Living with a Chevrolet Volt

[Synthaholic]

Living with a chevy volt. <snip>

Nice FUD-work, Nova78. What, no plagiarizing this time? Your are only good for posting a 2-year-old video, and a 2008 stock photo of some random car fire? You can do better...

How about a sizzling-hot video from a Volt Pool Party? Much more entertaining!!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE3PqOz46zQ&feature=player_embedded"]Voltchella: The Chevy Volt Pool Party - YouTube[/ame]

Or a picture of the Volt surrounded by all of the awards it's collected?

The Volt just won #1 in customer satisfaction for the second year in a row: http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.d...-ranked-by-consumer-reports-as-most-loved-car

"DETROIT -- The Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid landed atop Consumer Reports' annual owner-satisfaction ranking for the second straight year.

Ninety-two percent of responding Volt owners in a poll of the magazine's subscribers said they definitely would buy a Volt again, tops among 240 models, the magazine said today.

Several other fuel-efficient models also scored highly, including Toyota's Camry Hybrid, Prius, and Prius C as well as Nissan's Leaf electric car.

The Volt's two-year reign "points to the continuing trend of owners' enthusiasm for cars that are fuel-efficient cars, especially as we see more and more hybrid and electric models hitting the market," Rik Paul, Consumer Reports' auto editor, said in a statement.

It's also affirmation for GM executives who've battled bad press from early soft sales, scathing criticism from opponents of green-car subsidies, and a late 2011 federal safety probe into battery fires that turned up no significant risks."

I'm sure that last paragragh resonates with you.

Good for the Volt! I'm sure the folks who can afford one are quite happy with them as is the author of the OP. But, based on the average $175k incomes of Chevy Volt buyers, and given the apparent great success of the product among these buyer, perhaps we soon won't need government subsidies to produce them and to persuade people to buy them?

$32k is not expensive for a car these days. A Honda Odyssey minivan runs close to $35k these days. How many cars are sold each year that are more expensive than $32k? A bunch. I doubt that BMW or Lexus or Acura or Mercedes or Infiniti even have a cheaper car available.

If you are currently spending $50-$100 per week for gas - as many Expedition/Tahoe/Escalade/Armada/full sized sedan owners do - that $200-$400 is a good chunk toward the monthly equity payment of a Volt.

I am seriously considering one as a replacement for my Volvo S70 T5, which is $50 per week in gas.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Meant to reply to the EPA comment earlier, but let the moment get away from me......

1. Based on energy use, the Volt has been averaging close to 2 miles per kilowatt-hour, which, according to the EPA, is the equivalent of 65 mpg. But that’s for the first 25 miles or so, on battery alone.

According to these stickers, the EPA thinks the electric MPG equivalent is 94 for the 2012 (my wife's car) and 98 for the 2013, not the 65 quoted by PoliticalChic. And the electric range is variable by temperature and driving habits. I've been in my wife's car when it as reported as much as 45 miles and as little as 30 miles available at full charge. I would expect 25 would be on a very cold day. By the way, we're in Detroit. Hardly a tropical climate.

That was a direct quote from The April 2011 edition of Consumer Reports.

 

[martinjlm]

I don't believe that is true. The wheels are driven by both gas & electric power. You can run on all electric, gas drive & charge or gas & electric together for max horse power. It uses a planetary, ring & sun gear setup. It also may be possible that the electric motor spins the engine to start it.

It is absolutely true. That was the center point of the Volt concept. It does not have any aspect of a planetary step gear transmission in the vehicle (ironically, early in my careers was responsible for writing service procedures for planetary transmissions....even earlier for manufacturing sun gears). What you are describing is how some traditional hybrids work, but not an EREV like the Volt.

From one of the early Chevrolet Press Releases when the car was launched in late 2010......

Electric drive supplies power to the wheels
A 111-kW (149-hp) electric drive unit powers the Volt&#8217;s wheels at all times. Positioned under the hood next to the engine, it packages a pair of electric motors and a multi-mode transaxle with continuously variable capability. Unlike a conventional powertrain, there are no step gears within the unit, and no direct mechanical linkage from the engine, through the drive unit to the wheels.

Chevrolet Volt Drivetrain - Electric Vehicle or Just a Hybrid?

