Pennock's Fiero Forum
  Totally O/T - Archive
  Death Nail to GM: The Volt Sucks (Page 5)

T H I S   I S   A N   A R C H I V E D   T O P I C
  

Email This Page to Someone! | Printable Version

This topic is 7 pages long:  1   2   3   4   5   6   7 
Previous Page | Next Page
Death Nail to GM: The Volt Sucks by Wichita
Started on: 03-01-2011 10:00 AM
Replies: 265
Last post by: JazzMan on 03-21-2011 11:53 AM
Formula88
Member
Posts: 53788
From: Raleigh NC
Registered: Jan 2001


Feedback score: (3)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 554
Rate this member

Report this Post03-05-2011 01:28 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Formula88Send a Private Message to Formula88Direct Link to This Post
Hydrogen powered ICE vehicles, and more nuke plants to make clean electricity to harvest the Hydrogen.
Won't happen under the current administration, that's for sure. Won't happen ever if people don't get over the NIMBY complex.
IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post03-05-2011 01:49 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Flamberge:
America has a lot more significant mileage requirements than Europe does, and the consumers here feel very differently about what cars are and what they are used for. Right now electric cars - with current battery tech - are simply not a good alternative for the masses.


What I'm curious about is a comparison of the average number of miles driven (say, per work week) of and American versus a European. I wouldn't be surprised if, although the Europeans pay more per gallon, they drive fewer miles. Maybe the transport costs even out?

IP: Logged
rogergarrison
Member
Posts: 49601
From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio
Registered: Apr 99


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 551
Rate this member

Report this Post03-05-2011 03:02 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rogergarrisonSend a Private Message to rogergarrisonDirect Link to This Post
I have nothing to base it on, but my feeling is most european workers work very close to where they live. Prob been that way for centuries. I base that on wages, costs of fuel, and mostly a large percentage of pedestians and cyclists. The US is a country of long commutes. I know people who live by be and work on the other side of town 25 miles away for the same jobs they can get right down the street. ie/ there are Hooter girls at the store close to me that drive 40 miles to work when there is another one a few blocks from their house ....
IP: Logged
82-T/A [At Work]
Member
Posts: 22527
From: Florida USA
Registered: Aug 2002


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 198
Rate this member

Report this Post03-07-2011 09:23 AM Click Here to See the Profile for 82-T/A [At Work]Send a Private Message to 82-T/A [At Work]Direct Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis:


Rave all you want, but the facts are saying that the "help" provided by such "solar cells on the roof" will be an insignificant proportion of the total energy required.

I don't have the numbers for the DOT urban cycle immediately in front of me, but the energy required for a 30 mile trip in a light vehicle would be in the vicinity of 15 KWH (20 hp-hr). How long do you think it will take for "solar cells on the roof," putting out 10 watts per square foot, to recharge the batteries? Assuming a Fiero-sized roof (~11 square feet) and 100% charging efficiency, it would still take 141 hours ... or about 17 days ... at peak solar cell output. That's not much help.




I understand what you guys are saying, but you're focusing on EXCLUSIVELY the negatives for the sole purpose and point of trying to prove me wrong. You're completely shutting out parts of your logic, just so that you can "win" the argument. As Charlie Sheen says... I'm a winner, I don't care if you guys aren't mentally equipped to see it!!!

hahah... but no, seriously... a quick search on YouTube and you'll see that there are actually SEVERAL vehicles that are powered EXCLUSIVELY by Solar Power. There's one guy who has driven all over Europe and Africa with his solar powered vehicle. He has two car batteries to get him through when it's cloudy, and when it's just getting dark, as well as to give him more reasonable power. But other than that, his vehicle is essentially powered by solar energy, with battery assist. Obviously, you'll see that he has a trailer with solar cells on it... but it works. You guys aren't broadening your minds as to what could be capable. You're focusing and boxing yourselves into a pre-conceived notion as to what the vehicle should look like. Understand that even if you made a vehicle that was three times the weight of the vehicle below, and had three times the horsepower (10 horsepower?), you could still have half the solar cells, and it would be enough to recharge the batteries while it was parked in the office parking lot throughout the day, and still be used as plug-in battery powered vehicle.




------------------
Todd,
2008 Jeep Patriot Limited 4x2
2002 Ford Explorer Sport 2dr 4x2
2002 Ford Crown Victoria LX
1987 Pontiac Fiero SE / V6
1973 Volkswagen Type-2 Transporter

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 03-07-2011).]

IP: Logged
avengador1
Member
Posts: 35467
From: Orlando, Florida
Registered: Oct 2001


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 571
Rate this member

Report this Post03-07-2011 10:24 AM Click Here to See the Profile for avengador1Send a Private Message to avengador1Direct Link to This Post
Dale Earnhardt, Jr., on Chevy Volt: ‘The Technology Isn’t There Yet’
http://www.cnsnews.com/news...evy-volt-good-produc
 
quote
NASCAR racer Dale Earnhardt Jr. said that Chevrolet’s “Volt,” a hybrid electric car, is a “good product” but the “technology isn’t there yet really to provide the consumer with something that can go a little further [in mileage] than that and do a little bit better job with that.”

At the National Guard Youth Foundation’s ChalleNGe Champions gala on Tuesday, CNSNews.com asked Earnhardt, “One of the cars that’s been getting a lot of attention, as far as green is concerned, is the Chevy Volt, and Consumer Reports today said that it’s actually, in their mind, inefficient because it only gets 30 miles to a charge – and it’s a lot of money, it’s an expensive car. What do you think about the effort that car companies have made, with specifically the Chevy Volt?”

Earnhardt said, “I think that the Chevy Volt’s a good product. I think that the consumers need to understand how difficult it is to produce a car with the standards that they have, with the guidelines that they have today, that can actually do what the consumer wants and what the consumer expects.”

