Chevy offers to buy back Volt. - Page 3

392cobra · #41 (**permalink**) 12-02-2011, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartruff1

..no one has recovered a significant amount of oil from shale at a competitive price...I hope you don't trade oil futures... moving on...

You need to educate yourself.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported that oil production from shale formations was approximately 275,000 barrels per day (B/D) in 2010, up from virtually nothing in 2005, and triple the 2008 production level.

The industry is enabling this production by using the same techniques that have been employed in natural gas shale plays, including horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. This production increase was led by developing the Bakken formation in North Dakota and the Eagle Ford Shale in Texas. Other areas producing shale oil include the Barnett, Woodford and Marcellus formations.

392cobra · #42 (**permalink**) 12-02-2011, 08:05 PM

You can believe the Green Chit about all this,that's fine with me.
You keep burning gas and I'll keep pumping oil and cashing my quarterly royalty checks.

Later.

Bartruff1 · #43 (**permalink**) 12-02-2011, 08:06 PM

I understand that, and that production is taking place and is up to nearly 500,000..and ND is booming....but we use nearly 10,000,000,000 barrels a year...the simple undeniable fact is that we don't have plenty of oil and will continue to import more than half of our consumption... Edited to add that (I am no expert) but based upon what I read, electric cars will not be the answer, not even close. There are communities where they can provide economical and practical transportation but it appears that battery technology does not (as yet) provide the amount of energy that most people demand. I understand that there are well intentioned people both within and outside the administration who are eager to pursue this option...but reallly, if I were king, I would let the market decide the winners... and in any case I will continue to destroy the local ozone and peace and quiet with early morning blasts with my Superformance...

Don · #44 (**permalink**) 12-03-2011, 06:49 AM

The following appeared in USA Today earlier in the week as part of a very brief news item. Does anyone know what might be meant by " improperly " stored ?
Seems to imply the crash test methods and damage were unique to the controlled crash test.

" Volts crash-tested by the government caught fire while in federal storage days and weeks after the tests. GM says the government stored the cars improperly and there's no danger of fire after a real world crash. "

DAVID GAGNARD · #45 (**permalink**) 12-03-2011, 07:38 AM

Quote:

" Volts crash-tested by the government caught fire while in federal storage days and weeks after the tests. GM says the government stored the cars improperly and there's no danger of fire after a real world crash. "

And how many "real world crashes" have there been with the new Volt so far??????? how can they say that without any supporting evidence???????

David

RACER X #99 · #46 (**permalink**) 12-03-2011, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAVID GAGNARD

My company car is a 2009 Toyota Corolla,I get 36 to 40 mpg on the highway daily and paid $12,500.00 for it when I bought it, it now has 140,000 trouble free miles on it......and my last Corolla company car was totaled in a wreck, it "only" had 462,000 miles on it at the time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll stick with an internal combustion engined car........
David

Must get to the Glen, Must get to the Glen,

Don · #47 (**permalink**) 12-05-2011, 01:09 PM

12-5 WSJ:

" A break in a coolant line caused coolant to leak onto wiring in the battery, says GM. After time, the coolant crystalized, causing a short. GM is working on a fix to the battery that could be retrofitted onto the 6,000 volts on the road. "

From the same article:

Volt: $41,000 starting price (less $7,500 government tax incentive ) @ 95 mpg on electricity for 35 miles and 40 mpg when the engine is running:

Chevy Cruze: $16,720 base price @ 42 mpg

JTD · #48 (**permalink**) 12-06-2011, 11:42 AM

ollowing on from the announcement that GM is looking at redesigning the Chevrolet Volt’s lithium-ion battery system in the wake of several highly publicized fires resulting from test crashes, comes further news that both the automaker and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration delayed disclosure of their original findings by months.

Apparently, way back in June, General Motors heard about a Volt fire that happened three weeks after said vehicle was crash tested, yet it wasn’t until November that the company, or NHTSA disclosed there was a potential problem, urging both dealers and customers to drain the battery pack immediately following an accident.

As a result the public relations nightmare surrounding Chevy’s halo vehicle appears to be deepening, though a good deal of the blame in this case also rests with NHTSA.

Joan Claybrook, a former adminstrator at NHTSA believes part of the reason for the delay was the “fragility of Volt sales.” Yet she also believes that “NHTSA could have put out a consumer alert, not to tell them [customers] for six months makes no sense to me.”

