Author Topic: More Cash for Clunkers... "V for Chevy Volt and me!" (Read 7768 times)

AZRedhawk44 · « **on:** March 29, 2011, 03:07:40 PM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvwTMZNWGuk

After going bankrupt trying to pimp the Chevy Volt and raping the taxpayers and bondholders, we get this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/29/cash-clunkers-2-dumped-capitol-hill/

They want to turn an already dubious tax rebate ($7500 for a "green" car) into a time-of-purchase rebate to spur more electric vehicle sales.

The whole problem is that the craptastic little overgrown rollerskate costs over $40,000.

Lightweight rattletraps are supposed to cost half the price of a sedan. QED. With a typical 4-door sedan selling for $20-$25k, the Volt needs to get in somewhere around $12-15k. $20k might be acceptable to ecogreenies who will pay a premium for a squeaky-clean conscience.

The Volt will never sell until it truly costs what it is worth.

And no taxpayer subsidies will ever make that cost reflective of its true value.

Bogie · « **Reply #1 on:** March 29, 2011, 04:50:28 PM »

I wonder what the real environmental cost is, when you figure out what it takes to make it and what it takes to recycle/landfill it...

Hmm... I'd like to see a three-wheeler, similar to the Can-Am Spyder, but with a small diesel and enclosed one/two person cockpit.

Truck-wise, I'd like to see something the size of a 1/4 ton truck, like the S-10 (or whatever it's called), with a more aerodynamic design, a one-ton long-bed frame and dually rear axle and braking system, with different beds available...

MechAg94 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 29, 2011, 05:16:56 PM »

How about just a smaller size pick up that actually has better gas mileage than the full size truck? Most of them these days have super-sized V6's and get no better mileage. To hell with that. What is the point? The full size truck will probably last longer and have better reliability. The cost isn't enough of a difference.

I agree though. The old S-10 pickups in the 90's are pretty cheap in comparison to the full size.

dogmush · « **Reply #3 on:** March 29, 2011, 05:32:06 PM »

Toyota makes (or made) a 1/4 ton diesel pickup that I would buy in a heartbeat for a work truck. Top Gear couldn't kill one even by losing it in the ocean. I had an old Datsun as a kid. That was a tough truck too. It didn't have a lot of creature comforts, but was tough as nails.

41magsnub · « **Reply #4 on:** March 29, 2011, 05:33:58 PM »

Quote from: dogmush on March 29, 2011, 05:32:06 PM

Toyota makes (or made) a 1/4 ton diesel pickup that I would buy in a heartbeat for a work truck. Top Gear couldn't kill one even by losing it in the ocean. I had an old Datsun as a kid. That was a tough truck too. It didn't have a lot of creature comforts, but was tough as nails.

Not that it probably would have mattered much, but was the Top Gear Hi-Lux a diesel? I thought it was gas.

dogmush · « **Reply #5 on:** March 29, 2011, 05:40:39 PM »

Diesel. Look close on the seashore fixit scene. You can also hear it pretty clearly on one of the clips.

Boomhauer · « **Reply #6 on:** March 29, 2011, 07:20:17 PM »

Unfortunately, our government is very against allowing small, very efficient diesels be sold. Nothing makes more sense for efficient vehicles than small trucks and cars that get 30+ MPG per gallon

bedlamite · « **Reply #7 on:** March 29, 2011, 07:24:42 PM »

I've got a '98 S-10 that I've been considering swapping a small diesel into. Any suggestions on where I might be able to find something in the 2-2.5 L range for a reasonable price?

dogmush · « **Reply #8 on:** March 29, 2011, 08:43:07 PM »

Quote from: bedlamite on March 29, 2011, 07:24:42 PM

I've got a '98 S-10 that I've been considering swapping a small diesel into. Any suggestions on where I might be able to find something in the 2-2.5 L range for a reasonable price?

Europe.

Although, recently VW has brought some diesels over. If you could find a wrecked TDI Jetta or Golf, you could probably make it work. Wouldn't be cost effective by the time you were done. You could also check to see if GM used a small diesel on that platform overseas and try to order the powerpack.

Does your state have emissions testing? If so You prob. couldn't get a diesel swap through.

