[mQb0aVZe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLknNrrL6QU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LE062OfrN4

[uranbigis]

because technology has moved on. that 10 year old things probably hopeless by todays standards.

[Hodstcopter]

Because it's not an "electric car"? The Volt has an internal combustion engine that recharges the battery when its depleted and cannot be charged.

[Aleenkagirlla]

I guess "extensive use of corrosion resistant, nonmetal exterior panels" sounds a lot better than "lots and lots of plastic."

Edit: The range and recharge times are horrible, which no doubt played a major role in GM canning the project.

[Sdzqerty]

Edit: The range and recharge times are horrible, which no doubt played a major role in GM canning the project.

yeah, they had a great day car 10 years ago, but people do not want to have a backup car in the garage if they plan to drive more than 60 miles.

[Eh085zE7]

Agreed that GM cancelled the project due to the limited range, but why did GM take back all of the cars, and destroy them?? Many owners loved them, and did not want to give them up.

For some reason, all manufacturers have this obsession with internal combustion engines. Probably because they use oil, and we cant upset the arabs by using electric only!

[enteltcheft]

because technology has moved on. that 10 year old things probably hopeless by todays standards.

I would rather ask where would EV tech be today if they kept it, not to mention how much of a competitive advantage they would have built up.

[Voliscietle]

I would rather ask where would EV tech be today if they kept it, not to mention how much of a competitive advantage they would have built up.

Exactly!

Yes, the range and recharge times weren't great when the car was developed 10 years ago, but had they continued to develop the technology instead of literally scrapping it, electric cars would be much improved by now, and would continue to improve over time. Now here we are essentially having to start from scratch, AGAIN...

I mean, thank god computers weren't scrapped early on because they were bulky and slow. Or televisions because the screens were small and not in color...

[Coollabioto]

I disagree,there are a lot of people already working on battery tech,and that's currently the bottleneck.

It woudln't have been signifigant in terms of speeding up the battery research if they had kept it going. Everything else already works good.

[Hodstcopter]

Exactly!

Yes, the range and recharge times weren't great when the car was developed 10 years ago, but had they continued to develop the technology instead of literally scrapping it, electric cars would be much improved by now, and would continue to improve over time. Now here we are essentially having to start from scratch, AGAIN...

I mean, thank god computers weren't scrapped early on because they were bulky and slow. Or televisions because the screens were small and not in color...

No. People have been working on EV power and battery technology for years. Just because GM wasn't doing it doesn't mean anyone else was. Search through some academic journals and you'll see what has been done in the past 10 years.

[ImapFidaarram]

Exactly!

Yes, the range and recharge times weren't great when the car was developed 10 years ago, but had they continued to develop the technology instead of literally scrapping it, electric cars would be much improved by now, and would continue to improve over time. Now here we are essentially having to start from scratch, AGAIN...

I mean, thank god computers weren't scrapped early on because they were bulky and slow. Or televisions because the screens were small and not in color...

You have to think, though, that the market for such a vehicle when gasoline was so cheap would be very minimal to justify the costs involved. Case in point, I've seen virtually no commercials for Hybrid vehicles since gas dropped as low as it has. You'd be surprised how many people have short term memories when it comes to the impact of fuel prices.

[pIp83Uns]

Because it's not an "electric car"? The Volt has an internal combustion engine that recharges the battery when its depleted and cannot be charged.

While that is true, the Volt's drivetrain is entirely electric. The IC engine onboard can only power the cars electrical system, and even then its barely puts out any pollution. Its a smart idea considering how far battery technology has to go before it can replace the average persons car in a cost effective package. The motor and controller technology is there, its rock solid and will last a very long time. But the batteries that power electric cars wear out, and can be exceedingly expensive to replace when they wear out, and they will wear out far more quickly than a IC car will. My average daily commute is about 35 miles round trip not including other stops. I visit my friends on the weekend and sometimes we go out during the week. At most, i would put maybe 90 miles in a day. An electric vehicle with a range of 150 miles would give me plenty of headroom for what i need. Sucks for long trips though.