Don · #49 (**permalink**) 12-06-2011, 01:27 PM

“fragility of Volt sales.”

Same WSJ article mentioned earlier:

Volt 2011 sales goal: 10,000

Predicted 2011 sales: 8,000

Dealers had a choice whether to carry the Volt, with 650 declining. Early production challenges etc limited the availability for a minimum of 1 to each dealer, which now has been achieved. Chevy Cruze offers an alternative in high MPG at a substantially reduced price: $41,000 vs $16,720

JTD · #50 (**permalink**) 12-09-2011, 07:07 AM

US lawmakers press GM on electric Volt's safety

Key US lawmakers on Thursday demanded General Motors detail its handling of potential safety problems with the Chevrolet Volt after three of the Volt's electric batteries caught fire following safety tests.

Republican Representative Darrell Issa, who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and two colleagues pressed GM CEO Daniel Akerson in a letter to address their concerns by December 21.

"In light of recent reports about the lithium-ion battery system of the Chevrolet Volt, we write with serious questions about the safety of the Volt and the advanced technology developed by General Motors (GM)," they said.

The lawmakers called it "alarming" that GM officials knew of the problems in June but made no comment on the incidents until media reports detailed them in November.

"GM continued to market and sell Chevrolet Volts to American consumers, fully aware of potentially serious safety deficiencies affecting the vehicle's battery system. GM took no steps to notify consumers or the public in general of this problem," they wrote.

The lawmakers pressed GM to say when it first learned of potential safety issues with the Volt's batteries, whether and when it notified regulators about the problem, and how it addressed the issue with Volt owners.

And they asked whether any aide to President Barack Obama, whose administration has touted the Volt as an example of promising technology that will help battle global warming, pressured the firm to delay disclosing the issues.

Republicans have assailed Obama's "clean energy" agenda since he took office, notably seeking evidence that his administration steered funds meant as economic stimulus to companies with political ties to the president.

Those efforts have yet to turn up a smoking gun, and the White House flatly denies any wrongdoing.

GM in late November insisted the Volt was safe to drive after the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced an investigation into the issue.

The investigation was launched after a damaged lithium battery in a Volt caught fire three weeks after a crash test.

The NHTSA sought to recreate the fire last week by intentionally damaging the battery compartment and breaking its coolant line. In two of the tests, the batteries caught fire, it said.

Ronbo · #51 (**permalink**) 12-09-2011, 11:30 AM

Google "sony laptop fire"...

This a safety issue with lithium batteries (no matter who's car their in).

Lithium batteries have been around for 60+ years and until recently were used only for cold climate applications by the military / goverment as they were deemed unsafe for consumer use. The lithium batties you see in use today have internal short-circuit protection but your cell phone's battery getting crushed could still catch fire. I've got a popular electronics article from 30+ yrs ago that explains the history of lithium batteries and (at that time) why they were not used. Improper charging can cause explosion / fire like just about every other rechargable battery (alkaline batteries can be recharged, but very carefully!!).

I don't consider the danger here any higher than say, 20 gallons of gasoline???

Ever seen a lead-acid battery in a fire? (they go boom too)

If Tesla's were more common, they'd be wearing this crown of thorns. But GM stuck their neck out... (First out, First sued)

Don · #52 (**permalink**) 01-05-2012, 11:02 AM

" General Motors will add a structural reinforcement and devices to prevent overfilling of the battery cooling system in the Chevrolet Volt hybrid sedan to prevent the possibility of a fire after a side crash. "

Read more: GM to modify Chevrolet Volts to guard against battery fire - Autoweek

DanMartin · #53 (**permalink**) 01-05-2012, 11:51 AM

More:

Chevy Volt will receive safety enhancements, but don't call it a recall

fordracing65 · #54 (**permalink**) 01-05-2012, 03:25 PM

It is a cool car, got rid of it, just like giving Chevy a hard time, I'm just amazed with all the know how stuff like this happens, but they did rush it to market before Lutz retired.

Don · #55 (**permalink**) 01-19-2012, 11:59 AM

" GM announces upgrades to Chevrolet Volt to address fire concerns"

" Chevrolet announced this morning that they will conduct a “voluntary customer service campaign” to address fire concerns in the Volt extended-range electric car "

GM announces upgrades to Chevrolet Volt to address fire concerns
.