China now largest auto market as it surpasses U.S.

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/748047--china-now-largest-auto-market-as-it-surpasses-u-s

BEIJING – China overtook the United States as the biggest auto market in 2009 and automakers should see more strong growth this year, an industry group reported Friday.
Boosted by Beijing's stimulus, 2009 passenger car sales soared to 10.3 million and total vehicle sales are estimated at 13.6 million, the China Passenger Car Association said. That represents growth of about 45 per cent from 2008.
"This is even better than anyone expected," the group's general secretary, Rao Da, said at a news conference in Shanghai.
By contrast, U.S. sales of cars and light trucks plunged 21 per cent in 2009 to 10.4 million as a shaky economy kept buyers away from showrooms. It was the first time any country bought more cars than Americans.
The Chinese group's data were in line with forecasts by J.D. Power and Associates of 12.7 million sales of cars and light trucks and 900,000 bigger vehicles in 2009 for a total of 13.6 million. The company in early 2009 expected sales of 9 million vehicles but raised that as Beijing rolled out measures to boost demand.
"It's very, very strong growth, far beyond the expectations we had in the early part of 2009," said John Bonnell, a J.D. Power analyst.
China's status as the top auto market is yet another sign of its rapid rise as a global economic power. After a two-decade economic boom, it is believed to have passed Germany last year as the biggest exporter and is expected to overtake Japan soon as the second-largest economy after the United States.
Global automakers including General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co. and Germany's Volkswagen AG looked to China to help drive revenues as demand elsewhere plunged and U.S. automakers laid off workers and shuttered factories. Volkswagen says China is its biggest market.
GM says 2009 sales by the company and its local partners in China rose 67 per cent last year, while Ford says sales were up 44 per cent. Other carmakers, such as Volkswagen, are also benefiting from strong growth in the Chinese market.
China, with 1.3 billion people and a growing urban elite, was long expected to become the top auto market but not until as late as 2020. That date moved up as the U.S. crisis dragged down sales while China continued to grow with the help of a 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) government stimulus.
Economic growth accelerated to 8.9 per cent over a year earlier in the third quarter and the government says it should be 8.3 per cent for the full year.
Beijing boosted purchases by slashing sales taxes on smaller, fuel-efficient cars and spending $730 million on subsidies for buyers of SUVs, pickup trucks and minivans. Stimulus spending on building highways and other public works also helped to boost sales of trucks used in construction.
China's monthly purchases exceeded those of the United States for all but two months last year.
Rao said auto sales in 2010 could grow by another 20 per cent so long as China's economic recovery continues and oil prices stay stable. Bonnell said J.D. Power expects a lower but still healthy growth of 6 to 7 per cent.
"The temptation is to say that with 45 per cent growth in 2009 there must be a payback in 2010," Bonnell said. "But all indications are the government wants to continue to stimulate things, and our expectation is they will succeed in doing that."
Automakers are looking to first-time buyers in smaller Chinese cities to help drive sales as incomes outside the country's prosperous east coast rise.
"People there are getting richer and can afford cars. Younger people can work for two or three years and with the help of their parents can buy a car," Rao said. "Being able to afford a car in China is not so difficult any more. People with an average salary can afford to buy a car."
China's small but ambitious automakers are starting to expand abroad and some have set up factories in Ukraine, Iran and other developing markets. Some want to break into U.S. and Western European markets but have yet to satisfy safety and emissions standards.
"We don't see that they are ready, that they are achieving these levels of quality or safety," said Bonnell. "There is no indication that next step is right on the horizon."

How pathetic is that - over 4 times our population and just now buying more cars than us - and only because we're in a recession.

How pathetic is that - over 4 times our population and just now buying more cars than us - and only because we're in a recession.

It's still a milestone.
Their market has nowhere to go but up and they're furiously building interstate to further raise their economy.

Our market is basically steady and replacement as are our lagging interstate budgets.
GM makes money in China selling Buick Regals among other things.

China's automakers coming into view
Strategic purchases of well-known brands and alliances with Western car firms have put China in the fast lane of industry


http://www.thestar.com/business/auto/article/748644--olive-china-s-automakers-coming-into-view

China is poised to join the front ranks of global automakers, after decades of producing low-quality vehicles exclusively in its enormous home market.
The shift promises dramatic change for a global industry only gradually emerging from its worst downturn in memory.

China last year overtook the United States as the world's largest auto market.

