Last on the Chevy Volt

I previously said that Snopes did not dispute Eric Bollings operation data on the Chevy Volt. I was wrong. I had neglected to read the last part of Snopes' article.

    

Snopes presents data, which are more credible to me than Eric Bollings. The net result is that it appears the Volt has an operating efficiency comparable to standard gasoline powered vehicles. The last part of Snopes analytical statement is questionable, but it is not significant to the total, and we will not quibble.

    

It now appears that all dissenters are on one wavelength. The Volt doesn't sell in quantity, because it is too expensive compared to suitable gasoline vehicles, and in spite of taxpayer subsidy.

 -----Original Message----- 

From: Arthur Sucsy [mailto:asucsy@suddenlink.net]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 5:27 PM
Subject: More on the Chevy Volt

    I have had another criticism of using ridiculous information in my claim that the market may not be ready for an electric car, because it cannot compete with gasoline./Diesel powered cars on a cost/performance basis. I was referred to Snopes for the facts.  http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/chevyvolt.asp

    Snopes starts out by saying that the claim of the Volt costing 7 times as much to run and 3 times longer to drive across country is "False". It then goes on to repeat Eric Bollings' data and apparently finds no fault with it. Snopes then explains their "False" judgment is based not on Eric Bollings' facts, but rather that the Volt was never intended to compete directly with gasoline /Diesel powered vehicles. The Volt is an "extended" coverage vehicle. which means that one can get more performance than from the usual electric car. This is accomplished by including a gasoline engine in its construction.

    Depending on one's interpretation of "extended coverage", one can either assume the Volt has a long range and high speed, similar to a gasoline/ Diesel powered vehicle, or its performance on those two specs is somewhat better than an all-electric car. If one assumes the former, the Volt is a loser. If one assumes the latter, the Volt is a winner.

    Going back to the matter of "ridiculous information or claims", I don't agree. Snopes is not disputing Eric Bollings' data. But, even if the running cost is only 2 times as much, rather than 7 times, and the cross country driving time is only 2 times, rather than 3 times straight gasoline, it's still uncompetitive for the mass market and Bollings has made his point. As I have said before, GM has been forced to shut down Volt production, because of low sales, and in spite of heavy advertising promotion.

    The question still remains as to whether there is a place for electric vehicles. The answer is a resounding "yes", and I hope this is not interpreted as a ridiculous claim. Electric powered fork-lift trucks, in-plant trucks  and in-plant cars (think Hollywood set or large oil refinery) are already in use. Other American and Japanese auto makers also have electric vehicles for sale, but the market is small. It will likely remain small for many years to come, until the world runs out of gasoline. Even then syngas or other technologies will likely be perfected to supply synthetic gasoline for another 100 years or so, (exaggerated claim?). The basic question is whether it was necessary for the Obama Administration to have dumped and continue to dump many billions of taxpayer dollars into electric car and auxiliary promotion.