“The technology isn’t there yet really to provide the consumer with something that can go a little bit further than that [in mileage] and do a little bit better job with that,” said Earnhardt. “But as the technology gets better, batteries and such things like that get safer to where they can be more heavily charged and the mileage can be a little bit longer.”

“That’s down the pike -- but for where we are today, it’s a pretty good product in my mind,” said Earnhardt.

Earnhardt was in Washington, D.C., at the gala with other popular Americans such as American Idol’s Kris Allen and country singer Gretchen Wilson.

“The program itself is pretty special to the [National] Guard and does a lot of good in a lot of states,” Earnhardt told CNSNews.com. “It’s graduated a lot of kids and given kids opportunities they have never had before.”

Consumer Reports said the Volt it tested got 23 to 28 miles per charge and cost $48,700. "For now, it seems that owning a Volt is an expensive way to be green," said the review.


IP: Logged
Pyrthian
Member
Posts: 29569
From: Detroit, MI
Registered: Jul 2002


Feedback score: (5)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 342
Rate this member

Report this Post03-07-2011 10:29 AM Click Here to See the Profile for PyrthianSend a Private Message to PyrthianDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by rogergarrison:
I have nothing to base it on, but my feeling is most european workers work very close to where they live. Prob been that way for centuries. I base that on wages, costs of fuel, and mostly a large percentage of pedestians and cyclists. The US is a country of long commutes. I know people who live by be and work on the other side of town 25 miles away for the same jobs they can get right down the street. ie/ there are Hooter girls at the store close to me that drive 40 miles to work when there is another one a few blocks from their house ....


this is also due to another huge problem: urban sprawl
more a topic for another thread...but - yes - it is a factor in our automotive choices
IP: Logged
JazzMan
Member
Posts: 18612
From:
Registered: Mar 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 653
User Banned

Report this Post03-07-2011 12:34 PM Click Here to See the Profile for JazzManSend a Private Message to JazzManDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Flamberge:


I disagree. If it is then why were there rolling blackouts in Austin during our last cold front? The grid should be able to handle not just normal usage but high demand usage without rolling blackouts..


I don't know about Austin, but the rolling blockouts up here in the Dallas area were due to unintended shutdowns of plants because the plants weren't ready for the cold, according to the utility companies. Also, certain customers got preferential treatment and others that had backup systems weren't warned in time to bring their backup systems on line. In other words, bad management decisions and a failure to prepare or plan caused the need for rolling blockouts, and they were not distributed meaningfully fair way.


 
quote
Originally posted by Flamberge:
And Austin is a nutty city, so I'm sure electric cars will be embraced here faster than any other city in Texas. If we have blackouts now because the weather dropped 20 degrees, what it is going to be like to add thousands upon thousands of electric cars to that same grid?


Half a million new homes will be built in the next twelve months that each will draw more power than a dozen EVs. How many full EVs do you think will be sold in the next ten years? I doubt even a hundred thousand. I agree about Austin being nutty (in a good way).

 
quote
Originally posted by Flamberge:
America has a lot more significant mileage requirements than Europe does, and the consumers here feel very differently about what cars are and what they are used for. Right now electric cars - with current battery tech - are simply not a good alternative for the masses.


We'll have to agree to disagree, then. Most of the rejection of EVs is due to political considerations, because in fact EVs with current (or even old SLA) battery technologies *are* fully capable of meeting a majority of consumer commuting needs.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 03-07-2011).]

IP: Logged
JazzMan
Member
Posts: 18612
From:
Registered: Mar 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 653
User Banned

Report this Post03-07-2011 01:03 PM Click Here to See the Profile for JazzManSend a Private Message to JazzManDirect Link to This Post

JazzMan

18612 posts
Member since Mar 2003
 
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:

Hydrogen powered ICE vehicles, and more nuke plants to make clean electricity to harvest the Hydrogen.
Won't happen under the current administration, that's for sure. Won't happen ever if people don't get over the NIMBY complex.


The only caveat being that the only way to make commercially viable quantities of hydrogen now use natural gas and other fossil fuels for feed stock and process energy supply. In other words, H powered ICE vehicles will keep us dependent on fossil fuels. What's even worse is that the steps involved in cracking hydrogen out of fossil fuels is so inherently inefficient that a fairly high percentage of the starting energy content is wasted as heat in one form or another. What little potential energy you have left is mostly lost as waste heat burning it in an ICE. You would be better off burning the natural gas straight in the engine than stripping out the H and burning that.

Further more, if you want to use electrolysis to make H you'll need electrical plants and grids that completely dwarf our existing grid and plant infrastructure. Because of transformation losses you'd need an electrical supply that was nearly limitless and essentially almost free in order to have H-burning cars that were affordable for more than a handful of owners to drive. That begs the question: If power was that free and easy, why not just use batteries? Losses end to end would be less because electrical motors can be over 90% as efficient converting power to motion compared to ICE of any form only maybe on a good day hits 30% and can't really get much better due to theoretical limitations. And, if you go with batteries for energy storage instead of chemical tanks you can now do regenerative braking and recover energy that otherwise would be lost as brake heat.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 03-08-2011).]

IP: Logged
Flamberge
Member
Posts: 4268
From: Terra Sancta, TX
Registered: Oct 2001


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 89
Rate this member

Report this Post03-07-2011 08:32 PM Click Here to See the Profile for FlambergeSend a Private Message to FlambergeDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:


We'll have to agree to disagree, then. Most of the rejection of EVs is due to political considerations, because in fact EVs with current (or even old SLA) battery technologies *are* fully capable of meeting a majority of consumer commuting needs.



Fair enough, and you're right if you're talking about urban commuters for the most part. I just contend that an electric vehicle is more of a drain on energy resources (in its current stage of development) than a comparable ICE car, especially when considering cost for maintenance, range, efficiency, etc. It's not a knock on electrics - it is just that ICEs have had a big head start. (I know, there were batteries etc being developed a long time ago, but you get my point.)