Chinese auto sales surged to nearly 13 million units last year, from 5.8 million just four years ago. The U.S. market collapsed during that time, from 17 million units in 2005 to just 10.4 million last year.
U.S., Asian and European automakers now are looking
to China's booming economy – which grew by 8.9 per cent last year, as GDP elsewhere was anemic – to compensate for sluggish sales in their traditional markets.
General Motors Co., for instance, fared much better in China last year than in North America. Sales of its Buick, Chevrolet and Cadillac brands shared in the booming Chinese demand for autos in 2009 – with a helping hand from Beijing incentives to boost consumer buying. By contrast, the depressed North American market touched lows not seen since 1970.

Sales by GM's Chinese joint venture were up a stunning 67 per cent last year. And Ford Motor Co. wasn't far behind, with a 55 per cent jump in its Chinese sales.

For their part, Chinese automakers – long preoccupied with the home market – now have aggressive plans for exporting to Europe, North America and elsewhere, sometimes on their own and in other cases with Western partners.

The successful 12-year partnership between GM and SAIC Motor Corp., largest of the Chinese automakers, last month announced a foray into the huge Indian market. Both China and GM have only a tiny presence in the market of 1.2 billion people, but their combined heft in GM technology and Chinese financial backing will be a real threat to entrenched Indian leaders Tata Motors Ltd. and Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

The recent deals Chinese makers have been negotiating with Detroit to acquire Volvo, Saab and Hummer will give them brand recognition and technological prowess that has hobbled their export prospects.
To date, Chinese vehicles have been small and underpowered, attractive as exports only to developing world markets in Southeast Asia. But the global downturn that drove so many automakers to the wall has enabled Chinese firms to buy distressed assets on the cheap.

Geely Automobile Holdings Ltd., the Chinese automaker perhaps best known in North America for its frequent appearances at auto shows and obvious Western export ambitions (Geely means "lucky" in Chinese), will soon close a deal to buy the Volvo brand from Ford Motor Co.

Though it's the largest purchase of a foreign brand by a Chinese automaker, the price is likely to be in the $2 billion (U.S.) range, far below the $6.5 billion that Ford paid for the Swedish brand in 1999.

Overnight, Geely gains a global-markets presence with a well-regarded luxury brand that sold 375,000 units last year. And it can piggyback on Volvo's venerable and expansive dealer network in marketing its own vehicles outside of China by mid-decade.

Beijing Automotive Industry Holding Corp. (BAIC) may have struck an even better deal in acquiring some assets of GM's struggling Saab business. When BAIC's Swedish partner in bidding for Saab backed out, BAIC hastily signed GM's agreement to pay a paltry $200 million for Saab technology, including the rights to three Saab vehicle platforms, two of them sedans, two engine designs and some of the tooling for making the vehicles.

BAIC, China's fifth-largest automaker, thus obtains the all-important engineering, "power plant" and styling blueprints without the albatross of Saab's chronically money-losing Swedish manufacturing facilities.
And with the urgency typical of Chinese industrial advances in recent years, BAIC will pump $4.8 billion into R&D efforts over three years to integrate the Saab technology into its own lineup, vastly upgrading BAIC vehicles for export markets.

"The purchase of Saab's intellectual property can help cut short the development time for Beijing Auto's own-brand passenger vehicles by four to five years," BAIC chairman Xu Heyi said recently.
GM's niche Hummer brand was set to be sold to Chinese equipment maker Sichan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery. But Beijing has held up the deal, likely concerned at the prospective buyer's lack of consumer-vehicle expertise.

Beijing's industrial policy, or "go-out strategy," began with the 2004 purchase by Lenovo Group Ltd., IBM Corp.'s PC business. That put Lenovo on the map in North America immediately, as Lenovo, China's largest computer maker, traded on the IBM name for the first two years after the purchase. More recently, PetroChina, largest of China's Big Three oil firms, snapped up a chunk of the Alberta oilsands for more than $2 billion.

Certainly the "go-out strategy" has worked like a charm for both China and GM. GM engineering and styling has made possible China's Indian foray, a precursor to the hoped-for European inroads that India's own leading automakers have made.
And for GM, its Chinese partnership achieved a record market share in 2009 of 13.4 per cent, not far short of the 19-21 per cent range GM has been reduced to in North America.

GM makes most of what profit it generates in China. And most industry analysts expect GM's Chinese sales to overtake its North American volume sometime this decade. Which raises the prospect, in the minds of some analysts, of a Chinese takeover of GM.

