Chevrolet Spark EV

[stephent]

So would a Volt be the perfect second car for a Spark owner??? How many Volt owners have a second gas car as well???

For a 2-commuter household, I think the Volt is a perfect 2nd car for either a Spark owner or a Leaf owner, if one doesn't have to frequently haul around some massive number of people or gear. There a handful of Volt+Leaf combo owners who participate in both forums, and it seems to be working out well for them from their comments. I don't get the bashing either. FWIW I see an order of magnitude less bashing of the Leaf on the Volt forum, than I see of the Volt here. Volt owners are pro-EV, just pure BEV doesn't meet our criteria at this moment in time, we see EREV/PHEV as a bridge technology until batteries improve such that range/cost/charging times make pure BEV more practical for our needs. I don't at all buy TRONZ's argument that its mere existence hampers pure BEV development, it hasn't stopped all the other manufacturers from announcing pure BEVs, and even GM here is looking at pure BEV.

I'm single, and didn't want a second car, which is why I chose the Volt over a Leaf. For my driving patterns, a Volt ends up using less gasoline than getting a Leaf and keeping my old gas car would have. Local driving = no gas = no difference. Long trips - electric miles cover some portion of them, the Volt gets better mileage than my previous Honda Civic in gas mode, and after I reach my destination, in many cases I can charge up again to do EV local driving around my destination and a portion of the return journey. The Leaf combo would only use less gas if I was frequently making trips in the ~45-85 mile range, which I don't.

I suppose Prius owners might consider the Volt's hybrid-mode mileage "unacceptable", but that kind of boggles my mind also. It depends on how many miles you drive I suppose. If you are say driving 2k gas miles a year out of 7k, that's only 10 gallons more a year. vs. the 100 gallons not used from the electric miles. If coming from most other cars, 40 mpg highway (hybrid = long distance driving = mostly highway) looks pretty good.

 

[jackal]

All this anti-EV rhetoric convinced people (who were already sceptical of GM that had crushed EV1) that essentially GM hadn't changed. Add to that fierce anti-EV stance of Volt fans - you have the recipe for this "fight".

Coming back on topic, I hope all this will change because of Spark EV. Will Spark EV get a second rate treatment from GM and will they continue the anti-EV "range anxiety" rhetoric ?

+1. You really hit the nail on its head.

I had considered and admired the Volt before I bought my Leaf. But all these FUD GM created make me think otherwise now. And I don't think Spark will change GM coz they are only targeting 2000 units production. That's too puny to change their culture. Besides, unlike Nissan, GM isn't showing off all the side electric innovations projects like L3 chargers, Grid technology etc. That tells me they are far from pushing EVs.

 

[SanDust]

You mean like forever? :lol: The forces of right have still got two years (at the very least) to flood the infrastructure with CHAdeMO L3 charging stations and, as far as I'm aware, there have been no firm commitments by the current crop of L3 manufacturers to adopt this silly thing as of yet. So, by then, maybe it's owners of cars with this new plug who will be needing the adapter to CHAdeMO, rather than the other way around.

The train has left the station and CHAdeMO doesn't seem to be on-board: http://www.renewgridmag.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.7457" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[smkettner]

Yet the only train running is Nissan :lol:

 

[TRONZ]

I don't at all buy TRONZ's argument that its mere existence hampers pure BEV development,..

Welcome to the forum. Since you are another new Volt member here and calling me out by name, I'll bite. Please explain to everyone how the Volt "Technology" contributes to the three primary technological pillars of BEV development? Those would be: 1) Increasing EV Range, 2) Decreasing charge times and 3) Rolling out L2 and L3 Infrastructure.

 

[stephent]

I don't at all buy TRONZ's argument that its mere existence hampers pure BEV development,..

Welcome to the forum. Since you are another new Volt member here and calling me out by name, I'll bite. Please explain to everyone how the Volt "Technology" contributes to the three primary technological pillars of BEV development? Those would be: 1) Increasing EV Range, 2) Decreasing charge times and 3) Rolling out L2 and L3 Infrastructure.

I didn't claim it contributes. But you were basically claiming that it actively hampers that development, merely by existing. I don't buy that argument at all, explain how the Volt is slowing down development of these things? If the Volt disappeared, somehow these things would magically appear faster?

