Chevrolet Volt

[Synthaholic]

More bad news for Volt owners. First you over-pay by about 30k (a Nissan Versa is just as fuel efficient, goes farther and faster, has a longer warranty, and costs 10K) now it looks like you may be paying another tax (if you live in Washington). The hits just keep comin'......

Wash. considers annual flat fee for electric cars - Yahoo! News

What's your argument against that tax?

 

[Synthaholic]

I just cannot understand the anti electric vehicle mania bunch.

Can you tow a 5,000 camper with it? How about a 3,800 bass boat? How much does the electric upgrade you have to do to your house to charge the SOB up?

I'll take a gas-swilling Tundra anyday.

Well, yes, America is filled with morons like you who probably use just one skillet to do all your cooking, also. Do you also use your weed whacker to mow your lawn?

Smart people realize that there are different tools for different jobs. Ask one - they'll tell you!

 

[Synthaholic]

You have your reasons for buying the VOLT- good for you. I am happy that you like it (for the price you paid- you'd better like it!). But please, stop pretending that it makes financial sense. Because we all know that it doesn't.

I agree with you 100%, to each our own.

Regarding "pretending that it makes financial sense" if I used logic along the lines you suggest, I would drive a 15-year-old Yugo (or something even more economical if I could find it).

Again, to each our own.

I drive a CLS-550 AMG Diamond White Edition Mercedes Benz- the car cost a lot of money and is also expensive to maintain and insure. The tires alone are $1,800 to replace and only last about 30,000 miles. I don't pretend it was a good financial choice. I had other reasons for buying it- none were financial.

The VOLT, by contrast, is marketed as a money saving vehicle.

It is a glorified golf cart that costs a small fortune to own when compared to truly economical cars like the Versa, Yaris, et. al.

I don't believe you, mainly because you don't have a good track record on this forum for telling the truth.

 

[Zander]

I agree with you 100%, to each our own.

Regarding "pretending that it makes financial sense" if I used logic along the lines you suggest, I would drive a 15-year-old Yugo (or something even more economical if I could find it).

Again, to each our own.

I drive a CLS-550 AMG Diamond White Edition Mercedes Benz- the car cost a lot of money and is also expensive to maintain and insure. The tires alone are $1,800 to replace and only last about 30,000 miles. I don't pretend it was a good financial choice. I had other reasons for buying it- none were financial.

The VOLT, by contrast, is marketed as a money saving vehicle.

It is a glorified golf cart that costs a small fortune to own when compared to truly economical cars like the Versa, Yaris, et. al.

I don't believe you, mainly because you don't have a good track record on this forum for telling the truth.

What don't you believe? That I own the MBZ? I'll be happy to post a photo of it with me sitting in it. What would you like to wager?

 

[Zander]

More bad news for Volt owners. First you over-pay by about 30k (a Nissan Versa is just as fuel efficient, goes farther and faster, has a longer warranty, and costs 10K) now it looks like you may be paying another tax (if you live in Washington). The hits just keep comin'......

Wash. considers annual flat fee for electric cars - Yahoo! News

What's your argument against that tax?

Why would I be against it?

 

[Synthaholic]

I drive a CLS-550 AMG Diamond White Edition Mercedes Benz- the car cost a lot of money and is also expensive to maintain and insure. The tires alone are $1,800 to replace and only last about 30,000 miles. I don't pretend it was a good financial choice. I had other reasons for buying it- none were financial.

The VOLT, by contrast, is marketed as a money saving vehicle.

It is a glorified golf cart that costs a small fortune to own when compared to truly economical cars like the Versa, Yaris, et. al.

I don't believe you, mainly because you don't have a good track record on this forum for telling the truth.

What don't you believe? That I own the MBZ? I'll be happy to post a photo of it with me sitting in it. What would you like to wager?

Sure. Then I'll run down to the dealership and have my photo taken in a Porsche!

 

[Synthaholic]

More bad news for Volt owners. First you over-pay by about 30k (a Nissan Versa is just as fuel efficient, goes farther and faster, has a longer warranty, and costs 10K) now it looks like you may be paying another tax (if you live in Washington). The hits just keep comin'......

Wash. considers annual flat fee for electric cars - Yahoo! News

What's your argument against that tax?

Why would I be against it?

Well, you referred to it as a 'hit'.

Roads are paid for by gas taxes, as a user fee. There's nothing wrong with electric cars also paying a user fee to maintain those roads.

 

[Zander]

I don't believe you, mainly because you don't have a good track record on this forum for telling the truth.