Right now, despite the infrastructure issues, I think fuel cell tech is the way to go. It generates electricity on the fly and can be "filled" just like an normal gas car. There are some safety issues with it because of hydrogen.

I'm not against electric vehicles. They are very efficient, cheap to charge. Its not pollution free, being that the electricity has to come from somewhere and most of those sources are either Coal burning plants, or nuclear facilities. Wind, solar, and water based facilities don't provide enough, though I am glad they exist and hope we can make more use of them in the future.

[mQb0aVZe]

While that is true, the Volt's drivetrain is entirely electric. The IC engine onboard can only power the cars electrical system, and even then its barely puts out any pollution. Its a smart idea considering how far battery technology has to go before it can replace the average persons car in a cost effective package. The motor and controller technology is there, its rock solid and will last a very long time. But the batteries that power electric cars wear out, and can be exceedingly expensive to replace when they wear out, and they will wear out far more quickly than a IC car will. My average daily commute is about 35 miles round trip not including other stops. I visit my friends on the weekend and sometimes we go out during the week. At most, i would put maybe 90 miles in a day. An electric vehicle with a range of 150 miles would give me plenty of headroom for what i need. Sucks for long trips though.

Luckily, Toyota left RAV4 EVs to their owners and didn't crush them, like GM did. They have them for more than 10 years now, they have NiMH batteries and they still run with full charge and RAV4 EVs do 100 miles per charge, so these batteries have passed the age test:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRjsu_zHxac
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shk_JEXShzE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbeCLkRwzBU
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rav4_ev

Why did Toyota stop the production, you say? Because GM sold the NiMH battery technology and patents to Texaco and Chevron and those were the only best batteries, at the time, to run electric vehicles. Without these batteries, Toyota couldn't produce any more RAV4 EVs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NiMH#En...ybrid_vehicles

[FetMiddle]

I would be extremely happy with an EV1/EV Rav4... That solar charger = win during spring/summer here in DC. Now if they could make a Miata version of that Rav4. I'd be in heaven

[enteltcheft]

But the batteries that power electric cars wear out, and can be exceedingly expensive to replace when they wear out

There is a whole bunch of small costs for owning an IC car that can exceed the cost of a battery replacement.

[Elelaytet]

There is a whole bunch of small costs for owning an IC car that can exceed the cost of a battery replacement.

I still think it's a valid point though even if it doesn't cost alot to run while the battery functions. Batteries do eventually wear out, and Li-Ion lose their efficiency as time progresses and through the number of charge cycles they undertake. In a warm environment, they'll lose their efficiency alot faster compared to a colder environment.

It's all good saying some cars can get 200 or whatever miles to one charge, but it won't take long for that figure to take a tumble and no doubt fitting a new battery would be ludicrously expensive - something people wouldn't be prepared to shell out all in one go IMO.

[Ngwkgczx]

EV = Tree hugger owners IMO. I myself am not a fan of electric cars. They have no appeal to me what so ever. They may be good for short trips to work and back but thats about it.


I live in the DC area and the beach is 160 miles from me. What would I do when the battery is getting low? Would I stop at somebodys house and say "hey mind if I use your electricity to recharge my car while I sit here for a couple hours with my thumb up my @$$ waiting for it to recharge?

EV = FAIL for an all around do everything car.

[mQb0aVZe]

That's your personal preference.

But we don't all share your preference as we don't make such long trips with a car many times a year. No one is forcing you to use an electric car, we, who find it useful, just want to have an option to buy one.

About charge time: LiFePo4 batteries can be recharged in 5 minutes from empty, if you have powerful enough charger.

[ManHolDenPoker]

Anyone ever watch this POS "documentary"?

Who Killed the Electric Car?

[enteltcheft]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6aJaL8ppdI

You can't let the chinese make it.