I can see how you could come to your conclusion. Some folks see a hunk of hardware with a few gears in it and think "transmission! Those are each of the "gears". Sorta yes, but mostly no. I have annotated the picture you posted to show what each of the major components are and how they relate to where the engine attaches and where the wheels attach. The planetary in the cutaway is actually INSIDE the primary electric motor, not part of a transmission. It helps regulate the speed at which the motor spins. In a transmission, sets of planetary gear sets revolving around sun gears help establish gear ratios. There is no transmission related planetary gear set in the Volt. It's more like a single speed reduction power flow.

 

[martinjlm]

Meant to reply to the EPA comment earlier, but let the moment get away from me......

1. Based on energy use, the Volt has been averaging close to 2 miles per kilowatt-hour, which, according to the EPA, is the equivalent of 65 mpg. But that’s for the first 25 miles or so, on battery alone.

According to these stickers, the EPA thinks the electric MPG equivalent is 94 for the 2012 (my wife's car) and 98 for the 2013, not the 65 quoted by PoliticalChic. And the electric range is variable by temperature and driving habits. I've been in my wife's car when it as reported as much as 45 miles and as little as 30 miles available at full charge. I would expect 25 would be on a very cold day. By the way, we're in Detroit. Hardly a tropical climate.

That was a direct quote from The April 2011 edition of Consumer Reports.

Understood. Consumer Reports apparently got it wrong.

 

[Slapshot28]

Want to see a real transmission? Here is what Mercedes puts in their cars (debuted in 2003):

 

[martinjlm]

Meant to reply to the EPA comment earlier, but let the moment get away from me......



According to these stickers, the EPA thinks the electric MPG equivalent is 94 for the 2012 (my wife's car) and 98 for the 2013, not the 65 quoted by PoliticalChic. And the electric range is variable by temperature and driving habits. I've been in my wife's car when it as reported as much as 45 miles and as little as 30 miles available at full charge. I would expect 25 would be on a very cold day. By the way, we're in Detroit. Hardly a tropical climate.

That was a direct quote from The April 2011 edition of Consumer Reports.

Understood. Consumer Reports apparently got it wrong.

And since we're talking about Consumer Reports, here's what they had to say today.......

Chevy Volt tops Consumer Reports most-loved car survey again | Reuters

 

[Synthaholic]

Owner satisfaction

Which cars would owners buy again?

Last updated: November 2012

Chevrolet Volt




Here’s a hot tip: If you want a car that you can really get excited about, choose one that gives you great fuel economy, a fun driving experience, and/or luxurious surroundings. That’s the clear message from our latest owner-satisfaction survey, in which all of the 10 highest-scoring models feature one or more of those traits.

That list includes the top-scoring Chevrolet Volt extended-range electric car, which gets the equivalent of 99 mpg when running on electric power, can go gas-free for about 35 miles, and earned the highest tally for the second straight year.

Among the 44 models that achieved our top owner-satisfaction rating, 10 were fuel-efficient vehicles, including hybrids, diesels, and electric cars. Another 10 were purebred sports cars. And 13 were luxury or upscale models, with most of them delivering sporty handling, strong engine performance, or both.


Our annual owner-satisfaction survey, conducted by the Consumer Reports National Research Center, asks subscribers a single, revealing question: Considering all factors (price, performance, reliability, comfort, enjoyment, etc.), would they get their same vehicle if they had it to do all over again? This year, we received responses on about 350,000 vehicles and more than 240 models, spanning the 2010 through 2013 model years. A model’s score is based on the percentage of respondents who answered “definitely yes.” And to earn our top rating, a model needs to have at least 80 percent of owners say they would definitely get it again.


The Volt’s 92 score edged out the Chev*rolet Corvette and Porsche 911 sports cars by 1 point. When the Volt achieved the top score last year, it had only been in showrooms for a few months and was being grabbed up by enthusiastic early adopt*ers. So we were curious to see whether it could hold on to that high level of loyalty. Despite some bad publicity over the past year, including reports of battery fires, this year’s survey shows that the Volt’s high satisfaction score is no fluke.




*snip*


Owner satisfaction | Would you buy that car again? - Consumer Reports

 

[nitroz]

Gas sitting in it for that long? Looks like a good way to gunk up the fuel lines.

 

[Slapshot28]

Gas sitting in it for that long? Looks like a good way to gunk up the fuel lines.