Boomhauer · « **Reply #9 on:** March 29, 2011, 08:46:43 PM »

Quote from: bedlamite on March 29, 2011, 07:24:42 PM

I've got a '98 S-10 that I've been considering swapping a small diesel into. Any suggestions on where I might be able to find something in the 2-2.5 L range for a reasonable price?

Drop a gas turbine into it

Angel Eyes · « **Reply #10 on:** March 29, 2011, 08:50:02 PM »

Or a JATO rocket in the cargo bed.

RoadKingLarry · « **Reply #11 on:** March 29, 2011, 09:06:12 PM »

I've got a little import compact tractor with with a 3 cyl. diesel engine.
I've put 45 hours on it since new in January and I've run less than 20 gallons of fuel through it, most of the time it was running at 3/4 throttle or better. it will puff a bit of smoke when I start it but other than that there is no visible smoke. For a smaller vehicle with the right gearing an engine like that would be a pretty good deal.

mtnbkr · « **Reply #12 on:** March 29, 2011, 10:14:07 PM »

Quote from: RoadKingLarry on March 29, 2011, 09:06:12 PM

I've got a little import compact tractor with with a 3 cyl. diesel engine.
I've put 45 hours on it since new in January and I've run less than 20 gallons of fuel through it, most of the time it was running at 3/4 throttle or better. it will puff a bit of smoke when I start it but other than that there is no visible smoke. For a smaller vehicle with the right gearing an engine like that would be a pretty good deal.

They called those Trabants.

They've tried small gas-sippers before, remember the Geo Metro? 3-cyl, got great gas mileage. A friend had one, it did what it was advertised as doing.

Chris

longeyes · « **Reply #13 on:** March 30, 2011, 11:27:36 AM »

The Volts should be called coal-burning, not electric. Isn't that where they get most of their juice?

Harold Tuttle · « **Reply #14 on:** March 30, 2011, 11:44:59 AM »

i saw a chevy Volt in town yesterday

it looked like it was a demo model on Campus for a tour

AZRedhawk44 · « **Reply #15 on:** March 30, 2011, 12:18:56 PM »

Quote from: Harold Tuttle on March 30, 2011, 11:44:59 AM

i saw a chevy Volt in town yesterday

it looked like it was a demo model on Campus for a tour

I can't wait for the first Volt owner to go into an apoplectic fit when the EPA comes in to affix an excise tax meter on the circuit they use to charge their car.

Goobermint is losing $0.50-$0.75 per gallon of gas not consumed by these things.

Drive 1000 miles and the goobermint expects to collect between $20 to $50 depending on your fuel efficiency and vehicle weight.

During the 200,000 ownership-lifespan of the typical car, the goobermint will make between $4000 and $10,000 in excise taxes as you fuel your conventional vehicle. They will not just forget about that revenue stream... electric meter excise taxes will come.

Electric cars will get taxed even further into inefficiency once they get a foot-hold.

MillCreek · « **Reply #16 on:** March 30, 2011, 12:29:03 PM »

Here in Washington state, there is a current Legislative proposal to charge a $ 1000/year tax or fee on electric cars to make up for the loss of fuel taxes. There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth about this, but fuel taxes are the pre-eminent source of highway construction funds here. And electric cars do drive on the transportation infrastructure, so they should be paying something for the roads.

41magsnub · « **Reply #17 on:** March 30, 2011, 12:43:27 PM »

Millcreek summed up my thoughts exactly.

If I thought it could be done without causing major privacy concerns, additional points of failure in a car, or inconvenience I'd like to see a mileage based tax system to cover road infrastructure instead of gas taxes. I've yet to hear of a way to do it though. GPS has the privacy issues when it uploads data, and to eliminate cheating it would have to be a required component for the car to move which has reliability concerns.

You could do a straight up mileage count but that does not address crossing of state lines. Neither do gas taxes entirely but it shouldn't be too far off for most folks. The main exception being people who live just across the border of a state with much lower gas taxes who cross over to fill up.

