs for the batteries will kill current technology cars.

The point is, whichever fuel that is used needs to be somewhat close to on par as what costs are now to be viable and sustainable. Sure, hydrogen/electric technology likely beats the pee out of fossil fuel, but it's not cost efficient yet to be a real contender.

I do agree they're on the right path, but to tout the Volt as some sort of breakthrough and "efficient" at this point is a bit of a stretch.

Until that time, the public isn't buying it, and I don't want to either.

Generating units actually would be more efficient if there was a large fleet of vehicles charging overnight. Many units operate at a loss during non peak hours.

[ColdCamaroSS]

Originally Posted by 1bad65

Oh boy, the old 'the rich don't pay taxes' argument.

Yeah, pretty much. My guess is around 17-18% vs 30+ for the middle-class

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by 1bad65

If you look at some other Motor Trend COTY winners, it might make sense.

1960: Chevrolet Corvair
1974: Ford Mustang II
1980: Chevrolet Citation
1984: Chevrolet Corvette (1984 is considered by many to be the worst Corvette ever)

Don't forget the Omni, Vega, Renault Alliance, and PT Cruiser...and also a few good cars that where marketplaces failures (2002 T-bird and Lincoln LS).

I'd actually put the Volt into the same category as the 1960 Corvair. Both represent steps forward in technology for their day. Both are unique and have a lot of potential. As with the Corvair, whether the Volt goes down in history as a great car or a highly publicized failure will be based on how well GM executes over the next several years.

The Volt is definitely a step forward technology wise, but at the end of the day, it is just a natural evolution of current hybrids...nothing particularly earth shattering. It also has three major weaknesses.

1. I looked at the first batch of Chevy Cruzes that my local dealer got in, and compared to that, I just can't find there the extra $25,000 is. MT themselves admitted last month that the Volt is significantly overpriced.

2. The "golf cart" stereotype is not going to be helped when drivers who forget to engage "mountain mode" 20 miles before the pass are forced to turn on their 4-way flashers and move over into the truck lane halfway up (I'd be curious to know if it could keep up with traffic on higher speed (75-85 mph) interstates if there is a head wind).

3. The average car on the road today lasts 15 or more years. The Volt's (very expensive) batteries won't.

I'd admit that the Volt probably does deserve COTY just because of how different it is to everything else on the road, and the potential it represents. But for now, that potential is just that, potential. The ultimate question will be what GM will be able to do with that potential. If they can iron out the shortcomings of the car and make it more mainstream, it will be one of the greatest success stories in the industry. If not, the Volt will remain a niche car with appeal limited to upper-middle class environmentalists.

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by ColdCamaroSS

Yeah, pretty much. My guess is around 17-18% vs 30+ for the middle-class

You'd be wrong. Limbaugh's pay is considered income, and so are his perks. He's paying at as high a rate as we have, and way more than you or anybody you know does.

Edit - You're probably thinking of Warren Buffett, who's income is all capital gains due to him being an investor. He might be paying below middle class income tax levels, but his investments can also be lost.

[Atti2de]

Originally Posted by ColdCamaroSS

Yeah, pretty much. My guess is around 17-18% vs 30+ for the middle-class

lets say rush only pays 5% tax. @ 50 million a year that is still 2.5 million a year in taxes.

so at 17% he pays: 8.5 million a year. Thank god for rich ppl paying taxes otherwise ours would be higher...