That is a valid concern; however, the Volt engineers incorporated a system to handle it: Chevy Volt's "maintenance mode" will burn gas to prevent aging

 

[martinjlm]

Gas sitting in it for that long? Looks like a good way to gunk up the fuel lines.

That is a valid concern; however, the Volt engineers incorporated a system to handle it: Chevy Volt's "maintenance mode" will burn gas to prevent aging

Our experience has been that if the engine hasn't run in about 6 weeks, it will turn on while the car is being driven. It'll run for a short time, then it'll shut itself off. Burns about 1/10 of a gallon of fuel when it does that.

There's also another algorithm that can measure fuel quantity and estimate the age of the fuel based on the concentration of additives. When it estimates fuel is a year old, it will burn off enough to satisfy the computer that the rest of the gas is fairly new.

 

[Foxfyre]

Again, for those who buy a Chevy Volt and love it, good on you. But again, given the affluence of those who can afford one, I wonder how many would admit the car did not live up to its press if it didn't? But I have no problem admitting that a lot of Volt owners are saying that they love their cars.

But there remains an expensive (for you and me) downside to the story of the Volt. And that needs to be admitted too.

In a recent issue of Forbes Magazine:

After Reuters’ claim that GM was losing $49,000 per vehicle on the Chevy Volt, former GM CEO (and Volt developer) Bob Lutz came to its spirited defense at Forbes.com with an article titled “The Real Story on GM’s Volt Costs”. One of the things he didn’t specifically address was sales.

Not to put too fine a point on it, for the umpteenth time concerning the Volt, GM is playing fast and lose with the facts.

GM is giving away rent-a-Volts. While the claim of 2800+ sales in August is certainly enough to still the Volt’s critics, at least until Election Day (which is all that really matters to the current management), that number is an automotive Potemkin Village, concealing enough rot to make any czar, car or otherwise, proud.

With additional subsidies from GM (that would be you and me), Chevrolet dealers in August were offering two-year Volt leases for as little as $250 down and $199/month. Fully 2/3s of the “sales” were leases, leaving around 925 cars that were truly sold. Prior to the giveaway leases, GM says that 40% of 2012 sales were also leases. The number remains the same—an average of about 925 cars really sold each month for this year.

Automotive News recently reported that the feds have purchased 182 Volts so far in 2012. Now we’re down to 900 real sales per month.. Corporate (fleet) sales are conservatively estimated at 5% of the total, putting the consumer number closer to 850.

Don’t forget that the Department of Defense has committed to buying 1,500 of these wallet-hogs. These aren’t combat vehicles and will no doubt largely wind up in some Colonel’s driveway.

There are enough scams here to satisfy a Chicago politician. The giveaway lease cars are initially bought by dealerships at cost, which Bob Lutz says is $37,000. Then they pocket an additional $7,500—the Volt subsidy that Obama proposes raising to $10,000—paid by you and me.

Two years later they get the car back. . . .

. . . .Here’s the sorry bottom line. Volt sales to individuals are really running around 10,000 per year. Given a smaller number of leases and fleet sales last year, this is pretty much what GM should have gotten if there weren’t supply problems in the first half of 2011.

The fact is that no one wants this car and the government is goosing sales by giving them away as short-term leases and purchasing them for officers to tool around in. Meanwhile, the dealers make a killing—largely on the taxpayer’s dime.

Notwithstanding GM's Protests, No One Wants The Chevy Volt - Forbes

 

[Slapshot28]

Again, for those who buy a Chevy Volt and love it, good on you. But again, given the affluence of those who can afford one, I wonder how many would admit the car did not live up to its press if it didn't? But I have no problem admitting that a lot of Volt owners are saying that they love their cars.

But there remains an expensive (for you and me) downside to the story of the Volt. And that needs to be admitted too.

Two days later, for the sake of balance, Forbes also published a strong and credible rebuttal to Mr. Michaels' biased story. (Michaels is well-known pro-oil shill after all.)

It turns out that Michaels is not only wrong, he’s fairly spectacularly wrong. The Volt is the 133rd most popular car sold in the U.S. out of 262 total through the first 8 months of 2012, according to Timothy Cain at Good Car, Bad Car. In other words, it’s the “median car” — half are more popular, half are less popular. Given that it’s an entirely new kind of vehicle, expensive and demonized by people with an often strange political agenda, that’s fairly remarkable.