Given GM's iconic status, the political opposition might be unmanageable. Then again, the U.S. Treasury, GM's unions and its bondholders who accepted stock for their bonds in GM's bankruptcy last year are all keen to cash out. And it's unlikely rival bidders would emerge for the chronically ailing GM – especially with its estimated price tag of some $42 billion.
China's balkanized auto industry of more than 100 automakers would be best able to join the global top tier by simply buying a global automaker. Given the importance of SAIC to GM, it would be tough for GM's board to reject an acquisition bid by SAIC if doing so meant an end to that prosperous joint venture.

Bob Schulz, top auto credit analyst at Standard & Poor's, says the global industry is in such upheaval that there's no ruling out any scenario. "Assuming there's no government restrictions on something like that," he says, "anything is possible."

The emerging Chinese middle class is larger than our entire population.
This is huge news because it means that developers will focus their products increasingly with the Asian markets in mind and less us.

The situation will only get worse presuming that China can remain stable (noting that over a billion of them are still in poverty) and the U.S. government continues it's war on prosperity.

The emerging Chinese middle class is larger than our entire population.
This is huge news because it means that developers will focus their products increasingly with the Asian markets in mind and less us.

The situation will only get worse presuming that China can remain stable (noting that over a billion of them are still in poverty) and the U.S. government continues it's war on prosperity.Good point. We should be poising ourselves to service this middle class with products, but instead we're fussing about electric cars and killing the coal industry and pushing government healthcare.

It's a huge emerging market, but the engine of America is, or has been choked to death.

The idea of "green jobs" is actually viable, with the intention of imagining, design, engineering, and building the here- at least while their still cutting edge. But between the work, tax, and environmental legislation, that can't happen.

we're fussing about electric cars

The Chinese are working on this too.
Electric cars are 85-90% efficient vs about 30% for internal combustion engine vehicles.
The same power it takes to run 1 gasoline car will run 3 electric cars.
There are real benefits even if the power is supplied by a coal fired generating plant
Also electric engines have a wide torque curve with blistering acceleration and no need for a geared transmission.

There are real benefits even if the power is supplied by a coal fired generating plant
Not if coal companies are being bankrupted like Obama has promised to do.

Electric cars are 85-90% efficient vs about 30% for internal combustion engine vehicles.

That depends on how you judge efficiency.

The same power it takes to run 1 gasoline car will run 3 electric cars.

Again, that depends on the standard you use to judge. In each case, without knowing that standard these statements are simply meaningless assertions...

That depends on how you judge efficiency.



Again, that depends on the standard you use to judge. In each case, without knowing that standard these statements are simply meaningless assertions...

Gasoline engines only get maybe 30% of the energy out of the fuel.
The rest escapes as heat.
If that same fuel was used to generate electricity supplied to your electric car after generation and transmission efficiencies, the electric engine would turn 90% of it into power for propelling the car.
Electric motors of all types are very efficient.
This is a given not some meaningless assertion.

Gasoline engines only get maybe 30% of the energy out of the fuel.
The rest escapes as heat.
If that same fuel was used to generate electricity supplied to your electric car after generation and transmission efficiencies, the electric engine would turn 90% of it into power for propelling the car.
Electric motors of all types are very efficient.
This is a given not some meaningless assertion.

Yet, the internal combustion engine has withstood the test of time. When all concerns are considered (costs) in comparing the various energy sources, gasoline always comes out on top. When you go with a cost/benefit analysis, the internal combustion engine is much more bang for the buck.

Also, where are you getting those numbers from? What were the conditions those numbers were attained under? Frankly, those numbers sound like a misleading talking point to me. What specific internal combustion engines are we talking about? If we are talking, carbureted engines, flat head engines, and/or very early engine design and comparing it to the newest most sophisticated electric engines, then that is blatant cherry picking and a misleading comparison.

Are they considering how limited the batteries are in their calculation of efficiency of electric cars? That is the BIG reason why, when compared to even hybrids, traditional, internal combustion engines are much more cost efficient.

Also, how specifically, are they calculating energy efficiency here?

There are any number of ways numbers like that can be rigged to show that electric engines are much more efficient. I could also look at some of the earliest electric powered cars and compare them to the most high tech, efficient internal combustion engines of today and reach the exact opposite conclusion. Or even only consider internal combustion engines that are completely in the conceptual phase of development (so any claims of specific efficiency standards are theoretical).