What don't you believe? That I own the MBZ? I'll be happy to post a photo of it with me sitting in it. What would you like to wager?

Sure. Then I'll run down to the dealership and have my photo taken in a Porsche!

Make a wager. You called me a liar kid, now man the fuck up or apologize.

 

[Zander]

What's your argument against that tax?

Why would I be against it?

Well, you referred to it as a 'hit'.

Roads are paid for by gas taxes, as a user fee. There's nothing wrong with electric cars also paying a user fee to maintain those roads.

It is a hit. If the people who are purchasing these $41,000 golf carts want to delude themselves into believing that they are "saving" money by purchasing one, I think a government imposed user fee is yet another pin in their balloon of self delusion.

 

[Trajan]

What's your argument against that tax?

Why would I be against it?

Well, you referred to it as a 'hit'.

Roads are paid for by gas taxes, as a user fee. There's nothing wrong with electric cars also paying a user fee to maintain those roads.

uhm, if I recall they were given tax breaks/allowances if they bought an elec. car, use of motor pool lanes etc...now, they have a budget issue and are looking for cash, they think these folks got an out and are going to stick it to them.

I am not down with any of the breaks they gave them but nor am I into the gov. pulling a bait and switch on them either.

 

[Big Fitz]

The Volt....

a very expensive golf cart.

To be expected, a stupid post followed by an echo.

yes you're right; posting stupidity is your domain , I'll ask for a copyright next time.......I apologize.

No no...you don't have to worry about copyright. It falls under 'fair use' as long as you cite stupidity credit to Rye.

 

[Big Fitz]

A real cost-benefit analysis might take into consideration many more variables then listed in the OP. Consider a few:

1. The cost to the taxpayer for a foreign/military/defense/energy policy predicated on our addiciton to oil which may have created the climate for radical muslims to hate our country and seek to do us harm;
2. The environmental/health costs associated with air pollution, a bi-product of the internal combustion engine and the burning of coal;
3. The environmental/health costs associated with water pollution; a bi-product of coal mine production washing into steams and rivers;
4. The bi-products of oil from vehicles washing into storm drains and eventually into the oceans;
5. The average miles driven by commuters in the U.S.;
6. The ability of science and industry to R&D new, better and more efficient products;
7. The competition amongy vehicle manufacturers worldwide to develop alternative type vehicles.

You have one critical flaw in your list.

First prove direct harm from auto pollution and personal health from general exposure that cannot be attributed to other sources. Once that is done, your premise may have much more credibility. No proof of direct causation, no proof of costs being linked to cars.

Also, when's the last time a car was run on coal? 1892?

Do you know what the difference is between medicine and poison many times?

Dosage.

You need proof of direct causation by even minute to trace amounts of pollution to health. Case in point, how's the Deepwater spill harming people still outside of unemployment by an anti-capitalist administration?

Maybe introducing coal was a step too far. I withdraw that example. Though there is no such thing as clean coal.

How many commuters drive a greater distance to and from work than can be accomplished by an all electric car? For over 30 years my commute was less than 30 miles. BTW, electric cars have HVAC systems, CD/Radios and even seat belts and air bags (ooops, I forget, making people wear seat belts deprives them of liberty and air bags are one more example of government interference).

I suppose you don't recall SMOG alerts/acid rain before another interference by government -removing lead and adding afterburngers to the exhaust system of vehicles.

See: Killer London Smog of 1952

Let me suggest a test: Go to your garage and get a garden house and your car keys. Step two, place one end of the garden hose in the tailpipe and the other through a small opening in the front drivers side window. Last step: start the car and breath deeply the exhaust from the TP now entering the cab of the vehicle.
No one will ever confuse carbon monoxide with medicine (at least more than one time).

How many commuters drive a greater distance to and from work than can be accomplished by an all electric car?

In the midwest, great plains and parts of the mountains, a lot. A significant minority. I know personally of about 5 people who commute, one way around 60 miles. I know one person who commutes 120. This is in MN. The less dense the population the greater the commute distance. Secondly, is there any proof of improved: quality, convenience, economy or speed in their commute by using an electric car? I am still highly dubious.

It makes sense for buses, for example, to go hybrid (not whole hog electric) because the vast majority of them do not do highway miles unless they are express routes, and outside of major metropolitan area, those needs are few and far between.

Though there is no such thing as clean coal.

Baaaaaloney. Emissions from 'clean coal facilities', like new version garbage incinerators have fabulous scrubbing systems that are almost to the point of putting cleaner air back in the atmosphere than when it went in. I think that's a little overkill because the expense for such levels of environmental cleaning are past the return on investment, but am a firm believer in clean coal uses. Mining is far cleaner in the US than pretty much every other nation in the world... not too clean, but getting stupidly prohibitive.

