Burning Volts.
- Thread starter lonesomebob
- Start date
This story has legs. Now GM is willing to buy back Volts, kind of like never selling the EV1 rather than having to admit failure on that one.
News from The Associated Press
News from The Associated Press
Someone argued that the Feds didn't follow proper procedures which caused the fire.
Correct, the Feds did not discharge the Battery after the Crash, which is equivilent to the Feds not draining a Crash vehicle's fuel tank after a test crash (which is standard procedure). Would the Media be all over this story if any ordinary fuel tank caught fire because the Feds didn't drain it per operating procedure? NO! The Media is in business to sell Newpapers/Magazines/gain Viewers to sell Advertising. The truth is a by-product!
Guys, sense check-
1) The Battery Pack is in the center tunnel between the seats on the Volt. The test is a 45 MPH side impact. If you were in this car and the Batteries were damaged, the batteries burning two weeks after impact is the LEAST of your worries! A 45 MPH side impact is not a fender-bender.
2) The followup Fed test were conducted on Battery Packs ONLY, not Volt cars! The Packs were impacted, then rolled over. Once again, if you were in a car with these Packs, the vehicle igniting WEEKS later would be the LEAST of your problems.
Now GM is willing to buy back Volts, kind of like never selling the EV1 rather than having to admit failure on that one
The automobile industry will often introduce new technology in a small test fleet (rental cars, taxis, police fleet-it's called "Captured Fleet") in order to observe them closely. This is why the EV1 was leased, because GM had no end of life experience with the batteries and inverters, owning them gave GM the opportunity to perform a post-mortem when the cars were done, to further their learning. The EV1, which was a success because it helped GM gain knowledge in an area it had none before (there is no high voltage inverter in your regular passenger car-no one in GM at the time had the experience in inverters), and it did what it was suppose to do.
Darnel
Correct, the Feds did not discharge the Battery after the Crash, which is equivilent to the Feds not draining a Crash vehicle's fuel tank after a test crash (which is standard procedure). Would the Media be all over this story if any ordinary fuel tank caught fire because the Feds didn't drain it per operating procedure? NO! The Media is in business to sell Newpapers/Magazines/gain Viewers to sell Advertising. The truth is a by-product!
Guys, sense check-
1) The Battery Pack is in the center tunnel between the seats on the Volt. The test is a 45 MPH side impact. If you were in this car and the Batteries were damaged, the batteries burning two weeks after impact is the LEAST of your worries! A 45 MPH side impact is not a fender-bender.
2) The followup Fed test were conducted on Battery Packs ONLY, not Volt cars! The Packs were impacted, then rolled over. Once again, if you were in a car with these Packs, the vehicle igniting WEEKS later would be the LEAST of your problems.
Now GM is willing to buy back Volts, kind of like never selling the EV1 rather than having to admit failure on that one
The automobile industry will often introduce new technology in a small test fleet (rental cars, taxis, police fleet-it's called "Captured Fleet") in order to observe them closely. This is why the EV1 was leased, because GM had no end of life experience with the batteries and inverters, owning them gave GM the opportunity to perform a post-mortem when the cars were done, to further their learning. The EV1, which was a success because it helped GM gain knowledge in an area it had none before (there is no high voltage inverter in your regular passenger car-no one in GM at the time had the experience in inverters), and it did what it was suppose to do.
Darnel
Last edited:
Re: Second Burning Volt.
That was me, and your follow up article
News from The Associated Press
proves my point. The fires all started 7 days to 3 weeks later, and the batteries were not properly handled post crash. GM has also stated that when a Volt is involved in an accident, OnStar notifies GM, and GM dispatches a team within 48 hours to properly deal with the batteries.
Seriously, do you guys actually read the entire articles you link to?
Ian
That was me, and your follow up article
News from The Associated Press
proves my point. The fires all started 7 days to 3 weeks later, and the batteries were not properly handled post crash. GM has also stated that when a Volt is involved in an accident, OnStar notifies GM, and GM dispatches a team within 48 hours to properly deal with the batteries.
Seriously, do you guys actually read the entire articles you link to?
Ian
Terry Oxandale
Skinny Man
Not when their point is made within the title.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Why read when Rush just tells them to hate on the electric car?
Things need some work but this thread is pretty silly.
Things need some work but this thread is pretty silly.
Adding more thickening to the plot!
Chevrolet Volt Battery Issues Growing, Safety Findings May Have Been Suppressed | AutoGuide.com News
Chevrolet Volt Battery Issues Growing, Safety Findings May Have Been Suppressed | AutoGuide.com News
Hahah, GM probably got too many takers on their buy back Volts promise!
"On the question of the buyback, I think Mr. Akerson was taken a bit out of context," she said. "
Read more: GM clarifies Volt 'buyback'
"On the question of the buyback, I think Mr. Akerson was taken a bit out of context," she said. "
Read more: GM clarifies Volt 'buyback'
Pat
Supporter
Re: Burning Volts adding insult to injury
Another indicator of government failure to anticipate unintended consequences.
MSNBC reports some Dealers who were buying the Volts, then selling the Volts as ‘used’ AND THEN TAKING THE $7,500 TAX CREDIT FOR THEMSELVES. That means the buyer could no longer take the credit.
But wait, what happens when the consumer tries to take the credit next April on his taxes? IRS might say, there is no deduction, the Dealer already took the $7,500″ or the consumer will get the deduction. What happens then? Will there be a $15,000 credit on one vehicle?
If you purchased a Volt, check your paperwork to see if it says New or Used, and then if you were misled, call the IRS to report the Dealer. You may then rejoin the local OWS protest of your choice...
Another indicator of government failure to anticipate unintended consequences.