What’s perhaps more remarkable is how closely sales of the Volt to date track the sales of the original Toyota Prius here in the U.S. GM sold 7,671 Volts here last year, while Toyota sold 5,562 Priuses in 2000 and 15,556 in 2001. If the rest of 2012 holds similar to the first 8 months, U.S. Volt sales will increase from the 13,497 to date up towards very approximately 20,000. Oh, and that Prius, barely a blip back in 2000? It’s now the 14th most popular car in the U.S. What’s that expression about oaks and acorns?

Rants Aside, The Volt is Actually Earning Raves -- And it's a Hit - Forbes

New technology always has up-front costs, but if you never make the necessary investments, you lose for sure.

 

[Foxfyre]

Again, for those who buy a Chevy Volt and love it, good on you. But again, given the affluence of those who can afford one, I wonder how many would admit the car did not live up to its press if it didn't? But I have no problem admitting that a lot of Volt owners are saying that they love their cars.

But there remains an expensive (for you and me) downside to the story of the Volt. And that needs to be admitted too.

Two days later, for the sake of balance, Forbes also published a strong and credible rebuttal to Mr. Michaels' biased story. (Michaels is well-known pro-oil shill after all.)

It turns out that Michaels is not only wrong, he&#8217;s fairly spectacularly wrong. The Volt is the 133rd most popular car sold in the U.S. out of 262 total through the first 8 months of 2012, according to Timothy Cain at Good Car, Bad Car. In other words, it&#8217;s the &#8220;median car&#8221; &#8212; half are more popular, half are less popular. Given that it&#8217;s an entirely new kind of vehicle, expensive and demonized by people with an often strange political agenda, that&#8217;s fairly remarkable.

What&#8217;s perhaps more remarkable is how closely sales of the Volt to date track the sales of the original Toyota Prius here in the U.S. GM sold 7,671 Volts here last year, while Toyota sold 5,562 Priuses in 2000 and 15,556 in 2001. If the rest of 2012 holds similar to the first 8 months, U.S. Volt sales will increase from the 13,497 to date up towards very approximately 20,000. Oh, and that Prius, barely a blip back in 2000? It&#8217;s now the 14th most popular car in the U.S. What&#8217;s that expression about oaks and acorns?

Rants Aside, The Volt is Actually Earning Raves -- And it's a Hit - Forbes

New technology always has up-front costs, but if you never make the necessary investments, you lose for sure.

That is a credible rebuttal for sure. I don't know more than what I read from several different sources plus one Volt owner I know who says he'll never have another. Not because it is a terrible car but because he has just found it not all that practical for him.

So I conclude that the truth is somewhere in the middle. The Volt is a good automobile and provides a good experience, but not so good that GM/government doesn't have to bribe people to buy them. At the taxpayer's expense. Here's perhaps a more objective analysis:

Review: Chevrolet Volt vs. Chevrolet Cruze Eco | The Truth About Cars

 

[Slapshot28]

Again, for those who buy a Chevy Volt and love it, good on you. But again, given the affluence of those who can afford one, I wonder how many would admit the car did not live up to its press if it didn't? But I have no problem admitting that a lot of Volt owners are saying that they love their cars.

But there remains an expensive (for you and me) downside to the story of the Volt. And that needs to be admitted too.

Two days later, for the sake of balance, Forbes also published a strong and credible rebuttal to Mr. Michaels' biased story. (Michaels is well-known pro-oil shill after all.)

It turns out that Michaels is not only wrong, he’s fairly spectacularly wrong. The Volt is the 133rd most popular car sold in the U.S. out of 262 total through the first 8 months of 2012, according to Timothy Cain at Good Car, Bad Car. In other words, it’s the “median car” — half are more popular, half are less popular. Given that it’s an entirely new kind of vehicle, expensive and demonized by people with an often strange political agenda, that’s fairly remarkable.

What’s perhaps more remarkable is how closely sales of the Volt to date track the sales of the original Toyota Prius here in the U.S. GM sold 7,671 Volts here last year, while Toyota sold 5,562 Priuses in 2000 and 15,556 in 2001. If the rest of 2012 holds similar to the first 8 months, U.S. Volt sales will increase from the 13,497 to date up towards very approximately 20,000. Oh, and that Prius, barely a blip back in 2000? It’s now the 14th most popular car in the U.S. What’s that expression about oaks and acorns?

