Chevrolet Volt/Cadillac ELR Thread: 2016 EPA Ratings

  • Thread starter Thread starter YSSMAN
  • 717 comments
  • 86,847 views
It seems logical that they'd get them now that LEDs (I believe) are legal. Seems like C/D mentioned that in their review of the 2009 A4, but I can't recall with certainty. They're more efficent than the regular bulbs I think, and since everything will be running off the battery, I'm positive that they'd want to get everything right like that to start.
 
I don't get it why it is so difficult for GM to make their electric car run more than 40 miles, while the Tesla does about 250 miles before the batteries have to be recharged.
Granted, the Tesla is a light weight but still, 210 miles more!?
 
Last edited:
I'm still curious as to what the rear will look. I like the front but I still don't have an idea of the shape of the car. If it's a look like the Prius.... I don't know.

Kikie: Granted the Tesla does cost a TON more.
 
Tesla isn't a big operation though... They wouldn't have the resources GM would yet they were able to make it.
 
The Volt has a limited budget. In that budget they also had to shoehorn in chassis development and stuff that Tesla doesn't have to worry about.
 
Tesla = big money. Big money = big batteries.

Ever wonder how much it costs in terms of batteries to give a Prius an actual battery-only range?

$4995 for 360 pounds of batteries that can go 15 miles.

So... 40 miles, say $15,000 worth of batteries at over 1000 pounds.

GM has to get that range out of batteries that don't weigh 1000 pounds, or the car won't fly. And they have to do chassis development... and testing and mass production... etcetera.

Tesla, on the other hand, took a Lotus Elise, stripped the drivetrain, shoehorned in a whole lot of expensive Li-Ion batteries and made a sportscar that costs a hell of a lot of money. (I've always held that the Tesla, intriguing and appealing though it is... does not go over any ground not already covered by previous electric sports cars... http://www.venturifetish.fr ...it's just that it does it at a level of finish and a price point that's better than the incredibly limited Fetish.)

Honestly... GM has gone it alone with electric-only vehicles and now with electric-charge-depleting hybrids for decades... they did as much as they could do with the EV1, but the market wasn't there to support them... how could they sell electric cars when people didn't want to pay for them?

Much as I don't care for many GM products, I seriously hope the Volt works out.
 
There's this movie called "Who Killed the Electric Car?" and in it there's a segment where a battery manufacture produced really good batts at the time, so GM bought them and then put them out of business. What do I say to that? It's their own damn fault they can't afford big money for big batteries.
 
Who Killed The Electric Car? was a terrible documentary along the Micheal Moore path. It has so many problems with common sense ideas that the things it does do right are few and far between.
 
Toronado
Who Killed The Electric Car? was a terrible documentary along the Micheal Moore path. It has so many problems with common sense ideas that the things it does do right are few and far between.
Click to expand...


QFT. 👍
 
Which is why I specifically talked about the battery segment of it instead of THE WHOLE film... :rolleyes:
 
But the validity of every segment in the film is put into question when it gets basic concepts like supply and demand wrong.
 
Who Killed the Electric Car? is so full of crap you really can't take anything away from it. The reason the EV-1 didn't make it was because fuel was $1.00 a gallon during that time and people were thinking big SUV's and trucks, not small, electric cars which were more or less boiled down to a Saturn....something most people didn't want during that time.

I have no doubt oil companies buy up technologies to keep us using their product longer but I can't see an automotive company doing it for the same reason. They want the technology so they can be the first to cash in on a niche market.
 
First to Cash in...? Then, why wasn't GM first in the "hybrid" race? Why was it Toyota? You know the answer, but since you are bias towards GM you won't say it... It's also not the people's fault nobody wanted Saturn.

GM relied on it's SUVs fully knowing about the fuel problem.
 
It's funny how much you have no idea what you are talking about. No one knew about the pending fuel problem, for all we know the Chinese market could have collapsed, the Indians could have not discovered vehicles, and the US could not have gone to war with several Middle Eastern countries. The fuel problem was based on a lot of ifs and GM, or any of the Big Three for that matter, didn't foresee it happening soon. If you can prove to me otherwise I would love to see it and if you want my evidence look at how the market played out.

My girlfriend's mom was working on a project at GM back in the mid 90's for hybrid vehicles but it was cancelled since they didn't see a future in it. When fuel is cheap people aren't thinking about small electric cars, one doesn't need a degree in marketing to see that. You make and develop what people are interested in the time to fill that niche.

Toyota saw things differently, obviously. Also their sole market isn't Americans and people in just about every other part of the world were more concerned with the cost of fuel then we were through the 90's and early 00's. I highly doubt the Prius was developed with the American market in mind and the only reason it took off it because a.) people thought they were saving money, and b.) Hollywood drove them.