MSNBC reports some Dealers who were buying the Volts, then selling the Volts as ‘used’ AND THEN TAKING THE $7,500 TAX CREDIT FOR THEMSELVES. That means the buyer could no longer take the credit.
But wait, what happens when the consumer tries to take the credit next April on his taxes? IRS might say, there is no deduction, the Dealer already took the $7,500″ or the consumer will get the deduction. What happens then? Will there be a $15,000 credit on one vehicle?
If you purchased a Volt, check your paperwork to see if it says New or Used, and then if you were misled, call the IRS to report the Dealer. You may then rejoin the local OWS protest of your choice...
"As far as I’m concerned, you are free to spend your hard-earned dollars as foolishly as you want – that’s what free markets are for (GM bailout notwithstanding)."
“intellectual elite who want to show what enlightened souls they are.”
Audi Chief Calls Chevy Volt
“intellectual elite who want to show what enlightened souls they are.”
Audi Chief Calls Chevy Volt
The problem is that we have no choice in how foolishly liberal government spends our money.
“It’s a glaring example of the failure of central planning trying to force citizens to purchase something they may not want. … They should let the free market make those decisions.”
http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/16192
"There's just one problem: That comment was made more than two years ago, well before journalists had driven the production car, any actual Volts had gone on sale, and any cars had been purchased by real live--and very eager--human beings."
Quote from the article attached. What would you expect him to say? How great a car it was? Especially since Audi didn't have any technology to compete?
Matt Drudge's Idiotic, Uninformed War Against The Chevy Volt
Quote from the article attached. What would you expect him to say? How great a car it was? Especially since Audi didn't have any technology to compete?
Matt Drudge's Idiotic, Uninformed War Against The Chevy Volt
Audi of America President Johan de Nysschen is in the business of projecting five or more years out on new products. He doesn't work for a company that is partially owned by the government with an agenda to "fundamentally change" the US. He doesn't have the luxury of bottomless pockets subsidizing a loss leader project like the Volt. He needs to make products people want and Audi has been successful at doing so.
Well, yeah, 6,000 units sold, heavily subsidized, and a problematic safety record. Consider that the government can't seem to handle these things when they crash. The same government that the left insists we need more and more of to handle all the details we're too stupid to follow.
Its pretty hard to blame Drudge when all he does is bring to our attention articles that the left chooses to bury. He caught the story, written by greencarreports.com, and they had to quickly write a second article to counter their first because whatever they do publish is read by so few people it really doesn't matter. Well, this time they got some attention and they had to do some quick damage control for their avowed interests.
Well, yeah, 6,000 units sold, heavily subsidized, and a problematic safety record. Consider that the government can't seem to handle these things when they crash. The same government that the left insists we need more and more of to handle all the details we're too stupid to follow.
Its pretty hard to blame Drudge when all he does is bring to our attention articles that the left chooses to bury. He caught the story, written by greencarreports.com, and they had to quickly write a second article to counter their first because whatever they do publish is read by so few people it really doesn't matter. Well, this time they got some attention and they had to do some quick damage control for their avowed interests.
Beyond "problematic safety record," which the jury is not in on yet, what falsehoods in my above statement are unture?
Th liberal dream lives. The US spends billions of research, subsidizes production to the tune of $250,000 per unit, and then negotiates to move it all to China. Shades of the multi warhead technology (Chinagate) scandal of Clinton.
GM deal moves electric car development to China -- a 'shakedown'?
Chevy/Obama Volt, the gift that keeps on taking!
GM deal moves electric car development to China -- a 'shakedown'?
Chevy/Obama Volt, the gift that keeps on taking!
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Electric Cars – technology of the Past?
"In the year 1900, 38% of vehicles in the US were electric, and another 40% were steam powered; only 22% used gasoline. There was even a fleet of electric taxis in New York City."
"The growing use of the electric automobile, with its many advantages of simplicity, ease of operation and noiselessness, has resulted in a demand for some means of conveniently charging the batteries."
While that quote sounds like part of a pitch for a modern GE battery charger, in fact it’s taken directly from GE’s Bulletin No. 4772, published 100 years ago in September, 1910.
See: http://files.gereports.com/wp-conte...-4772-Electric-Automobile-Appliances-1910.pdf
GE made electric cars from 1904 – 1920's. An electric car powered with a Bailey electric New Edison battery participated in the 1000 mile endurance run in the early 1900's.
But they could not compete with Ford's Model T and all the other internal combustion engines – they were cheaper, more reliable and could go further on a tank of fuel. Consumers deserted the electric cars. The same factors apply today
"In the year 1900, 38% of vehicles in the US were electric, and another 40% were steam powered; only 22% used gasoline. There was even a fleet of electric taxis in New York City."
"The growing use of the electric automobile, with its many advantages of simplicity, ease of operation and noiselessness, has resulted in a demand for some means of conveniently charging the batteries."
While that quote sounds like part of a pitch for a modern GE battery charger, in fact it’s taken directly from GE’s Bulletin No. 4772, published 100 years ago in September, 1910.
See: http://files.gereports.com/wp-conte...-4772-Electric-Automobile-Appliances-1910.pdf
GE made electric cars from 1904 – 1920's. An electric car powered with a Bailey electric New Edison battery participated in the 1000 mile endurance run in the early 1900's.
But they could not compete with Ford's Model T and all the other internal combustion engines – they were cheaper, more reliable and could go further on a tank of fuel. Consumers deserted the electric cars. The same factors apply today
Gents, you know, the one thing.....the absolute one singular thing...that drives an obnoxious loud mouth totally and completely nuts.....is to be ignored.... It's also the one thing that shuts them up.
Just sayin'
Just sayin'