EDIT: To add that I didn't know you were in Dallas and if you ever want to come down to nutty Austin, look me up and I'll buy you a burger at J&J's.

[This message has been edited by Flamberge (edited 03-07-2011).]

IP: Logged
partfiero
Member
Posts: 6923
From: Tucson, Arizona
Registered: Jan 2002


Feedback score:    (19)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 83
Rate this member

Report this Post03-07-2011 10:29 PM Click Here to See the Profile for partfieroSend a Private Message to partfieroDirect Link to This Post
My wife drove one and didn't like it.
She said she will not drive a car that makes less noise than her vibrator!
IP: Logged
JazzMan
Member
Posts: 18612
From:
Registered: Mar 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 653
User Banned

Report this Post03-08-2011 11:05 AM Click Here to See the Profile for JazzManSend a Private Message to JazzManDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Flamberge:


Fair enough, and you're right if you're talking about urban commuters for the most part. I just contend that an electric vehicle is more of a drain on energy resources (in its current stage of development) than a comparable ICE car, especially when considering cost for maintenance, range, efficiency, etc. It's not a knock on electrics - it is just that ICEs have had a big head start. (I know, there were batteries etc being developed a long time ago, but you get my point.)



On efficiency EVs have a solid win, way, way beyond any kind of ICE car. End to end, it uses far less energy per butt-mile in an EV than it does any kind of ICE.

On maintenance, people look at replacement battery costs but don't look at all the things an EV doesn't even have to maintain, such as oil changes, hoses, anti-freeze flushes, trans lube changes, belts, fuel and lube filters, emissions equipment and sensors, EGR valves, catalytic converters, hell, even the whole exhaust system including mufflers and hanger bits. Radiators, radiator fans, alternators, belt-driven A/C compressors, gaskets, air filters, spark plugs and wires, coils, ignition modules (!), none of these exist on an EV, and all of them are most definitely not lifetime items on an ICE car. Heck, even the batteries on an ICE car rarely last more than 30-40k miles unless really pampered. Owning an ICE car is a lot more expensive than most people think, only because the expenses are spread out over time nickel and dime fashion.
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
atarian
Member
Posts: 970
From: Spring, Tx. USA
Registered: Aug 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post03-08-2011 12:27 PM Click Here to See the Profile for atarianClick Here to visit atarian's HomePageSend a Private Message to atarianDirect Link to This Post
download and Watch "Who killed the electric car?" Volt what a piece of crap!! I would rather drive a golf cart or rather one of those motorized shopping baskets
IP: Logged
timgray
Member
Posts: 2461
From: Muskegon,MI,USA
Registered: Jul 2006


Feedback score: (4)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 59
Rate this member

Report this Post03-08-2011 05:11 PM Click Here to See the Profile for timgrayClick Here to visit timgray's HomePageSend a Private Message to timgrayDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:
....Remember, EVs would fill up nightly but only with the amount of electricity to replace what was used that day. ....[/URL]


Plus losses from the batteries, plus losses from the charger inefficiency.. Basically if you discharge a EV 50% and charge it back up overnight it will take 75% of the energy to charge the batteries back up that 50%.

It's not 100% efficient, it cant be and it never will be. Diminishing returns and the laws of physics dictate this.. in fact most Electronics and electrical Engineers throw a party and wait for a Nobel peace prize in science if they approach 70% efficient on battery systems and chargers.

 
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:


On efficiency EVs have a solid win, way, way beyond any kind of ICE car. End to end, it uses far less energy per butt-mile in an EV than it does any kind of ICE.

On maintenance, people look at replacement battery costs but don't look at all the things an EV doesn't even have to maintain, such as oil changes, hoses, anti-freeze flushes, trans lube changes, belts, fuel and lube filters, emissions equipment and sensors, EGR valves, catalytic converters, hell, even the whole exhaust system including mufflers and hanger bits. Radiators, radiator fans, alternators, belt-driven A/C compressors, gaskets, air filters, spark plugs and wires, coils, ignition modules (!), none of these exist on an EV, and all of them are most definitely not lifetime items on an ICE car. Heck, even the batteries on an ICE car rarely last more than 30-40k miles unless really pampered. Owning an ICE car is a lot more expensive than most people think, only because the expenses are spread out over time nickel and dime fashion.


Woah there. Trans lube changes? yes you do. NO EV has hub driven motors, the Volt uses a transmission that needs lube and that lube needs changing. the only difference in the EV and a ICE is the engine and fuel system all the rest needs the same maintenance.

now you need to maintain the charger, the voltage regulators, the motor speed controllers, the regenerative breaking system, the high voltage wiring, the electric power steering system, the electric AC system, the electric heating system, the secondary 12 volt system, the 18 more onboard computers, the 60+ sensors added for the ev system, oh those battery charge monitors and temperature sensors, and if it's a decent EV that runs on AC, the recitifer system, the AC generation system, the voltage converters, etc..... If it's a crappy EV that runs on DC, then you have motor brushes and higher motor maintaince. Added to that quite a bit more problems with all this electronics that AC delco and GM seem to be getting worse at making last more than a few years, I have yet to hear of a GM car that did not have a Bad BCM, or other electronic module because GM cant have quality electronics in their cars anymore.

Oh and the Volt has a ICE that also needs all the maintenance you said it does not need anymore, so add my list to your list to get the real list. Only a rich man looking for a toy will buy a Chevy Volt.


------------------



Get your copy of the Fiero 25th Anniv book at http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/349809

Best RV, Camper, and Trailer dealer in West Michigan. http://www.cliffstrailersales.com and he's a fiero owner too!

[This message has been edited by timgray (edited 03-08-2011).]