Again, it comes down to the standards being used and a claim like you are making is very widely open to cherry picking of standards to reach whatever conclusions are desired. Knowing (and being able to check out) the specific source(s) of your information would be very helpful...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine

Gasoline (petrol) Engines
Modern gasoline (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/wiki/Gasoline) engines have an average efficiency of about 20% to 30% when used to power a car. In other words, of the total heat energy of gasoline (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/wiki/Gasoline), 70 to 80% is ejected (as heat from the exhaust) as mechanical sound energy or consumed by the motor (friction, air turbulence, heat through the cylinder walls or cylinder head, and work used to turn engine equipment and appliances such as water and oil pumps (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/wiki/Circulation_pump) and electrical generator (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/wiki/Alternator)), and only about 25% of energy moves the vehicle. At idle the efficiency is zero since no usable work is being drawn from the engine. At slow speed (i.e. low power output) the efficiency is much lower than average, due to a larger percentage of the available heat being absorbed by the metal parts of the engine, instead of being used to perform useful work. Gasoline engines also suffer efficiency losses at low speeds from the high turbulence and head loss when the incoming air must fight its way around the nearly-closed throttle; diesel engines do not suffer this loss because the incoming air is not throttled. Engine efficiency improves considerably at open road speeds; it peaks in most applications at around 75% of rated engine power, which is also the range of greatest engine torque (e.g. in the 2007 Ford Focus (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/wiki/Ford_Focus), maximum torque of 133 foot-pounds is obtained at 4,500 RPM (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/wiki/RPM), and maximum engine power of 136 brake horsepower (101 kW) is obtained at 6,000 RPM).

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html

Electrical Motor Efficiency when Shaft Output is measured in Watt



If power output is measured in Watt (W), efficiency (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html) can be expressed as:ηm = Pout / Pin? (1)whereηm = motor efficiency (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html)Pout = shaft power out (Watt, W)Pin = electric power in to the motor (Watt, W)Electrical Motor Efficiency when Shaft Output is measured in Horsepower



If power output is measured in horsepower (hp), efficiency (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html) can be expressed as:ηm = Pout 746 / Pin (2)wherePout = shaft power out (horsepower, hp)Pin = electric power in to the motor (Watt, W)Primary and Secondary Resistance Losses



The electrical power lost in the primary rotor and secondary stator winding resistance are also called copper losses. The copper loss varies with the load in proportion to the current squared - and can be expressed asPcl = R I2 ? (3)wherePcl = stator winding - copper loss (W)R = resistance (Ω)I = current (Amp)Iron Losses

These losses are the result of magnetic energy dissipated when when the motors magnetic field is applied to the stator core.
Stray Losses

Stray losses are the losses that remains after primary copper and secondary losses, iron losses and mechanical losses. The largest contribution to the stray losses is harmonic energies generated when the motor operates under load. These energies are dissipated as currents in the copper windings, harmonic flux components in the iron parts, leakage in the laminate core.
Mechanical Losses

Mechanical losses includes friction in the motor bearings and the fan for air cooling.
NEMA Design B Electrical Motors


__________________________________________________ ______________

You amuse me.
This is a slam dunk.

At least do a Google search before posting about things you are uninformed about.

According to this chart a 125 hp electric motor is 92.4% efficient vs the 20-30% efficiency of modern gas engines.
And it is highly efficient throughout the rpm range not like gas engines with their narrow torque efficiency curves.
You can make all kinds of caveats about losses and such but you still won't get under electric cars being at least twice as efficient as gas cars.
Electric cars can also utilize motors that have flywheels that capture the brake energy and re apply it to accelerate.
What's holding electric cars back is battery technology.
Some have a small gas engine that only recharges the battery.
They have a way to go still but you can't just dismiss electric cars as a toy.

http://www.electroauto.com/info/pollmyth.shtml

Check link for graphs and charts

The Efficiency Advantage of EVs and Power Plants

EVs recharging from fossil-fueled power plants such as coal and oil have unique efficiency advantages over ICE vehicles. As a system, EVs and power plants are twice as efficient as ICE vehicles and the system that refines gasoline (See Table 4). Although there are losses associated with generating electricity from fossil-based fuels, EVs are significantly more efficient in converting their energy into mechanical power.