How am I biased to GM? I rarely say anything good about them, in fact most of the time I say how poorly made their vehicles are. If I would be biased towards GM do you really think I would own a vehicle made in England?
 
V1P3R
Then, why wasn't GM first in the "hybrid" race?
Click to expand...
Because when the Prius first came out no one cared about fuel prices either (while the EV-1 had just finished failing on the market, no less). The Prius didn't start selling in meaningful numbers until long after the yuppies began flocking to it, in about 2006. So, with GM knowing full well that no one wanted an electric car of any type because of the total failure of the EV-1, why in hell would they spend the hundreds of millions of dollars that Toyota spent on the Prius to develop a car that GM had first hand experience that it wouldn't sell? It would have been an asinine move.

V1P3R
You know the answer, but since you are bias towards GM you won't say it... It's also not the people's fault nobody wanted Saturn.
Click to expand...
Which really just shows that you have no more supporting arguments if you are going to pull the bias card.

V1P3R
GM relied on it's SUVs fully knowing about the fuel problem.
Click to expand...
And I'm sure had you been running the company it would have gone bankrupt in 1986. Come off it. SUVs were selling insanely good, and you must be a complete fool if you think that GM shouldn't have cashed in on that fact.

Joey D
I highly doubt the Prius was developed with the American market in mind
Click to expand...
It wasn't. At least the first two generations weren't.
 
Last edited:
Joey D
Toyota saw things differently, obviously. Also their sole market isn't Americans and people in just about every other part of the world were more concerned with the cost of fuel then we were through the 90's and early 00's. I highly doubt the Prius was developed with the American market in mind and the only reason it took off it because a.) people thought they were saving money, and b.) Hollywood drove them.
Click to expand...

The Prius showed up in Japan years before it came around to the US, meant solely to combat the high prices of fuel in their own country. With the exports to other countries gaining popularity and fuel prices slowly begining to inch forward (not to mention global warming and all of that hubbub), Toyota saw an emerging market in the increasingly "green" United States.

It has absolutely nothing to do with politics or who was "right" or "wrong." General Motors, the Ford Motor Company and Chrysler (not to mention every other major automobile manufacturer outside of Toyota) didn't see a future in electric vehicle sales. Why do you think so many started pushing out SUVs in a time when fuel prices were starting to rise? Low investment, big paybacks. Obviously, that hasn't worked out well with the newer big SUVs...

So, lets ask this big question:

Why is GM the first one to go for plug-in hybrid sales on a massive scale?
 
Possibly because they had expertise on it at one point. Toyota probably doesn't see the need at the moment considering they still lose money on every Prius sold, Chrysler has no money, the German's have diesels, Honda keeps pushing hydrogen and Ford... well, I dunno why Ford didn't throw their hat into the ring. Probably because of all of the hybrid stuff that they buy from Toyota.
 
I meant take off in America, I figured it was out in Japan long before hitting our shores.

And GM sees plug-ins as the next big thing and they need a huge win right now, they are going all in and hoping it pays off for them. I really hope it does too.
 
I thought Ford developed their own Hybrid system? It was Nissan who bought Toyota's HSD system a year or two ago...

EDIT: Now I see that the systems were developed separately, but they were so similar that they ended up trading info on it. Ford gets some of the hybrid stuff, Toyota received direct-injection and diesel technology...

If GM can pull their E-Flex (plug in hybrid/electric) system off, they'll make a killing if they can sell it off to other manufacturers. That's the only reason why they've made any money with their Two-Mode system, selling it off to BMW and Chrysler (and Mercedes?) a few years ago.
 
Apparently the Volt's plant in Flint (I didn't realise they were making parts of it in Flint) will be getting tax breaks.

Autoblog Green
GM gets tax breaks from Flint for new Volt engine plant
As we stated a few months ago, automakers always get tax credits from cities in an effort to get them to build new plants or retool existing plants. As we know, the upcoming Chevy Volt is likely to be assembled in the Detroit-Hamtramck assembly plant where the Buick Lucerne and Cadillac DTS are currently built. As you may expect, those two models might not last too much longer, so the Volt is very important to the Detroit factory. The engine for the Volt, though, is expected to be built in a new facility which will be located near the existing Flint Engine South and Flint Truck plants, also in Michigan. Fortunately for the city, some three-hundred jobs will be saved. That engine will be a 1.4-liter four cylinder and should also make an appearance under the hood of the next Chevy compact, the Cruze, in turbocharged form. The total sum which GM will invest is $359 million and the plant will cover some 530,000 square-feet.
Click to expand...