PHEV owners still derive benefits from improvements in EV range & charge time. Public charging infrastructure is less necessary, but still desired. People buying PHEVs funnels money towards battery manufacturers. These manufacturers can apply some of that money towards R&D that will lead to cheaper batteries with better energy density. This benefits both pure EVs and PHEVs, the PHEVs can then use smaller batteries, drop in price, gain some cargo room, OR use it for greater EV range. Same for the EVs. If the PHEV didn't exist, some of these drivers might go BEV, sure, but many of them would just continue with std gas or standard hybrids, and not be spending money on big batteries and charging equipment, advances in which benefit both groups.

 

[Stoaty]

Hey guys, let's put this arguing to rest. Bottom line:

1) Volt is a great car for those with the right driving pattern
2) The more BEV, PHEV, EREV, etc. the better
3) A lot of people don't trust GM due to: crushing the EV1; harping on "range anxiety" in a way that is seen as bashing BEV; the recent California law that GM twisted to serve their own aims. They haven't shown much evidence of changing their stripes.
4) While another EV (Spark) is good, the limited production suggests GM has other motives than going "all in" the way Nissan has done. See #3 above.

 

[TRONZ]

I didn't claim it contributes. But you were basically claiming that it actively hampers that development, merely by existing.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. GM created the Volt as a "wedge" product to insert EV customers into a Hybrid instead of a real BEV. This dilutes real money flowing to real EV's. GM is spending millions in marketing the Volt in this fashion. The Volt provides a hard cap on EV technology by solving all the hard work to be done with gasoline. There is no demand or need for EV improvements since, according to GM dogma, the Volt is perfect. Any improvement in the Volt will not come from leading the technological way but as a parasite on industries fully committed to the core of BEV technology. Like I said before, Volt owners don't have a dog in the EV fight.

 

[SanDust]

Welcome to the forum. Since you are another new Volt member here and calling me out by name, I'll bite. Please explain to everyone how the Volt "Technology" contributes to the three primary technological pillars of BEV development? Those would be: 1) Increasing EV Range, 2) Decreasing charge times and 3) Rolling out L2 and L3 Infrastructure.

1. GM authored and pushed through the $7500 tax credit for EVs. (If you dislike GM so much send back your tax credit).
2. Its launch of the Volt forced Nissan to move up its launch date of the Leaf.
3. It worked with the other major car manufacturers to develop the J1772 standard for NA and Japan.
4. It worked with other major manufacturers to develop a single charger which will be used in both Europe and NA.
5. It partnered with LG Chem, and now Envia, to develop the best batteries for EVs.
6. It partnered with SPX to install home chargers throughout the entire country, not just a few roll out states.

Not that I feel this way, but one could ask: And what, pray tell, has Nissan done, besides develop second rate batteries, take advantage of the heavy lifting done by GM on the tax credit, and suck down taxpayer money?

 

[TRONZ]

BUT, getting back OT, Spark owners will!

 

[SanDust]

GM created the Volt as a "wedge" product to insert EV customers into a Hybrid instead of a real BEV.

GM developed the Volt to leapfrog the Prius. BEVs weren't even an afterthought much less a focus.

As for your argument that anything other than a BEV -- be it an ICE vehicle, a bus, a plane, or a train -- hinders the development of a BEV, that's just saying that there shouldn't ever be anything made other than what you deem to be the "right and perfect" product. This idea, which can be summarized as "the good is the enemy of the perfect", leads to the conclusion that the worst vehicle in the last ten years wasn't something like a Hummer or Range Rover but the Prius -- because the Prius was the car which delayed the introduction of BEVs.

 

[TRONZ]

1. GM authored and pushed through the $7500 tax credit for EVs. (If you dislike GM so much send back your tax credit). - That is NOT technology.
2. Its launch of the Volt forced Nissan to move up its launch date of the Leaf. - and...?
3. It worked with the other major car manufacturers to develop the J1772 standard for NA and Japan. - putting the "I" in "team" are we?
4. It worked with other major manufacturers to develop a single charger which will be used in both Europe and NA. - see #3
5. It partnered with LG Chem, and now Envia, to develop the best batteries for EVs. - it goes 40 miles.
6. It partnered with SPX to install home chargers throughout the entire country, not just a few roll out states. - for 4000 Volts???