Since EVs operate more efficiently than their ICE-powered counterparts, overall fuel economy is higher. However, making a direct comparison between the fuel efficiencies of both vehicles is difficult. By applying a common unit of energy, such as British Thermal Units (BTUs), we can get a fair comparison between the two. For the following example we will compare the fuel efficiencies of a 1995 Acura 3.2 TL and GM's new electric vehicle: the EV1. See Table 5. Both cost about $34,000 and can accelerate from 0 to 60 mph in 8.5 seconds.
Even though the GM EV1 has 43 percent fewer BTUs after electricity generation, it can be driven almost 350 miles farther because the vehicle is more efficient than the Acura. In fact, the GM EV1 has the gasoline equivalency of 69 mpg (23) even after factoring in losses from electricity generation and charging!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle

Energy efficiency
Electric vehicle 'tank-to-wheels (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/wiki/Tank-to-wheel)' efficiency is about a factor of 3 higher than internal combustion engine vehicles (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine_vehicle).[36] (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/#cite_note-ec.europa.eu-35)

You amuse me.
This is a slam dunk.

At least do a Google search before posting about things you are uninformed about.

According to this chart a 125 hp electric motor is 92.4% efficient vs the 20-30% efficiency of modern gas engines.I'll hold my breath for you to turn in that LS you're driving and go buy a super de duper electric car. Then I'll laugh at you as I blow by you on the road. After that, I'll laugh at you as I gas up at one of a million gas stations while you can only drive 40 miles before having to go home and plug in.

Stop using Wikipedia or I shall taunt you a second time.

Stop using Wikipedia or I shall taunt you a second time.

:D :D I made an offhand comment about electric cars being more efficient and to you guys I have to prove gravity? :D :D

Electric cars go!
This one does 0-60 in under 4 seconds
http://www.teslamotors.com/

Maybe in a few years I'll buy one.
For now to amuse myself I'm putting a manual 6 speed and 14 psi of boost
into my all forged 383 V8 97 Camaro convertible :eek:
This baby will dance!

Handicraft is fun and I have experience, a lift and all the tools.

Then there's still the turbo kit I have sitting around for the LS....

Personally- I'm a big proponent of diesel fuel-
and then hydrogen powered.
The battery powered cars are NOT an the answer to anything.

Energy efficiency
Electric vehicle 'tank-to-wheels (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/wiki/Tank-to-wheel)' efficiency is about a factor of 3 higher than internal combustion engine vehicles (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine_vehicle).[36] (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/#cite_note-ec.europa.eu-35)

So, they are ignoring all the costs and energy necessary to get that potential energy to the tank. Rather selective, don't you think?

Also, what is the standard they are using when it comes to engines? What electric engine and what internal combustion engines?

Wikipedia is a highly politicized source. Be careful when using them on a highly politically charged issue like this. They may be a decent jumping off point for this issue, but facts should be double checked.

.Electric cars go!
This one does 0-60 in under 4 seconds
http://www.teslamotors.com/


From what I have heard, it is also EXCEEDINGLY unreliable and the various parts of the car are rather cheaply made (sacrificed to save weight).

Personally- I'm a big proponent of diesel fuel-


Same here. I was very surprised when I came to the USA and found that diesel cars aren't popular. (although I do see turbo diesel VW's very occasionally - good for long road trips I'd imagine)

Personally- I'm a big proponent of diesel fuel-
and then hydrogen powered.
The battery powered cars are NOT an the answer to anything.

Agreed...

Agreed...

I strongly disagree.
Diesels are slow, electric cars go.
Perhaps you are not aware of the Chevy Volt coming out next year.

It's an electric car with a gas engine to recharge the batteries




So, they are ignoring all the costs and energy necessary to get that potential energy to the tank. Rather selective, don't you think?

Also, what is the standard they are using when it comes to engines? What electric engine and what internal combustion engines?



The costs necessary to bring the electricity to heavy users in business is called the demand charge which is the cost of infrastructure to supply the electricity.
It's half my business electric bill.
The infrastructure of delivering 240 volt electricity to houses already exists
although it may need upgrading over time.

Look it's ALL electric motors that are 90+% efficient and ALL internal combustion engines that are 20-30% efficient. Doesn't matter the specific ones.
And engineering is not a politically charged opinion, just facts.