IP: Logged
JazzMan
Member
Posts: 18612
From:
Registered: Mar 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 653
User Banned

Report this Post03-08-2011 05:53 PM Click Here to See the Profile for JazzManSend a Private Message to JazzManDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by timgray:

Plus losses from the batteries, plus losses from the charger inefficiency.. Basically if you discharge a EV 50% and charge it back up overnight it will take 75% of the energy to charge the batteries back up that 50%.

It's not 100% efficient, it cant be and it never will be. Diminishing returns and the laws of physics dictate this.. in fact most Electronics and electrical Engineers throw a party and wait for a Nobel peace prize in science if they approach 70% efficient on battery systems and chargers.


My comments WRT to full EVs. Do you have a cite on those efficiency numbers? I'm not sure, but your numbers as written seem to imply that 25% of energy used to charge is lost somehow. Here's an article that says that number is closer to 10-12% with older technology and implies that the mid to low single digits will soon be available: http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1731

Of course it will never bee 100% efficient, but it can and is highly efficient, certainly higher than the 70% mentioned here and most certainly higher end to end compared to ICE technology.

Here's a well-cited article that addresses your concerns: http://www.electroauto.com/info/pollmyth.shtml


 
quote
Originally posted by timgray:
Woah there. Trans lube changes? yes you do. NO EV has hub driven motors, the Volt uses a transmission that needs lube and that lube needs changing. the only difference in the EV and a ICE is the engine and fuel system all the rest needs the same maintenance.


The EV-1 used a simple differential gear box requiring a few pint lube change every hundred thousand miles or so. Because there were no automatic transmission-type mechanisms including wearing friction bands and heat-producing torque converters the lube stays clean and contaminant-free. Compare that to the typical automatic transmission filter and fluid flush and change which can cost well over $100, maybe even $200, and has to be done more frequently than 100K miles (if you want your trans to last, and even then as recent history has shown that's no guarantee). Again, my comments WRT a full EV, which having no transmission or oil pan incurs much less routine maintenance costs over time. Also, not having or needing a transmission a full EV doesn't even have true driveline losses, which are typically 15% or higher with transmission-equipped ICE vehicles.


 
quote
Originally posted by timgray:
now you need to maintain the charger, the voltage regulators, the motor speed controllers, the regenerative breaking system, the high voltage wiring, the electric power steering system, the electric AC system, the electric heating system, the secondary 12 volt system, the 18 more onboard computers, the 60+ sensors added for the ev system, oh those battery charge monitors and temperature sensors, and if it's a decent EV that runs on AC, the recitifer system, the AC generation system, the voltage converters, etc..... If it's a crappy EV that runs on DC, then you have motor brushes and higher motor maintaince. Added to that quite a bit more problems with all this electronics that AC delco and GM seem to be getting worse at making last more than a few years, I have yet to hear of a GM car that did not have a Bad BCM, or other electronic module because GM cant have quality electronics in their cars anymore.

Oh and the Volt has a ICE that also needs all the maintenance you said it does not need anymore, so add my list to your list to get the real list. Only a rich man looking for a toy will buy a Chevy Volt.



You listed all sorts of things that "need maintenance" on an EV that don't actually need maintenance. What wears out due to normal wear and tear on high-voltage wiring? Metal doesn't wear when electrons move through it, unless I missed something in Physics 101. Sensors wear out? On cars MAF, O2, TPS, and CTS wear out pretty regularly, mostly due to mechanical actions or contamination. Battery temperature sensors don't wear out. Essentially, all of the stuff you list as maintenance items aren't maintenance items, and wouldn't be items expected to have to be replaced as a routine part of ownership.

On brakes, the maintenance is the same as an ICE with the same complexity of ABS. The regenerative braking is done through the driveline/motor, not the brakes.

And I'm running the original ECM in my Formula with 277K miles, still works just fine.

Again, the Volt isn't a full EV, we get that, and again there's no long-term quality history on it simply because it's brand new. But as far as full EVs go, what I wrote stands.
IP: Logged
Pyrthian
Member
Posts: 29569
From: Detroit, MI
Registered: Jul 2002


Feedback score: (5)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 342
Rate this member

Report this Post03-10-2011 01:46 PM Click Here to See the Profile for PyrthianSend a Private Message to PyrthianDirect Link to This Post
Just saw an odd Chevy Volt
looked like it had a body kit, resembling a newer cadillac
and mildy flared fenders
but, what was amazing is when it got on the freeway.
must have a "hot arm" or something, because that thing just lit up & zoomed off
wasnt able to see if it had a manufacturers plate or if it was a private owned Volt
but it was FAST. cant say it was "good looking" - but it certianly was eye catching
IP: Logged
JazzMan
Member
Posts: 18612
From:
Registered: Mar 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 653
User Banned

Report this Post03-10-2011 02:09 PM Click Here to See the Profile for JazzManSend a Private Message to JazzManDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Pyrthian:

Just saw an odd Chevy Volt
looked like it had a body kit, resembling a newer cadillac
and mildy flared fenders
but, what was amazing is when it got on the freeway.
must have a "hot arm" or something, because that thing just lit up & zoomed off
wasnt able to see if it had a manufacturers plate or if it was a private owned Volt
but it was FAST. cant say it was "good looking" - but it certianly was eye catching


It's nice when you can develop 100% of your peak torque at zero RPM with lag in the milliseconds...
IP: Logged
madcurl
Member
Posts: 21401
From: In a Van down by the Kern River
Registered: Jul 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 314
Rate this member

Report this Post03-10-2011 02:14 PM Click Here to See the Profile for madcurlSend a Private Message to madcurlDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by The Detroit News:


Champion believes a hybrid, such as the Toyota Prius, may make more sense for some trips.