I suppose you don't recall SMOG alerts/acid rain before another interference by government -removing lead and adding afterburngers to the exhaust system of vehicles.

Two positive changes, implemented in the 1970's and have been expanded to near ludicrous levels of cleanliness versus return on investment. And you're trying to base the "need", and no it's not a need it's a want, for cleaner emissions still based on a freak incident in the 1950's before even rudimentary clean air regulation went into effect? You do realize that even in 1950, the air in london was many many multiples better than it was 100 years earlier when the gritty smog was so powerful it was called a 'miasma' and blamed for many health issues, justifiably?

But those statistics for death were not recorded well, because the scientific interest was very low at the time, and the concept of germs and pollution based illness was still a foreign concept. Tuberculosis was still being 'treated' by taking a holiday in the country for 3 months if they could get it.

I'm sorry, but these are not justifications for tighter air quality standards when what has been done since the 1970's has no reason to be tightened. There is no further benefit to be gained.

Let me suggest a test: Go to your garage and get a garden house and your car keys. Step two, place one end of the garden hose in the tailpipe and the other through a small opening in the front drivers side window. Last step: start the car and breath deeply the exhaust from the TP now entering the cab of the vehicle.
No one will ever confuse carbon monoxide with medicine (at least more than one time).

Yeah... that's equivalent to anything we're discussing. How about you huff a can of krylon paint and compare it to air pollution. I can see how that'd be equivalent. come on, don't even try to pass that crap out.

 

[Big Fitz]

I just cannot understand the anti electric vehicle mania bunch.

Can you tow a 5,000 camper with it? How about a 3,800 bass boat? How much does the electric upgrade you have to do to your house to charge the SOB up?

I'll take a gas-swilling Tundra anyday.

Well, yes, America is filled with morons like you who probably use just one skillet to do all your cooking, also. Do you also use your weed whacker to mow your lawn?

Smart people realize that there are different tools for different jobs. Ask one - they'll tell you!

Comparing a car to a skillet or weed-whacker is like comparing a spatula to an outhouse. How about we compare at least fruit to fruit here. not fruit to cleaning solvents.

 

[Big Fitz]

I agree with you 100%, to each our own.

Regarding "pretending that it makes financial sense" if I used logic along the lines you suggest, I would drive a 15-year-old Yugo (or something even more economical if I could find it).

Again, to each our own.

I drive a CLS-550 AMG Diamond White Edition Mercedes Benz- the car cost a lot of money and is also expensive to maintain and insure. The tires alone are $1,800 to replace and only last about 30,000 miles. I don't pretend it was a good financial choice. I had other reasons for buying it- none were financial.

The VOLT, by contrast, is marketed as a money saving vehicle.

It is a glorified golf cart that costs a small fortune to own when compared to truly economical cars like the Versa, Yaris, et. al.

I don't believe you, mainly because you don't have a good track record on this forum for telling the truth.

Mr. Pot I presume? More like a chamberpot but who's checking?

 

[Slapshot28]

If the people who are purchasing these $41,000 golf carts want to delude themselves into believing that they are "saving" money by purchasing one...

Hi Zander-- I am a bit confused here. I know that some magazine headlines read on whether or not Volt ownership can "pay for itself" (especially versus a Prius, not comparable in my view) but I'm not aware of GM advocating this argument. There is no way that I am trying to justify my Volt purchase this way, and I don't think any other Volt owners believe in the "pay-back" notion either.

Sure, minimizing gasoline use is good (for lots of reasons), but $41K worth in real dollars and cents? Come on!

I'm just curious what convinced you that GM and/or any real Volt owners are trying to make this "pay-back" case. I've just never seen it, other than on Prius-chats where the "pay-back" argument seems to get ridiculous airtime...

BTW, I know that Volt mileage numbers are all over the map, starting with the famous 230 MPG, and going every which way. But that's not the same thing as a silly notion that the car somehow will pay for itself.

Thank you!

Chris

 

[Synthaholic]

What don't you believe? That I own the MBZ? I'll be happy to post a photo of it with me sitting in it. What would you like to wager?

Sure. Then I'll run down to the dealership and have my photo taken in a Porsche!

Make a wager. You called me a liar kid, now man the fuck up or apologize.

No I didn't. I said I didn't believe you.

 

[Zander]

If the people who are purchasing these $41,000 golf carts want to delude themselves into believing that they are "saving" money by purchasing one...