Chevy Volt: GM's 230 mpg Moon Shot
General Motors, faced with the need to recast itself in the public eye after a near-disastrous run through bankruptcy court, believes it has an ace up its sleeve. The Chevy Volt, an "Extended-Range Electric Vehicle," should reach showrooms by early 2011.
Incredibly, GM says, the Volt should arrive bearing a window sticker with a 230 mpg (city) EPA rating.
The automotive press considers the Volt a potentially revolutionary car, but uncertainty surrounds the project. In-depth magazine profiles have portrayed it as controversial within GM (http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/daily-news/080617-GM-Gambles-on-Chevy-Volt/), and the press is as focused on how a major automaker operates -- both internal political battles and engineering challenges -- as it is on the car itself. Many of the engineers behind the famous, failed EV1 are working on the Volt.
If it succeeds, it will matter as a symbol as much as an actual product -- forcing millions to reconsider GM's image, and possibly lifting the perception of rest of the General's model lineup with it.
As the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/automobiles/14AUTO.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin) explains, "If the Volt succeeds, it could put the troubled company on a whole new path after 10 decades tethered to the internal-combustion engine. If it fails, it could drag G.M., and perhaps the entire struggling American auto industry, even further behind Asian competitors."
The Volt may also become the platform for several GM cars. A two-door luxury version, the Cadillac Converj (http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/Cadillac_Converj/2011/), has begun to make the rounds of the auto show circuit. A European edition, the Opel Ampera (http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/daily-news/090303-Chevy-Volt-to-be-Sold-in-Europe-as-Opel-Vauxhall-Ampera-/), is also planned -- though there are questions about Opel's long-term survival as part of GM's portfolio, so no assumption about the Ampera is safe. Rumors have suggested that a crossover version, likely badged as a Buick, could also appear.

What the Auto Press is Saying:

With its claimed 230 mpg city rating, "The Volt would dwarf any offering from a mass-market brand, including Toyota Motor Corp.'s iconic Prius. It also could deliver a major boost to GM efforts to cultivate a green image, a key element of the company's restructuring efforts." -- Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090811-707726.html)
"In the midst of this corporate chaos, a dedicated group of hundreds of engineers, scientists, designers, technicians and drivers have tried to keep their heads down and out of the line of fire as they worked to make the Volt a production reality. From the time we first saw the original concept, GM has selected a battery supplier (LG Chem), defined the final powertrain configuration and released the production design, among countless other tasks." -- Autoblog (http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/04/28/first-drive-chevrolet-volt-powertrain-mule/)
"Because it will have both an electric and a gasoline motor on board, the Volt will be a hybrid. But it will be like no hybrid on the road today. Existing hybrids are gasoline-powered cars, with an electric assist to improve the gas mileage. The Volt will be an electric-powered car, with a gasoline assist to increase the battery's range."-- Atlantic Monthly (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/general-motors)
"The Volt will be a compact five-door hatch, built on the new global small-car architecture that will also underpin future versions of the Saturn Astra and Chevy Cobalt. ... Executed properly, the Volt could be a real game changer." -- Motor Trend (http://www.motortrend.com/features/editorial/112_0808_the_big_picture/index.html)
"A large display screen will likely be standard and allow owners to custom-tailor certain driving and charging parameters. For example, [Volt chief engineer Frank Weber] says you could plug in your car at home and then program it to charge, say five hours later, when off-peak power is cheapest. Sustainable materials are all over the place, from a recycled carpet to soy-based foam seats. ---Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4257460.html)What is it?
The Chevy Volt is midsize, series-hybrid car. GM prefers to refer to it as "an Extended-Range Electric Vehicle," or E-REV. The distinction from traditional hybrids is important. All of the hybrids you can buy today -- like the Toyota Prius (http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/Toyota_Prius/2009/) -- are parallel hybrids. They are essentially gasoline-powered cars with an electric motor to boost their gas mileage. The Volt is the opposite. It is a series hybrid -- an electric car with a small gasoline engine to boost its range.
GM says the gasoline engine will do less work in the Volt than in any previous hybrid. The electric motor, engineers claim, will be able to power the car all the way to 100 miles per hour, for up to 40 miles. The gasoline engine is just a generator that kicks in to recharge the batteries when they are near empty. In fact, some analysts believe the Volt may be capable of even longer battery-only cruises. Motor Trend (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alternative/112_0904_2011_chevrolet_volt_mule_drive/range_and_epa_ratings.html)reports, "engineers point out that the 40-mile range statistic bandied about is a conservative one that applies at the end of 10 years and 150,000 miles."

more http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/Chevrolet_Volt/

I strongly disagree.
Diesels are slow

Diesels are slow?