"If you drive about 70 miles, a Prius will actually get you more miles per gallon than the Volt does," Champion said.
From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/...nse’#ixzz1GE2NxIjB


Amazing. GM couldn't get it right even with a Prius right in front of them. Could've used a Sky and mounted it up with batteries in the back.
IP: Logged
rogergarrison
Member
Posts: 49601
From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio
Registered: Apr 99


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 551
Rate this member

Report this Post03-10-2011 02:28 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rogergarrisonSend a Private Message to rogergarrisonDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Pyrthian:

Just saw an odd Chevy Volt
looked like it had a body kit, resembling a newer cadillac
and mildy flared fenders
but, what was amazing is when it got on the freeway.
must have a "hot arm" or something, because that thing just lit up & zoomed off
wasnt able to see if it had a manufacturers plate or if it was a private owned Volt
but it was FAST. cant say it was "good looking" - but it certianly was eye catching


But you would catch up quick when it ran out of juice a few exits farther..... Of course I can already see 'ricers' putting high output batteries in them with fake fart cans and a few Everyready/ Duracell decals on it, lmao.

IP: Logged
Pyrthian
Member
Posts: 29569
From: Detroit, MI
Registered: Jul 2002


Feedback score: (5)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 342
Rate this member

Report this Post03-10-2011 02:33 PM Click Here to See the Profile for PyrthianSend a Private Message to PyrthianDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by rogergarrison:
But you would catch up quick when it ran out of juice a few exits farther..... Of course I can already see 'ricers' putting high output batteries in them with fake fart cans and a few Everyready/ Duracell decals on it, lmao.


lol - exactly what I was thinking too
them batteries are gonna be dead by the time he gets to the 96/M-10 interchange

but - either way - that thing was F-A-S-T.
IP: Logged
Marvin McInnis
Member
Posts: 11599
From: ~ Kansas City, USA
Registered: Apr 2002


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 227
Rate this member

Report this Post03-10-2011 02:37 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Marvin McInnisClick Here to visit Marvin McInnis's HomePageSend a Private Message to Marvin McInnisDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by madcurl:

Amazing. GM couldn't get it right even with a Prius right in front of them.



The simplicity, efficiency, and technical superiority of the patented Toyota hybrid transmission is going to be difficult for any manufacturer to match. Patents do matter.
IP: Logged
turbotoad
Member
Posts: 1392
From: Clarkston, MI
Registered: Jul 2002


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post03-10-2011 05:25 PM Click Here to See the Profile for turbotoadSend a Private Message to turbotoadDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Pyrthian:


lol - exactly what I was thinking too
them batteries are gonna be dead by the time he gets to the 96/M-10 interchange


No matter.....the battery gets low and the ICE generator kicks in.......same power for another 300 miles (assuming the gas tank is full). That's the beauty of the Volt, it's driven by the same electric drive motors regardless of whether the battery or the "range extending motor" is providing the energy to them.

IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
madcurl
Member
Posts: 21401
From: In a Van down by the Kern River
Registered: Jul 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 314
Rate this member

Report this Post03-10-2011 05:42 PM Click Here to See the Profile for madcurlSend a Private Message to madcurlDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis:


The simplicity, efficiency, and technical superiority of the patented Toyota hybrid transmission is going to be difficult for any manufacturer to match. Patents do matter.


Then GM is doomed from the "get-go." Even Honda has the Insight and they've seem to be going okay (I don't think Toyota would be sharing info with Honda?). Still it's pretty sad GM is in dead last.

[This message has been edited by madcurl (edited 03-10-2011).]

IP: Logged
JazzMan
Member
Posts: 18612
From:
Registered: Mar 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 653
User Banned

Report this Post03-10-2011 06:20 PM Click Here to See the Profile for JazzManSend a Private Message to JazzManDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by madcurl:


Then GM is doomed from the "get-go." Even Honda has the Insight and they've seem to be going okay (I don't think Toyota would be sharing info with Honda?). Still it's pretty sad GM is in dead last.



They were so far ahead in the race there wasn't even a second or third place back in the 1990's with the EV-1. It had better performance (0-60 in 8 seconds) and range (over 100+ miles with the NiMH pack) than anything else in production then or now. It was purely a management decision that caused them to discard and abandon that technology, and thus give up the technological lead. Now they're far behind and not likely to catch up. And that's a real shame. What kind of idiot stops running in the middle of the race?
IP: Logged
Marvin McInnis
Member
Posts: 11599
From: ~ Kansas City, USA
Registered: Apr 2002


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 227
Rate this member

Report this Post03-10-2011 06:40 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Marvin McInnisClick Here to visit Marvin McInnis's HomePageSend a Private Message to Marvin McInnisDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:

What kind of idiot stops running in the middle of the race?



An idiot that is making money hand over fist selling light trucks and SUVs ... and thinks it's never going to end.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 03-10-2011).]

IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post03-10-2011 07:00 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:


They were so far ahead in the race there wasn't even a second or third place back in the 1990's with the EV-1. It had better performance (0-60 in 8 seconds) and range (over 100+ miles with the NiMH pack) than anything else in production then or now. It was purely a management decision that caused them to discard and abandon that technology, and thus give up the technological lead. Now they're far behind and not likely to catch up. And that's a real shame. What kind of idiot stops running in the middle of the race?


Here is an interesting article from "green car.com". It seems to be a fair article. Note the following excerpted points against the EV-1:

An artificially low price of $33,995 was initially assigned to the car even though its undisclosed production cost was much, much higher.

