$41,000...for a gov't-made car?!?

Ya know, the funny part of this is: electric cars were actually better than gas-powered vehicles ... in the 1890's. One can only imagine what the world would be like if the electricity infrastructure had been available to support them, and keep them from being overshadowed by gas-powered cars.

 

Who exactly do they think has the money to buy this anyway? At that price, I'd sure expect something better than a GM!

 

>Why would anyone pay $9,000 more for a vehicle that is, statistically, likely to be inferior to its cheaper competitor?

Since when do real Christians believe in statistics?

 

The Volt has a gas powered generator that enables it to go farther than the Nissan, so that's one plus.

What I don't get is why people buy new cars when you can get a decent used one for cheaper.

 

You can't get a used Volt, not that I would buy any electric automobile.

 

Couple of thoughts...the Volt has been a pipe-dream since it got started. Nobody is expecting it to be serious.

Now the Tesla, there is a very good concept with lots of headroom for growth.

Anyhoo, at this point I think the most truly energy efficient vehicle would be a VW with one of those super-diesel engines. The things get like 50+ mpg. While the rest of the world has been working on hybrid they've been perfecting the diesel engine. Pretty cool stuff.

 

Yes, I am also leary of new models. I drive a 2008 Ford Ranger pickup, they've been around a while. Also, $41,000 dollars would buy two of my trucks and pay for my motorcycle with money left over for gasoline for two years!

 

I would purchase an electric vehicle, or at least a hybrid, for myself to drive my 3 miles to work each day - at a good price - the next time I am in the market for a vehicle; which I hope is a long, long time. I enjoy not having a car payment currently.

 

My commuter car is a '92 Subaru that I paid $800 for 5 years ago. It costs me about $500 a year on average to maintain it, so I've spent, on avegage, $660 a year for the car. I can buy a Volt now and it will pay for itself in 62 years! Odds are better that I'll live that long than that the Volt would last that long.

 

Rename it the Hindenburg.

 

Three miles to work - in Arkansas?

And you need a car to commute?

Get a scooter.

 

I live 3 miles from my company's office building.

A scooter? Don't think I would like that in the case of rain, snow, freezing temperatures, or 100 degree heat.

There have been 5 parking places set aside for motorcycles at work.

 

I had an aunt in central Texas who came to visit around 20 years ago who had spent some of her childhood in northwest Arkansas during The Great Depression and she was amazed that in Arkansas that we now have paved roads and modern buildings.

 

Thats a great point! Thanks for having some common sense which this Obama nation no longer, or if ever had.

Since Berry & Company has already labored hard to make us a Socialist Nation, why not just remake the VW Beetle....Mass Produce & make it cheap. Maybe even put people back to work even!

 

Just mulling it over in my mind, maybe we shouldn't be too hard on the Volt and GM. This is new technology, so it is pricey. For starters, it will be available only to the wealthy who like to take risks and try new things. If the product proves viable, the price will come down and it will be more accessible to more people. There is no crime in trying something new either for the manufacturer or the customer.

An illustration: As a kid, I remember my father buying a battery operated handheld calculator with four simple math functions and a memory key. He paid about $30 for it and this was in the mid-seventies. Today, you can buy a calculator that will do that for 50 cents. The device was useful and the technology became less expensive and more accessible.

The problem with the Volt is that it has a bigger hurdle to clear than the calculator had. The calculator did something with speed and accuracy, the combination of which could not be duplicated. The Volt is trying to do something--provide an efficient operation, long range, clean emissions, ease of operation, reliability--that is already done VERY WELL by the existing technology. The internal combustion engine has been around over 100 years; is very well developed, and has tremendous potential for greater efficiency, cleanliness, and increased power. Ultimately, the electric powered vehicle has to out-perform the ICE in EVERY WAY for it to overtake it. I think that is a LONG way off.

The hybrid car from Toyota has now been on the market for 10 years. how are hybrids doing? They sell pretty well and Toyota plans more, but their growth and acceptance in the marketplace has been pretty slow. Compared to ICE equipped cars, hybrids get better gas mileage. Otherwise, they generally perform more poorly (they are slow, shift clunkily, and handle poorly) and they are more expensive. In my experience, people buy hybrids and they like them. But often they trade them in and return to ICE cars. And here's the contrast and the hurdle that new motorcar technologies have to overcome. When my father bought his hand-held calculator, his response was something like this: "What a great tool! It was a little pricey, but it makes my math work so much faster that I could never be without it! I'd never go back to counting on my fingers and toes". People do not respond that way to hybrid cars and they will not respond that way to the Volt or the Nissan Leaf either. Until they do, until new technology cars improve, or until gasoline becomes so expensive that the economy of new tech cars outweighs their disadvantages, ICE cars will continue to be the vehicles of choice.