-Sarge

Again, though, I’m an idiot.

I’ll shut up now.

I’ll shut up now.

P.S. We don’t owe africa money, and they aren’t communist either.

DaimlerChrysler $75.86

Ford $70.51

General Motors $73.26

Honda $42.95

Nissan $41.97

Toyota $47.60

If GM has to pays out $70 and hour, for example, the worker itself may not be getting it all (health care, pension costs, etc. taking some away), but the corporation still has to pay it. They need to get it back somewhere, obviously not from the bonuses the execs get, so the retail price increases. Toyota pays out roughly $50 an hour, so every bit helps in reducing the price of vehicles in the long run.

Read this for more info:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/do_auto_workers_really_make_more_than.html

By lowering the price and getting more cars on the road, if they are as revolutionary as GM says, they would increase popularity and therefore sales by word of mouth and positive reviews from sites like this.

They should try to make a profit by increasing volume not by increasing the initial costs to consumers. Other makers that put out hybrids don’t increase the price 50% from the regular model right? Also, f6typhoon, capitals and apostrophe’s are around for a reason…….

gm europe and gm australia are leaps and bounds ahead of its father. both in build quality and in value. if gm hadve handed the volt over to opel i think itd be far far more compeditive. its not hard to spruce up an interior to make it into a more luxurious car to match its massive pricetag. if at the end of the day it is a flop as most are projecting then hey at least they had a shot. i dont like hybrid tech for a lot of reasons but mainly because i am a petrolhead through and through.

hybrid tech is here to stay and it will only get more and more prevalent. if anything GM is slow to the mark. good luck to them and good on a CEO for speaking his mind. dancing round topics that you believe in is plain weak, come out with it and mean it.

That’s really the bottomline aside from the environmental aspect. Let’s cut the bs and get real shall we? How many of you guys are willing to drop 40K for a Volt? How many of you are willing to be the pioneer who would sacrifice their hard earned dollars in this economy no less for a car that has questionable savings.

“People are complaining about a 240mpg $40K vehicle. Where were you guys to complain about a 40mpg $30K Prius? Do I smell bias?”

Only if it’s real. So don’t get ahead of yourself, GM has been full of claims that were never delivered.

Here is the big problem. People are complaining about a 240mpg $40K vehicle. Where were you guys to complain about a 40mpg $30K Prius? Do I smell bias? Now if you complained about the Prius fine but to ignore it and complain about the Volt, you are stupid.

Another problem is you forget it is new technology and, like technology before it, the price will drop.

Lastly, if it is so stupid Mr. Nysschen, why are you investing in it? I think the only reason they are making a big deal is because they couldn’t invent it first.

I totally agree with de nysschen on diesel, hybird supplies are eventually going to run out, anybody remeber the article on here a couple of days ago? It said that the world might have some strain for the rare metals that hybrids use. It also said that most of the rare metals come from china and canada, most of it coming from china. These are not the countries that i want to waste money on, especially so i can be an egomaniac and be “eco friendly”. I’ll just buy a diesel and hope they keep finding oil.

Expensive? You better believe it, brand new technology has a price tag, and as always, it will drop.

Although there are emissions associated with coal and oil-fired power plants, smokestack emissions associated with charging EVs are extremely low. In fact, EVs can charge from zero-emission sources such as nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, and wind power.

Lastly, if it was such crap why is Audi investing in it?

It’s already a success in the way it’s shaping the industry. Whether or not THIS vehicle proves financially fiscal is irrelevant, it’s technology WILL prove to be.

Don’t be so sour, it’s just a car.

There will always be rich greenie soccer moms looking for a sedan alternative to their Yukon Denali hybrid. One to take to the grocery store, one to take the kids to soccer practice.

Yes, it’s a $40k car, but remember what happened when Toyota introduced the Prius. The early adopters were Hollywood tree hugging types who could afford much more expensive cars. They were making a statement with their purchase.

as for the engine not having enough power it dose seeing how any acceleration would be from the batteries not the engine and all the engine would need to power is it at high way speed were that much hp would no be needed. if u need to accelerate from a stop after the 40 miles when you slowed down it would give u almost all the power you need to get back up to speed threw regenerative breaking, more impotent is the torque in the electric motors with i believe it had plenty.

this car could be an importnent step to hydrogen vehicles when the tech is ready, and infrastructure is not all there

BTW, is he dead or what?

So, I’ve done some crude math. If you buy the Volt (40K) over the Jetta TDI (22K), and if you drive either car for 40 miles a day, that means the Volt would only use electricity, it would take 30 years to offset the Volts price over the Jetta.

So, those of you who feel offended by someone calling the Volt an unreasonable buy, then you have serious problems, or you’re just some GM fanboy who will go ape sh*t over any GM product anyway.

Now, if the Volt was priced around 20K-30K, then it would be a good idea, but 40K is too pricey for an economy car.

And to whoever saying “What a hypocrite, the A4 costs 40K”, the difference between the A4 and the Volt is that the A4 is a luxury car while the Volt is an economy car. An econobox costing as much a luxury car is retarded. You all know that

He may not agree, but how most cars are used, the Volt is a great idea to bridge the gap until battery tech evolves to allow for quick charging and better range. Most drives are going to be less than 40 miles and will require only electricity, but there is still the flexability to drive longer distances. It is, given current technology, a very smart product.

His beef however is about cost, and I agree it is too expensive right now for what you get. I personally would not pay the premium for this new technology. Thank goodness there will always be those who have to have the latest and greatest and have it first. As well as those who feel that they need to make a strong environmental statement regardless of cost. He needs to be careful about insulting this segment of consumers, because all companies rely on them to some degree. The more upscale the company, the more you need these buyers, and Audi certainly fits the bill.

In terms of environmental impact, I don’t think de Nysschen is giving enough credit to the inherent efficiency of the electric motor. Sure, the power has to come from somewhere, but it still is a more efficient design than even the best ICEs and requires overall less power. I am much more concerned about the environmental problems raised by the sudden demand for the materials to make and the problem with recycling or disposal of all of the batteries.

The truth is, we should focus 100% of our attention on energy generation methods, and I’m talking throwing money at universities and labs like it’s the New Deal. Once we have an alternative for generation, and don’t say renewable because for now they’re far from capable of providing baseline power, then we can start pushing for electric cars.

And why aren’t we using diesels yet?, they don’t require rare metals, don’t require spark plugs and are very efficient. Arrgg, I hate hybrids so much, but I really hope that they will be recycled correctly at least and batteries will be re-manufactured, not end up in a landfill…