17. Battery costs are believed to have been $20,000 to $30,000 for the electric vehicle models manufactured by automakers during the 1990s test marketing period. While no auto manufacturer has officially stated actual battery costs, back-channel discussions with those involved in these programs indicate these cost figures are realistic. The EV1's T-shaped battery pack surely fell within this range. While it's true that mass production volume can significantly decrease costs for many components, battery cost was so great that volume could not overcome this problem at the time ... it would only result in more profound losses.
IP: Logged
madcurl
Member
Posts: 21401
From: In a Van down by the Kern River
Registered: Jul 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 314
Rate this member

Report this Post03-10-2011 07:37 PM Click Here to See the Profile for madcurlSend a Private Message to madcurlDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:


They were so far ahead in the race there wasn't even a second or third place back in the 1990's with the EV-1. It had better performance (0-60 in 8 seconds) and range (over 100+ miles with the NiMH pack) than anything else in production then or now. It was purely a management decision that caused them to discard and abandon that technology, and thus give up the technological lead. Now they're far behind and not likely to catch up. And that's a real shame. What kind of idiot stops running in the middle of the race?


Sad. Simply sad. So GM was using a better mouse trap than say, Tesla is using now?
IP: Logged
timgray
Member
Posts: 2461
From: Muskegon,MI,USA
Registered: Jul 2006


Feedback score: (4)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 59
Rate this member

Report this Post03-10-2011 08:14 PM Click Here to See the Profile for timgrayClick Here to visit timgray's HomePageSend a Private Message to timgrayDirect Link to This Post
"You listed all sorts of things that "need maintenance" on an EV that don't actually need maintenance."

I'll tell a friend that has built Electric cars for the past 20 years that, he will laugh his head off. Speed controllers DIE. Or do all the electric golf carts ever made all work perfectly and never fail? There is decades of precedence of maintaince problems in EV's. EV's have been around a very long time, there is a clear history and clear list of maintaince needs that you seem to think do not exist. Do not assume these cars are built to high standards... My prior experience with GM tells me the Volt will explode in a Blue Arc of voltage within 3-4 years, or 3 months after the warranty runs out, whichever comes first. These cars are built as cheaply as possible with lots of china made parts.

Batteries do not charge at 100% efficiency, you need to include battery charge losses AND charger losses together. and together, it's close to 30% loss. If your battery get's warm, that is energy wasted. guess what, ALL batteries get warm when charging. You are only counting the charger losses, I am counting ALL the charging losses.
IP: Logged
carnut122
Member
Posts: 9122
From: Waleska, GA, USA
Registered: Jan 2004


Feedback score:    (9)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 83
Rate this member

Report this Post03-10-2011 09:11 PM Click Here to See the Profile for carnut122Send a Private Message to carnut122Direct Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by madcurl:


Amazing. GM couldn't get it right even with a Prius right in front of them. Could've used a Sky and mounted it up with batteries in the back.


In my opinion, imitating a Prius would have been a huge mistake.
IP: Logged
JazzMan
Member
Posts: 18612
From:
Registered: Mar 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 653
User Banned

Report this Post03-11-2011 11:15 AM Click Here to See the Profile for JazzManSend a Private Message to JazzManDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by madcurl:


Sad. Simply sad. So GM was using a better mouse trap than say, Tesla is using now?


For the price, yeah. Fierobear posted some excerpts from an article that seem to say the battery pack was obscenely expensive. I talked to one of the engineers in the EV-1 program back then about the battery pack design. It consisted of standard SLA cells from I think Panasonic, I think there were something like 26 of them because he mentioned a 312 V system, or something like that. If you figure the batteries were $100 back then (they're not even that, now) the base cost of the pack would have been less than $3,000. Even if the cells were $200 each ($336 in today's dollars!) the pack would still have only taken $6,000 worth of batteries. Where the other $17,000 to 27,000 of battery pack cost cited in that article could have come from I have no idea. The NiMH pack of the day would have been much more expensive as that was very new technology back then, but I doubt even it could have reached $30K.

I do remember back then the discussion on pricing of the car. The planned MSRP for the production vehicle was definitely less than production costs of the EV-1, but the reason for that was easy to understand. The EV-1 was a serially-produced prototype, each one was hand built and hand assembled with mostly hand-made parts. The actual production costs would have been significantly less once it was into true mass production. How much profit would they have made the first year? Probably none if you just added up all the engineering costs and manufacturing facility setup then divided by the first year's production run. Of course, if you did that with the Fiero the result would have been the same.

However, that's not the way things are done. Instead, those costs are spread out over several years and when done properly the EV-1 would no doubt have been profitable since there was a definite market for them. There was a years-long waiting list to get on a lease, and not a single one went unleased. Most leasees wanted to renew but the limit was one lease time period per person. I remember seeing news articles of people offering to buy their EV-1 for $100,000 when GM killed the program, practically begging GM to sell. When's the last time you saw a car manufacturer offer something that people would beg to pay more than triple MSRP to buy?

The Tesla also has a waiting list to purchase, it looks like it costs $5,000 to get onto that, despite the approximate $100K price.

In terms of battery pack technology Tesla is the current leader with the lithium technology, but I still am of the opinion that the drivetrain of the EV-1 is superior, though perhaps only marginally so. Important to note, the LiFePO4 technology that it appears the Tesla uses didn't exist when the EV-1 was being made.

As a parting philosophical question I ask this: A friend of a guy at work just ordered a new 2011 loaded Tahoe for $55,000 plus taxes, fees, etc, which will top the price out at just under $60,000. He chose this vehicle because it met his needs and desires. If someone buys a Volt for $44,000 out the door and it meets their needs and desires, is their decision any better or worse than the first person's?

------------------
Bring back civility and decorum!

It's possible to understand someone's point of view without accepting it. It's possible to disagree with someone without being rude and nasty about it. Sure it's hard, but nothing worth doing is ever easy, is it?