Rants Aside, The Volt is Actually Earning Raves -- And it's a Hit - Forbes

New technology always has up-front costs, but if you never make the necessary investments, you lose for sure.

That is a credible rebuttal for sure. I don't know more than what I read from several different sources plus one Volt owner I know who says he'll never have another. Not because it is a terrible car but because he has just found it not all that practical for him.

So I conclude that the truth is somewhere in the middle. The Volt is a good automobile and provides a good experience, but not so good that GM/government doesn't have to bribe people to buy them. At the taxpayer's expense. Here's perhaps a more objective analysis:

Review: Chevrolet Volt vs. Chevrolet Cruze Eco | The Truth About Cars

Yes, I agree. That is a fair review.

I'm no fan of government bribes either, but government incentives permeate our lives. Ironically it's better here in the US than in almost every other country. Most countries have MUCH more government influence.

Some of us are more receptive to certain government incentives and less receptive to others. Personally, I agree with incentives for capital investment, education, R&D, and support for genuinely unfortunate people. I'm less keen on our dollars going to cheap gasoline, certain dubious and expensive war efforts, and supporting anyone who even slightly abuses the system.

For me the Volt is a pretty modest program that has potentially important ramifications. My wife and I did not qualify for the tax credits (federal or state), so at least we can say that we did not take any public money to buy our car. Frankly, we think there are much bigger and more important fish to fry in our country.

 

[martinjlm]

Again, for those who buy a Chevy Volt and love it, good on you. But again, given the affluence of those who can afford one, I wonder how many would admit the car did not live up to its press if it didn't? But I have no problem admitting that a lot of Volt owners are saying that they love their cars.

But there remains an expensive (for you and me) downside to the story of the Volt. And that needs to be admitted too.

In a recent issue of Forbes Magazine:

After Reuters’ claim that GM was losing $49,000 per vehicle on the Chevy Volt, former GM CEO (and Volt developer) Bob Lutz came to its spirited defense at Forbes.com with an article titled “The Real Story on GM’s Volt Costs”. One of the things he didn’t specifically address was sales.

Not to put too fine a point on it, for the umpteenth time concerning the Volt, GM is playing fast and lose with the facts.

GM is giving away rent-a-Volts. While the claim of 2800+ sales in August is certainly enough to still the Volt’s critics, at least until Election Day (which is all that really matters to the current management), that number is an automotive Potemkin Village, concealing enough rot to make any czar, car or otherwise, proud.

With additional subsidies from GM (that would be you and me), Chevrolet dealers in August were offering two-year Volt leases for as little as $250 down and $199/month. Fully 2/3s of the “sales” were leases, leaving around 925 cars that were truly sold. Prior to the giveaway leases, GM says that 40% of 2012 sales were also leases. The number remains the same—an average of about 925 cars really sold each month for this year.

Automotive News recently reported that the feds have purchased 182 Volts so far in 2012. Now we’re down to 900 real sales per month.. Corporate (fleet) sales are conservatively estimated at 5% of the total, putting the consumer number closer to 850.

Don’t forget that the Department of Defense has committed to buying 1,500 of these wallet-hogs. These aren’t combat vehicles and will no doubt largely wind up in some Colonel’s driveway.

There are enough scams here to satisfy a Chicago politician. The giveaway lease cars are initially bought by dealerships at cost, which Bob Lutz says is $37,000. Then they pocket an additional $7,500—the Volt subsidy that Obama proposes raising to $10,000—paid by you and me.

Two years later they get the car back. . . .

. . . .Here’s the sorry bottom line. Volt sales to individuals are really running around 10,000 per year. Given a smaller number of leases and fleet sales last year, this is pretty much what GM should have gotten if there weren’t supply problems in the first half of 2011.

The fact is that no one wants this car and the government is goosing sales by giving them away as short-term leases and purchasing them for officers to tool around in. Meanwhile, the dealers make a killing—largely on the taxpayer’s dime.

Notwithstanding GM's Protests, No One Wants The Chevy Volt - Forbes

Addressing just the part in bold print....

