RV Fuel Issues & Prices - Post 'Em Here!

Volt is a bit of money. People need to factor in that it can cut fuel expense by 75 to 90%.

Over the life cycle of a car the gasoline can be as much (and more) as the vehicle cost itself.

While many people don't drive more than 35 miles MOST of the time, very few people want to be limited to that. I certainly would not, and I hug trees. ;)

camperdave wrote:

cekkk wrote:

camperdave wrote:

LindsayRichards wrote:
Few people are willing to buy a car that goes 35 miles on an 8 hour charge.

Seeing as that would meet the needs of about 90% of the population, why do you think it is that people won't buy it?

Note to cd. Check sales. :S

:B obviously I know they are in fact not selling. My question is why? If they meet the needs of the people out there (they do, according to the stats), WHY aren't people buying them?

Well, people just expect their new car to do what their old cars could do. They may be able to slide by with a 35 mile limit, but why should they so limit themselves? The car is expensive. If it sold for $17,000, like the Corolla, more environmentally minded people would no doubt buy it.

If you stand back and look at what you get, it just doesn't make sense to the masses.

As an aside, had GM put that developmental $$ into batteries, they might have hit a home run.

Just my thoughts.

cekkk wrote:

camperdave wrote:

LindsayRichards wrote:
Few people are willing to buy a car that goes 35 miles on an 8 hour charge.

Seeing as that would meet the needs of about 90% of the population, why do you think it is that people won't buy it?

Note to cd. Check sales. :S

:B obviously I know they are in fact not selling. My question is why? If they meet the needs of the people out there (they do, according to the stats), WHY aren't people buying them?

IIRC the bondholders (even secured bondholders) took a loss in the GM BK and the money primarily went to make the UAW retirement and medical liabilities whole. I don't know what the haircut was for the bondholders but still payment was second to the union demands. To me the bailout was about preserving jobs and funding union legacy costs.... not the development of new products.

I think it is too early to tell if the plug in vehicle momentum is a passing phase or the technology is just not here yet.

It took some time for coal fired train engines to be replaced by diesel-electrics. Many said the diesel electric would never make it to the long haul runs and were doomed to stay in the switch yard where they started. I see the short range of most current electric vehicles the same way.

Technology will move forward and this investment in the Volt is a great push forward.

JMHO.

Besides I believe most of the developement cost was spent before the bailout. It is not like GM started the project when the money was recieved from the government.

I hesitate to post again, but the bailout paid off their debt which included the all of the development costs. It was paid for by you and me. I certainly wish electric vehicles would work. We are going on a month trip on the 21st. I hate the high fuel prices. I just want to be sensible about the development of EV's. Let's get it right before we spend all of the money building stuff people don't want to buy. Sales prove it. The vast majority of development cost will never be recovered. The foreign companies are eating our lunch on them. Volts will soon be obsolete. The tactic of the government buying most of them is just delaying the inevitable. Lets get America's technology back in the forefront. Lets go after our natural resources and get the energy prices back down where they were not long ago.

LindsayRichards wrote:
Henry Ford and the Mustang were developed with private money. They are using tax money for this. The concept is flawed. Few people are willing to buy a car that goes 35 miles on an 8 hour charge. Their horrible sales prove this point. I would much rather have seen my tax money go towards researching a vehicle that the folks would want and buy. If they come up with one in a few years that is a winner, then I will buy one. The $1.5 BILLION of course is just peanuts compared to the $85 BILLION bailout. By the way, the Edsel was really a Ford with a few different, cosmetic parts. Very little research money involved compared to the Vault.

The thread is about fuel prices and issues. Not the political right and wrong about the GM bailout and projects allowed to continue after the bankruptcy. Besides I believe most of the developement cost was spent before the bailout. It is not like GM started the project when the money was recieved from the government.

Anyway the more electric miles the less imported oil and the more downward pressure on fuel prices.

If electric vehicles could grab just 20% of the market we could make a huge improvement.

Don't worry you can remain one of the 80% that drives with gas or diesel.

camperdave wrote:

LindsayRichards wrote:
Few people are willing to buy a car that goes 35 miles on an 8 hour charge.

Seeing as that would meet the needs of about 90% of the population, why do you think it is that people won't buy it?

Note to cd. Check sales. :S

LindsayRichards wrote:
Few people are willing to buy a car that goes 35 miles on an 8 hour charge.

Seeing as that would meet the needs of about 90% of the population, why do you think it is that people won't buy it?

smkettner wrote:

Nobody gets 500 or 1000 mpg without using some other fuel source. The beauty of these vehicles is that other fuel is domestic. No war has been fought to secure our domestic coal, natural gas, solar, wind, or nuclear power. I look forward to the day we import no oil.

GM makes makes a marginal profit on every Volt that contributes to engineering and overhead. If you expect it to pay all those costs during the first 18 months it just will not happen. As long as sales continue to increase GM will make more money every month.

seriously, don't bother. Wrong crowd, you're just wasting typing energy here. Anything you say can and will be deleted at random. :B