IP: Logged
madcurl
Member
Posts: 21401
From: In a Van down by the Kern River
Registered: Jul 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 314
Rate this member

Report this Post03-11-2011 12:45 PM Click Here to See the Profile for madcurlSend a Private Message to madcurlDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:


For the price, yeah. Fierobear posted some excerpts from an article that seem to say the battery pack was obscenely expensive. I talked to one of the engineers in the EV-1 program back then about the battery pack design. It consisted of standard SLA cells from I think Panasonic, I think there were something like 26 of them because he mentioned a 312 V system, or something like that. If you figure the batteries were $100 back then (they're not even that, now) the base cost of the pack would have been less than $3,000. Even if the cells were $200 each ($336 in today's dollars!) the pack would still have only taken $6,000 worth of batteries. Where the other $17,000 to 27,000 of battery pack cost cited in that article could have come from I have no idea. The NiMH pack of the day would have been much more expensive as that was very new technology back then, but I doubt even it could have reached $30K.

I do remember back then the discussion on pricing of the car. The planned MSRP for the production vehicle was definitely less than production costs of the EV-1, but the reason for that was easy to understand. The EV-1 was a serially-produced prototype, each one was hand built and hand assembled with mostly hand-made parts. The actual production costs would have been significantly less once it was into true mass production. How much profit would they have made the first year? Probably none if you just added up all the engineering costs and manufacturing facility setup then divided by the first year's production run. Of course, if you did that with the Fiero the result would have been the same.

However, that's not the way things are done. Instead, those costs are spread out over several years and when done properly the EV-1 would no doubt have been profitable since there was a definite market for them. There was a years-long waiting list to get on a lease, and not a single one went unleased. Most leasees wanted to renew but the limit was one lease time period per person. I remember seeing news articles of people offering to buy their EV-1 for $100,000 when GM killed the program, practically begging GM to sell. When's the last time you saw a car manufacturer offer something that people would beg to pay more than triple MSRP to buy?

The Tesla also has a waiting list to purchase, it looks like it costs $5,000 to get onto that, despite the approximate $100K price.

In terms of battery pack technology Tesla is the current leader with the lithium technology, but I still am of the opinion that the drivetrain of the EV-1 is superior, though perhaps only marginally so. Important to note, the LiFePO4 technology that it appears the Tesla uses didn't exist when the EV-1 was being made.



Thank you Sir for your insight. Good information. I didn't know people were begging GM for renewals and offering 100k for the EV-1. My goodness, GM's leadership acted very stupidly on several levels. Canceling the program and then destroying the car.

One other question: was the EV-1 a normal plug-in unit (110v)? Or did they need a special device or connection?
IP: Logged
82-T/A [At Work]
Member
Posts: 22527
From: Florida USA
Registered: Aug 2002


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 198
Rate this member

Report this Post03-11-2011 12:54 PM Click Here to See the Profile for 82-T/A [At Work]Send a Private Message to 82-T/A [At Work]Direct Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:

As a parting philosophical question I ask this: A friend of a guy at work just ordered a new 2011 loaded Tahoe for $55,000 plus taxes, fees, etc, which will top the price out at just under $60,000. He chose this vehicle because it met his needs and desires. If someone buys a Volt for $44,000 out the door and it meets their needs and desires, is their decision any better or worse than the first person's?



No, not at all, it's no more or less frivilous to buying a Pontiac Solstice, or a Fiero for that matter.

I don't like it when some of the companies over-exaggerate the claims.


What I wonder about (and what I was mentioning above), is WHY there HAS to be so much regulation and requirements when it comes to building many of these light and ultra-efficient cars. It seems to me that the majority of the people who would buy these ultra-efficient cars (like the Smart-Car) are going to be using it in the city, or in busy suburbia. Why then does it need to conform to highway requirements? I would bet what made the EV1 so successful was the fact that at that time, cars were much lighter. Weight really has a lot to do with everything. The fact that my 2006 Pontiac Solstice convertible weighs as much as my 4-door Pontiac Grand Am Sedan did... is just beyond me.

I also wonder why Ford doesn't bring over the Fiesta Diesel? Apparently it got close to 70 miles to the gallon (imperial) in Europe.

------------------
Todd,
2008 Jeep Patriot Limited 4x2
2002 Ford Explorer Sport 2dr 4x2
2002 Ford Crown Victoria LX
1987 Pontiac Fiero SE / V6
1973 Volkswagen Type-2 Transporter

IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
JazzMan
Member
Posts: 18612
From:
Registered: Mar 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 653
User Banned

Report this Post03-11-2011 01:02 PM Click Here to See the Profile for JazzManSend a Private Message to JazzManDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by madcurl:


Thank you Sir for your insight. Good information. I didn't know people were begging GM for renewals and offering 100k for the EV-1. My goodness, GM's leadership acted very stupidly on several levels. Canceling the program and then destroying the car.

One other question: was the EV-1 a normal plug-in unit (110v)? Or did they need a special device or connection?


Regular plug in that would work with both. The 220V system charged faster, obviously. The engineers had developed a non-contact method of charging even faster, imagine splitting a high-frequency transformer such that one coil was in the car and the other, molded in solid plastic, fit into a slot and into the first coil. Highly efficient and inherently safe. You could pee on the connection with no risk, if you were so inclined. A lot of great technology was being invented by those guys before they were cut off at the knees.

A little back-story: The EV-1 program came about because CA passed laws requiring a certain (small) percentage of a manufacturer's vehicle sales in the state be ZLEV, essentially near zero pollution The quickest way to meet this was EV, so the Impact was done to prove the concept and the EV-1 program was used to validate the new technologies flying out of the engineering labs on a daily basis. Then GM decided to spend millions of dollars lobbying to kill the law and succeeded, thus ending the reason (legislatively, anyway) for the program. Once the law was gone GM killed the program, and to make sure the technology never got used again destroyed the cars physically. Interestingly, Ford and Mazda had similar programs and both sold their cars to the users. You still see them turn up once in a while.

------------------
Bring back civility and decorum!