Couldn't agree less. A lot of modern turbo diesel cars are pretty fast. (BMW 535d for example)

Diesels are slow?

Couldn't agree less. A lot of modern turbo diesel cars are pretty fast. (BMW 535d for example)

For some reason diesels never really took off in this country.
It's not available at all gas stations and more expensive than regular.
Some diesels may be quick but electric cars all have gobs of torque right off the start.

I was mostly disagreeing with the statement:

The battery powered cars are NOT an the answer to anything.

The costs necessary to bring the electricity to heavy users in business is called the demand charge which is the cost of infrastructure to supply the electricity.
It's half my business electric bill.
The infrastructure of delivering 240 volt electricity to houses already exists
although it may need upgrading over time.

I wasn't simply talking about putting infrastructure in place, or upgrading infrastructure (though those are a part of it), I was also referring to the resources used to GENERATE the electricity (coal, gas, etc) and all those costs as well any other cost associated with the two energy sources. Basically, if you use a cost/benefit analysis as the ultimate arbiter of efficiency (and there is no better standard when talking about what people will use) then electric cars are not even in the same league as the internal combustion engine.

Look it's ALL electric motors that are 90+% efficient and ALL internal combustion engines that are 20-30% efficient. Doesn't matter the specific ones.

Again, an unfair comparison (if that comparison is even possible.) internal combustion has been in use for generations on a massive scale. Depending on the use, efficiency standards are going to vary dramatically. So the average will be skewed. Electric engines are only capable of certain uses and have not been used as widely or for as long a time (for the same things as internal combustion engines). So that standard would NATURALLY skew in favor of electric engines.

You would need to find a way to compare a comparable level of technological advancement in each and then you have to define how, specifically, you are defining efficiency and how you will measure that.

Even if an electric engine, when running is at 100% efficiency of energy output, and an internal combustion engine is only at 10%, if the electric engine is constantly disabled and needing repair, then it is no where near as efficient overall as that internal combustion engine.

And again, where is the source for these numbers? IT would be much more of a help if methodology could be looked at...

And engineering is not a politically charged opinion, just facts.

No, but electric cars, "alternative" energy sources, etc are all HIGHLY politically charged...

Barring massive government distortion of the market, the Volt will be a huge flop.

I strongly disagree.
Diesels are slow, electric cars go.
Perhaps you are not aware of the Chevy Volt coming out next year.

It's an electric car with a gas engine to recharge the batteries

You're just wrong.
First- a properly engineered diesel IS NOT slow.
To demonstrate this point, just look at the oil burners the Germans are building right now. The VW TDI engines, the Audis, the twin turbo BMW 335d, or even this truck on a classic internet video:
YouTube- fast diesel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D43mL1p65vg)

And an electric car is not fast when the batteries are dead.
Nor are they environmentally friend when the components have to be mined an imported from parts of the world just as hostile to the West as the Middle East.

Diesel is easy to make and very efficient, our technology and engineering now builds a diesel that is fast, quiet, and affordable. It's also an excellent technology to get us to the next phase-- which could well be:

Hydrogen.
You get your electric motor, but you don't have the sooty emissions or toxic batteries.

In candor, I'm curious to know about the unintended consequences of the "water" exhaust.

In candor, I'm curious to know about the unintended consequences of the "water" exhaust.

I'm curious about that, also.

I was thinking, maybe the exhaust could be routed through a filter (Brita) and into a storage tank - make your own bottled water while you drive! :lol:

The Volt is poised to be an unmitigated failure. Just my prediction.

As automakers aggressively pursue (http://www.detnews.com/article/20100108/AUTO01/1080335/1148/AUTO01/Study--Buyers-unlikely-to-recoup-extra-cost-of-electric-vehicles) electric vehicles, a study released today shows the cost targets behind the plans are unlikely to be achieved, making it hard for consumers to recoup the extra cost of buying electric.

The study by Boston Consulting Group, released at an Automotive Press Association event in Detroit today, concludes the cost of electric vehicles is unlikely to drop to the $250 per kilowatt/hour threshold that is cited by many carmakers for these vehicles to be competitive in price. That benchmark is not possible without a major breakthrough in battery technology, and no such breakthrough is on the horizon, said Xavier Mosquet, the Detroit-based leader of BCG’s automotive group.

As a result, the payback time for an all-electric vehicle in the U.S. is about 15 years, and for an extended-range vehicle such as the Chevrolet Volt it would be 19 years, the study finds.