This is what the federal government should do instead of giving the Big Three a 25 billion dollar bailout. Tax breaks for those companies that push alternative energy and greener vehicles seem much fairer in my opinion since it voluntary.
 
I'm happy to see that GM is trying to stick around in Michigan, because God knows, we need it. They talked about it for a short while on NPR this morning, and its definitely representative of the odd issue that we've got in our state with the automakers right now. We can't afford to give them tax breaks, but we can't afford to lose the jobs either.

Now... If the ol' Goverment were happy to give out "rewards" to companies who keep jobs in North America, that'd be a good way to keep more of them in Michigan. Hopefully. I know Ford is turning their F150 plant outside of Detroit into a factory that will build the next-gen Focus (and Fiesta?), and that has saved a bunch of jobs. There's been the obvious expansion of the Lansing plant to build the Sigma and Lambda cars, not to mention the retooling of Lake Orion to screw together Malibus instead of G6s.

We're on our way, but we can't count on things to "return to normal" any time soon.
 
Is it better off to build a car in a state going through a recession? A lot of carmakers are moving to the States because our recession here makes production cheaper. Is a more depressed state like Michigan going to end up cheaper than others? I'm sure it would be much more costly to open a factory in more stable states like Washington, Oregon or California...
 
Everyone's first thought usually is "Hey! Lets build a factory in Michigan or Ohio!" But, reality sinks in and the UAW comes to mind, then it is usually a race to the South where labor is cheap and the unions are a no-fly issue. That's why Hyundai, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan and Toyota all ran there in the late '90s and early '00s.

We're seeing more and more come up to Michigan because in most cases they won't have to build a factory, and instead can use what they already have, or can outright buy them from GM/Ford/Chrysler. The desperation for jobs is making labor cheap, as I'm sure you'll find quite a few people who'd be happy to make $15 an hour, non-union, with small benefits. That, and there is a lot of "experience" around that they may want to tap.
 
Picture time!

thumb800x800_2806067895_32fa2abe4d_o.jpg


Looks iPod-ish...
 
Joey D
Apparently the Volt's plant in Flint (I didn't realise they were making parts of it in Flint) will be getting tax breaks.



This is what the federal government should do instead of giving the Big Three a 25 billion dollar bailout. Tax breaks for those companies that push alternative energy and greener vehicles seem much fairer in my opinion since it voluntary.
Click to expand...


Or they could lower everyone's taxes... :D


YSSMAN
Everyone's first thought usually is "Hey! Lets build a factory in Michigan or Ohio!" But, reality sinks in and the UAW comes to mind, then it is usually a race to the South where labor is cheap and the unions are a no-fly issue. That's why Hyundai, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan and Toyota all ran there in the late '90s and early '00s.

We're seeing more and more come up to Michigan because in most cases they won't have to build a factory, and instead can use what they already have, or can outright buy them from GM/Ford/Chrysler. The desperation for jobs is making labor cheap, as I'm sure you'll find quite a few people who'd be happy to make $15 an hour, non-union, with small benefits. That, and there is a lot of "experience" around that they may want to tap.
Click to expand...

Is it possible to open a plant a not hire union members?
 
Last edited:
touch like buttons? That's not going to go over well... I can see it now people complaining about no physical feedback. :rolleyes:
 
If they make the thing vibrate when you touch a button like the LG Chocolate, it'll give at least some feedback.

At least the fit and finish look pretty good. There's an iffy gap around the compartment on top of the dash but oh well. And it looks like the dash is the same squishy stuff that's in the VW.
 
You see, ya lost me there. I never really liked the look of Apple products, and seeing this center stack is a little bit of a turn-off to me. It looks like a cross between a child's toy and a household appliance.
 
Omnis
Or they could lower everyone's taxes... :D
Click to expand...

In a perfect world I would say ya, but this is at least a start in some way. The best way to get people off the oil kick is to offer them a reward for buying something either more fuel efficient or alternative.

Is it possible to open a plant a not hire union members?
Click to expand...

To my knowledge, no. Which is one of the biggest problems facing the Big Three. The UAW is full of morons that try to shoot themselves in the foot as much as they can.
 
I usually like Chevy but I got to say that center piece looks very gaudy and cheap. Quite frankly I hate it. Even the vents alone look better to me then that. Sorry, touch buttons don't work with cars. Unlike iPods and electronics it's not as important(although still important) that it's for function then for show. But in a car I think practicality is more important then flashy touch buttons. You need something that works. Of course I'm getting ahead of myself since I don't know how the will do but. From what i've heard the majority of people don't like touch screens and this isn't all that different. Ultimately, I just think it looks ugly.
 
Back