It's possible to understand someone's point of view without accepting it. It's possible to disagree with someone without being rude and nasty about it. Sure it's hard, but nothing worth doing is ever easy, is it?

IP: Logged
madcurl
Member
Posts: 21401
From: In a Van down by the Kern River
Registered: Jul 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 314
Rate this member

Report this Post03-11-2011 01:08 PM Click Here to See the Profile for madcurlSend a Private Message to madcurlDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:

Regular plug in that would work with both. The 220V system charged faster, obviously. The engineers had developed a non-contact method of charging even faster, imagine splitting a high-frequency transformer such that one coil was in the car and the other, molded in solid plastic, fit into a slot and into the first coil. Highly efficient and inherently safe. You could pee on the connection with no risk, if you were so inclined. A lot of great technology was being invented by those guys before they were cut off at the knees.



Wow! Is that technology still available or was it too destroyed?
IP: Logged
JazzMan
Member
Posts: 18612
From:
Registered: Mar 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 653
User Banned

Report this Post03-11-2011 02:18 PM Click Here to See the Profile for JazzManSend a Private Message to JazzManDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by madcurl:


Wow! Is that technology still available or was it too destroyed?


Gone.

Any decent EE with inverter power supply design experience could replicate it, but they'd be starting from scratch of course.

------------------
Bring back civility and decorum!

It's possible to understand someone's point of view without accepting it. It's possible to disagree with someone without being rude and nasty about it. Sure it's hard, but nothing worth doing is ever easy, is it?

IP: Logged
Marvin McInnis
Member
Posts: 11599
From: ~ Kansas City, USA
Registered: Apr 2002


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 227
Rate this member

Report this Post03-11-2011 04:51 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Marvin McInnisClick Here to visit Marvin McInnis's HomePageSend a Private Message to Marvin McInnisDirect Link to This Post
While we're at it, I will remind everyone that EVs are not a new idea:



Back when this 1917 Detroit Electric was new, you could buy a new Model T Ford for about $400. The Detroit Electric cost $4500! It was primarily a "lady's car" or a "doctor's car." The car had an advertised range of at least 80 miles between charges, but in one independent test the it went 211 miles before the batteries were exhausted. Top speed was about 20 mph, which helps with the range. Interestingly, steering is by tiller bar and there are two of them; you can drive the car from either the front seat or the back seat.

FWIW, this example has never been restored. Except for the tires and the batteries, it is still 100% original ... even the upholstery. As you might surmise from the underside of the right front fender, the owner keeps it licensed and insured, and occasionally drives it on the street. He also has the original battery charger from 1917, and it looks like something from the set of the movie Frankenstein.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 03-12-2011).]

IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post03-12-2011 03:46 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearDirect Link to This Post
What I don't understand is why the don't make hybrids in cars like diesel-electric drive systems in trains? As I understand it, diesel locomotives use the diesel engines as electric generators, and the drive wheels are electric motors. Why won't this work for cars? Does it only work for the more constant speed of a train?
IP: Logged
Marvin McInnis
Member
Posts: 11599
From: ~ Kansas City, USA
Registered: Apr 2002


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 227
Rate this member

Report this Post03-12-2011 04:50 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Marvin McInnisClick Here to visit Marvin McInnis's HomePageSend a Private Message to Marvin McInnisDirect Link to This Post
You are correct that the relatively constant-power required of a railroad locomotive favors the diesel-electric combo. (This is also sometimes called a "series hybrid" design.) The critical requirement for a railroad traction engine is very high but controllable torque at zero or very low axle speed. The very high weight of a diesel-electric setup is also not a problem in railroad service, and under some conditions it is even desirable.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 03-22-2011).]

IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post03-13-2011 01:30 AM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis:
The very high weight of a diesel-electric setup is also not a problem in railroad service, and under some conditions it is even desirable.


In your opinion, is it scalable to cars?

IP: Logged
Marvin McInnis
Member
Posts: 11599
From: ~ Kansas City, USA
Registered: Apr 2002


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 227
Rate this member

Report this Post03-13-2011 12:26 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Marvin McInnisClick Here to visit Marvin McInnis's HomePageSend a Private Message to Marvin McInnisDirect Link to This Post
I haven't studied the diesel-electric power train in any detail, so I don't know. I expect that there would be at least four problem areas in implementing the idea for automotive use:

1) Scaling down large power trains (as you suggest) is often difficult with respect to specific weight (pounds per hp) and efficiency.

2) The ratio of peak-to-average power required is much higher for an automobile than for a train. This means that a diesel-electric powertrain would probably have to be substantially oversized to maintain acceptable performance. A conventional hybrid uses batteries to provide a high peak-to-average power ratio.

3) Weight, which is critical to automobile efficiency, would probably be much higher than contemporary powertrains.

4) The diesel-electric powertrain does not provide for any energy recovery during braking. Locomotives actually use big resistor packs (and big cooling blowers) to implement dynamic braking without any energy recovery.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 03-22-2011).]

IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post03-13-2011 12:33 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearDirect Link to This Post
I thought I'd read that the Volt would be a different hybrid in that it was electric drive *only*, meaning the electric motors would be the only thing driving the wheels, and that the gas engine was going to do nothing but provide electrical generation? I think it was also going to have batteries that you could charge at home and run battery-only for the shorter distances. Obviously, they changed that set up. Has anyone else read that?
IP: Logged
Previous Page | Next Page

This topic is 7 pages long:  1   2   3   4   5   6   7 


All times are ET (US)

T H I S   I S   A N   A R C H I V E D   T O P I C
  

Contact Us | Back To Main Page

Advertizing on PFF | Fiero Parts Vendors
PFF Merchandise | Fiero Gallery | Ogre's Cave
Real-Time Chat | Fiero Related Auctions on eBay



Copyright (c) 1999, C. Pennock