Second Study in Less Than a Month Blasts Feasibility of Electric Cars, Plug-in Hybrids (http://www.dailytech.com/Second+Study+in+Less+Than+a+Month+Blasts+Feasibili ty+of+Electric+Cars+Plugin+Hybrids/article17356.htm)
Brandon Hill

The assault on electric/plug-in vehicles continues.

The Obama administration has big plans for electric vehicles. The administration poured $2.4 billion USD into the development of electric vehicles and battery technology in March 2009.

The $2.4 billion was taken from the $787 billion USD economic stimulus bill and provided $1.5 billion directly to automakers, $500 million for companies that build electric vehicle components, and another $400 million for research and infrastructure. This is in addition to up to a $7,500 tax credit that is available to those who purchase plug-in hybrid vehicles.

However, despite all of the money being thrown at the electric vehicle industry, the payback for consumers is continually being questioned. The latest backlash is in a new study coming from the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) according to the Detroit News. The report suggest that consumers won't see a payback for the energy/fuel savings of all-electric vehicles for roughly 15 years. The upcoming Chevrolet Volt, however, fares even worse -- according to the BCG, the payback timeframe for the vehicle is a whopping 19 years.

The main reason for the disparity is battery technology. Advances in battery technology to provide greater range for vehicles have not come fast enough. Likewise, the astronomical price tag of batteries used in vehicles like the Tesla Roadster and Chevrolet Volt won't be coming down to more acceptable levels anytime soon.

Even more troubling is BCG's assertion that a 15-kWh battery pack which costs $16,000 today will still cost a hefty $6,000 ten years from now. BCG suggests a number of things to make electric vehicles more palatable to the U.S. consumer with two of the more outrageous options being a 210 percent increase in the gas tax or oil prices skyrocketing to $375/barrel.

And it's not just BCG that is predicting doom and gloom for the electric vehicle industry. DailyTech reported in late December that the National Research Council (which is funded by the U.S. Energy Department) also didn't have too many kind words to say about the feasibility of electric vehicles. In addition, the relatively small $2.4 billion that the Obama administration has already funneled into the electric vehicle market would have to be expanded to hundreds of billions of dollars for the vehicles to proliferate in the marketplace.

With both of these studies coming to the forefront within weeks of each other, it's hard not to look back at comments Audi of America President Johan de Nysschen made in September 2009. He commented on the Volt's high asking price, stating, "No one is going to pay a $15,000 premium for a car that competes with a (Toyota) Corolla. So there are not enough idiots who will buy it."

With regards to pure electrics, he added that they are "for the intellectual elite who want to show what enlightened souls they are." More recently, de Nysschen commented that "paying customers to drive your cars is not sustainable," in reference to the aforementioned $7,500 tax credit.

Despite the controversy and negativity surrounding plug-ins and all-electrics, manufacturers are still shifting money and resources to the production of such vehicles. The Chevrolet Volt will be out later this year and Nissan is readying its all-electric Leaf for production. Toyota is working on a production version of a plug-in Prius and Tesla is speeding along with further development of its Roadster and the production version of the Model S.

The vehicles are coming and there's no stopping them -- it will just take some time to see who is "stupid" enough to buy one.

And more from this article (http://www.detnews.com/article/20100108/AUTO01/1080335/1148/AUTO01/Study--Buyers-unlikely-to-recoup-extra-cost-of-electric-vehicles) fossten cited: For consumers to break even on their electric car purchase, one of the following things must happen:

• There is a chemistry breakthrough that keeps material costs the same while creating a battery that can store twice as much energy, reducing the cost from $400 per kW/hr to $215.

• A new $7,700 government incentive is offered.

• Owners triple the number of miles they drive annually so the extra cost pays for itself.

• Oil prices increase from $100 a barrel to $375 a barrel.

• A 210 percent incremental gasoline tax is implemented.
As hotair.com (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/12/plug-in-cars-wont-pay-off-for-consumers-for-15-years/) summarizes...In other words, the only way this works is either a miracle breakthrough on something we’re not even approaching yet, or government taxes the hell out of all the other consumer options. Don’t be surprised to see the gas taxes approach proposed by Congress or the White House in the coming months — while they still can pass it themselves.

Any of these real "alternative" fuels, be they straight electric or hydrogen still require huge amounts of energy to create... and that really means we need to begin developing and refining our nuclear abilities or find a way to power our energy plants with unicorn farts.