I also don't trust the government to not try to social engineer such a system.

longeyes · « **Reply #18 on:** March 30, 2011, 02:05:51 PM »

Where's the Topolino when we need it?

dogmush · « **Reply #19 on:** March 30, 2011, 02:37:27 PM »

I am continually amazed that consumers seem to have no memory at all.

The call for small, fuel efficient cars is not new. Every couple of years some company puts out a small, efficient rattle trap that no one buys because it sucks. The CRX, Metro, Chevette, Storm, Smart, Echo have all been made, made poor sales, and with the exception of the Smart been killed. We like to make noise about more fuel efficient cars.....until we have to drive one. The real problem is small, light efficient cars suck.

*full disclosure: It takes more horsepower then the Volt makes to turn the blower on my car. Of the three vehicles my household owns My wife's Explorer gets the best mileage at 16.5mpg. I think the whole "Buy a whole new car to save $5.00 a fill-up is silly. I'm even more annoyed that my taxes need to subsidise EV owner's (pick one) 1.) horrible math, 2.) misunderstanding of where electricity comes from, or 3.) smugtasticness. I'll burn as much 93 octane as I can afford to pressurize and inject into my V8, thank you very much.

Fly320s · « **Reply #20 on:** March 30, 2011, 03:15:39 PM »

Quote from: dogmush on March 29, 2011, 05:32:06 PM

Toyota makes (or made) a 1/4 ton diesel pickup that I would buy in a heartbeat for a work truck.

Me too.

If Ford would build an F150 with a 3.0L TDI, I'd buy one tomorrow.

mtnbkr · « **Reply #21 on:** March 30, 2011, 03:48:18 PM »

Quote from: Dogmush

I think the whole "Buy a whole new car to save $5.00 a fill-up is silly.

I drive a 1997 Toyota 4Runner with 186k miles that gets 15-16mpg in town. If I replaced it with a car that gets 30mpg (completely reasonable), I would save $120/month when gas averages $3/month (currently $3.50 here). If gas hits $5/gal, the car would pay for itself.

Chris

dogmush · « **Reply #22 on:** March 30, 2011, 04:07:08 PM »

Except that there is no competitor of a 4runner that get's 30mpg. You could replace your vehicle with a new one with a completely different set of design parameters and save money on fuel. Unless you need to tow something. Or carry stuff inside. Or any of the other things you presumably decided you needed an SUV for.

Buy all means, if your vehicular needs have changed get a new ride. (actually you can get a new ride anyway, it's your ride. I'm just annoyed because two coworkers have laid smug, fuzzy logic on me so far this year). Assuming you no longer want/need an SUV, there are a variety of choices that get better gas mileage.

Possibly it's just the folks I work with as well, but the ones that are regaling me their money saving tales also seem to overlook the fact that they kept their 3/4 ton trucks for towing and carrying stuff. So their money saving point has to cover purchase cost/insurance/registration of an extra vehicle.

mtnbkr · « **Reply #23 on:** March 30, 2011, 04:12:43 PM »

Given its age and mileage a replacement is a foregone conclusion. The only question is *when*. If I replace it today, I can keep the 4Runner for tasks best suited to an SUV, but get the mileage benefit of a smaller car. If I wait till it's completely clapped out (another 20-50k), I'll have to replace it completely and then be forced into the decision of mileage vs utility.

If I augment it with a gas-sipper, I can get a "recreational vehicle" insurance policy to reduce the costs. Registration costs will still be there however.

Chris

Tallpine · « **Reply #24 on:** March 31, 2011, 10:21:44 AM »

Quote

Except that there is no competitor of a 4runner that get's 30mpg. You could replace your vehicle with a new one with a completely different set of design parameters and save money on fuel. Unless you need to tow something. Or carry stuff inside. Or any of the other things you presumably decided you needed an SUV for.

Or unless you live off paved roads.

Our little 30mpg car sits in the garage for weeks at a time in the fall/winter/spring because it is to muddy/snowy/icy for it to get around, while we drive our 10-15mpg suburban.

Unless we make some long trips during the year, then it really doesn't pay for the extra license and insurance costs. So the way to save money on gas is to drive more

News:

Author Topic: More Cash for Clunkers... "V for Chevy Volt and me!" (Read 7768 times)