Hi Zander-- I am a bit confused here. I know that some magazine headlines read on whether or not Volt ownership can "pay for itself" (especially versus a Prius, not comparable in my view) but I'm not aware of GM advocating this argument. There is no way that I am trying to justify my Volt purchase this way, and I don't think any other Volt owners believe in the "pay-back" notion either.

Sure, minimizing gasoline use is good (for lots of reasons), but $41K worth in real dollars and cents? Come on!

I'm just curious what convinced you that GM and/or any real Volt owners are trying to make this "pay-back" case. I've just never seen it, other than on Prius-chats where the "pay-back" argument seems to get ridiculous airtime...

BTW, I know that Volt mileage numbers are all over the map, starting with the famous 230 MPG, and going every which way. But that's not the same thing as a silly notion that the car somehow will pay for itself.

Thank you!

Chris

Don here seems to think he's hit the jackpot.....http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/164416-chevrolet-volt-6.html#post3563858

Thanks Tornado- yes it's a ridiculously expensive car. But I can afford it and what the hell, it makes me feel important when I pull up to the valet.

So you can choose to drive a "stupid" car but everyone else should listen to your pronouncements as to what vehicle is appropriate for them? Seems like you're suffering from something of a God complex. As a FYI, I get a smug sense of satisfaction whenever I see someone driving a slow, dirty, noisy, vibration ridden internal combustion car and think of how technologically advanced my Volt is.

No offense, but I'm having some trouble believing the Mercedes story. If you did drive one you'd know that a Mercedes gets you zip from valets. At the moment the only people driving a Mercedes are 55+ or Asian or posers. Basically everyone who hasn't gotten the memo about how passe the Mercedes brand is. Yeah, the guy who cuts my hair drives one, but that's about the brand's status level, which is why it won't remotely get you a front row parking place at a nice restaurant.

I bought a Volt. I love it. And since it's far and away the cheapest car I've ever bought, it has already saved me at least $20K, and that's before I drive it for a month on what it would cost me to buy a can of nuts. (Expensive nuts but you get the point). I particularly like the fact that I'm getting a tax rebate which makes the car even less expensive. In fact I'm getting two rebates. Thank you very much. And if you think I feel badly about this you need to think again. I paid cash for my house so I've never gotten a tax break on my mortgage, and I'm sick and tired for paying more in taxes so other people can get tax breaks on their houses and charities and medical insurance and children, and I'm delighted for once to be able to keep some of my hard dollars rather than sending them to Uncle Sam. And if you don't like that, too bad so sad.

As for your not wanting a Volt, that's great. They are in such short supply that your not ordering one will just make someone else a happy camper. They thank you.

 

[Zander]

Sure. Then I'll run down to the dealership and have my photo taken in a Porsche!

Make a wager. You called me a liar kid, now man the fuck up or apologize.

No I didn't. I said I didn't believe you.

Sorry Mr Clinton, but that circular logic crap ain't gonna fly with me. When you say you don't believe me you are calling me a liar. I can prove beyond reasonable doubt that I own the car. Now you can either apologize, or man up. So what's it gonna be punk?

 

[Slapshot28]

Don here seems to think he's hit the jackpot.....

Yea, a lot of us Volt owners are pretty psyched about using less gasoline. Before, with my 5-Series, I might have spent $50/week on fill-ups, or about $2500 per year. Even if I cut that cost in half, it's going to take a hell of a long time to justify whatever efficiency-based premium I might ascribe to the Volt.

So, I'm not focused on pay-back. For me, the $41K is justified by owning a car that I really like, period.

Thank you again!

Chris

 

[Synthaholic]

Why would I be against it?

Well, you referred to it as a 'hit'.

Roads are paid for by gas taxes, as a user fee. There's nothing wrong with electric cars also paying a user fee to maintain those roads.

It is a hit. If the people who are purchasing these $41,000 golf carts want to delude themselves into believing that they are "saving" money by purchasing one, I think a government imposed user fee is yet another pin in their balloon of self delusion.

I think your premise is wrong. The rich people who are early adopters of new technology are buying it because that's what they do. That includes the Michael Moores, Bill Mahers, and assorted Hollywood types who also were the first to buy the Prius.

Then there are the people like Slapstick, who could have bought another BMW, or an Acura TL, or an Audi A6, or any number of similarly priced sports cars. For them, there is significant savings by not having to buy gas (or as much of it).

I seriously doubt that there is anyone who normally would buy a $25k car paying an extra $16k to save gas money.