Vehicle leasing is a HUGE part of the automotive landscape. Leasing is NOT renting. You contract to make monthly payments for a set amount of time (24-48 months). At the end of that time the car either goes back to the manufacturer, leasing company, or can be purchased by the lessee for a predetermined amount. Which option is available depends on the type and terms of lease. The luxury car market in the US might not exist if not for leasing. More than 50% of sales of BMWs, Mercedes Benz, Porsches, etc are by lease. So, if you wanna lump Volts in with lux cars, go ahead. That would be more accurate than the rental car tag. EVERY major automaker has a high percentage of leasing included in their sales figures.

The monthly price is a rather complex calculation of list price / residual value / and manufacturer incentives. Residual is the industry calculated estimate of what the car will be worth at the end of the lease period. It is also usually the pre-determined price that the lessee can buy the vehicle for at the end of the lease, if they so choose. Chevrolet Volt has a higher than average residual, meaning that on a lease, the actual payment will be lower. No doubt GM is also subsidizing the leases. How much is anybody's guess, but figure that they are also subsidizing leases on pickup trucks, Escalades, and many other nameplates. Same with most any other automaker you can name (maybe not Porsche).

It's all part of the game in the auto industry. For some consumers leasing makes sense. We've been leasing vehicles since 1998. For my parents, leasing would make no sense. My mom just traded in her 2006 car with 20,000 miles on it. She doesn't drive enough to consider a lease. My father-in-law drives over 20,000 miles a year, so he would also not benefit from a lease and would pay additional over-mileage charges at the end if he did lease. My wife drives 12-14,000 miles a year. Leases are typically built assuming 10-15,000 miles a year, so we sit right in the sweet spot.

Bottom line, people do not have to be affluent to lease a Volt.

 

[Foxfyre]

You can't lease a BMW, Mercedes, or Porsche for $200 down and $199/month though. Whether verifiable or not, the writer was making the point that a large percentage of Volt sales were lease vehicles and were heavily subsidized by the government. If so, that should be part of the discussion.

 

[martinjlm]

You can't lease a BMW, Mercedes, or Porsche for $200 down and $199/month though. Whether verifiable or not, the writer was making the point that a large percentage of Volt sales were lease vehicles and were heavily subsidized by the government. If so, that should be part of the discussion.

The best that Volt leases got was $1,000 down, $199/mo for a low mileage (10,000 miles per year). Most common is $2,500 down $249/ mo for a 12,000 mile/yr lease. I have seen BMW 3-Series go for $1,500 down $249/mo on year end clearances for low mileage leases. Right now the biggest volume dealer in Michigan is offering the newly redesigned 2013 328iX for $359/month. Couldn't find any reference to the down payment, but I'm sure it's not too much. This is a $52,000 car with all wheel drive and a twin-turbo 6-cylinder.

Subsidies for leases always come from either the automaker or the financial entity (Ally, US Bank, Red Carpet Leasing), not the government.

 

[martinjlm]

For giggles and grins, here's an article from this past June that talks about leasing trends.....

Autoremarketing | Analysis: Luxury Lease Penetration Back at Pre-Recession Levels

Some highlights......

• BMW, Mercedes, and Lexus continue to have high lease penetration
• Infiniti has had a spike in leases and actually leads the industry with 60% of vehicle sales going through leases
• Shows the percentage of transactions that are leases for specific financial institutions. Mercedes Benz financing arm is on top with about 76% of their contracts being leases. BMW is second

Another article I read recently pointed out the increase in leasing for Detroit automakers cars. up until now GM, Ford and Chrysler leases were mostly trucks and SUVs, because they always had great resale and residual values. Now that cars and crossovers are considered to be more on par with foreign cars and crossovers, resale values and residuals are higher and lease deals are much more attractive.

Bottom line.....nothing wrong with leasing. If there is, then BMW, Mercedes, and Infiniti must suck. Leasing is just another buying option. It allows buyers to get more vehicle for less money. The flip side is at the end of the deal, you have to do something else and that can be (and usually is) entering into another lease for the next vehicle. In other words, the never ending car payment. The positive is you don't have to go through the process of selling or trading the vehicle you're coming out of. You just give it back.

 

[bestlink101]

ive driven a tesla roadster, that shits amazing

 

[percysunshine]

"Living with a Chevrolet Volt "

I could live with a chevy volt...if she had a great body and her recharge interval was brief.