And what, pray tell, has Nissan done, - Produced the worlds first mass produced Electric Vehicle.

Why are the VoltAge types NOT talking about the Spark???

 

[hodad66]

Give em time TRONZ..... it's little more than vaporware
at this point. :mrgreen:

 

[scottf200]

You mean like forever? :lol: The forces of right have still got two years (at the very least) to flood the infrastructure with CHAdeMO L3 charging stations and, as far as I'm aware, there have been no firm commitments by the current crop of L3 manufacturers to adopt this silly thing as of yet. So, by then, maybe it's owners of cars with this new plug who will be needing the adapter to CHAdeMO, rather than the other way around.

The train has left the station and CHAdeMO doesn't seem to be on-board: http://www.renewgridmag.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.7457" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A couple articles are confirming this:
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/german-automakers-plug-a-unified-standard-for-d-c-fast-charging/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/seven-auto-manufacturers-collaborate-on-harmonized-electric-vehicle-fast-charging-solution-131579563.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

DEARBORN, Mich., Oct. 12, 2011 /PRNewswire/ --
Audi, BMW, Daimler, Ford, General Motors, Porsche and Volkswagen agreed to support a harmonized single-port fast charging approach for use on electric vehicles in Europe and the United States

* The system is a combined charging approach that integrates all charging scenarios into one vehicle inlet/charging connector and uses identical ways for the vehicle to communicate with the charging station
* The seven auto manufacturers also agreed to use HomePlug GreenPHY as the communication protocol. This approach will facilitate integration of the electric vehicle into future smart grid applications
* Agreeing upon a single, harmonized DC fast charging system, we believe will help infrastructure planning, reduce vehicle complexity and improve the ownership experience for electric vehicle customers
* Recognizing the importance of a single international approach for DC fast charging, Audi, BMW, Daimler, Ford, General Motors, Porsche and Volkswagen have agreed on the combined charging system as an international standardized approach to charge electric vehicles (EV) in Europe and the United States.

The system is a combined charging approach integrating all charging scenarios into one vehicle inlet/charging connector and uses identical ways for the vehicle to communicate with the charging station. This allows electric vehicles from Audi, BMW, Daimler, Ford, General Motors, Porsche and Volkswagen can share the same fast charging stations.

The seven auto manufacturers believe the development of a common charging approach is good for customers, the industry and charging infrastructure providers. Standardization will reduce build complexity for manufacturers, accelerate the installation of common systems internationally and most importantly, improve the ownership experience for EV drivers.

The endorsement of the combined charging system was based on reviews and analysis of existing charging strategies, the ergonomics of the connector and the preferences of customers in both the United States and Europe. The harmonized approach – across both continents and all manufacturers - will provide a framework for future infrastructure planning as well as a communication protocol to assist in the integration of electric vehicles into the smart grids.

The seven auto manufacturers also agreed to use HomePlug GreenPHY as the communication protocol. This approach will also facilitate integration of the electric vehicle into future smart grid applications.

Automakers point to the success of Level 1 and Level 2 (for 220V charging in the U.S.) as an example of how standardization will increase the adoption of electric vehicles and increase customer satisfaction. The harmonized electric vehicle charging solution is backward compatible with the J1772 connector standard in the U.S. Backward compatibility also has been achieved in Europe where the system is based on the IEC 62196 Type 2. The approval of the J1772 standard has given electric vehicle owners the comfort of knowing they can charge at all Level 2 charging stations. Prior to standardization an EV owner had no way of knowing if the charge port they were pulling up to was compatible with their vehicle.

SOURCE Ford Motor Company

 

[TRONZ]

As for your argument that anything other than a BEV -- be it an ICE vehicle, a bus, a plane, or a train -- hinders the development of a BEV, that's just saying that there shouldn't ever be anything made other than what you deem to be the "right and perfect" product.

I have never said any such thing. I have never said that I am worried about planes, busses and trains. That was someone else's rant. If you haven't noticed, other modes of transport are doing just fine all on their own. Therefore these don't interest me or require special thought from ME. I am however very interested in the development of BEV technology since this is the hard thing to do. That is why most of us are here. You seem to think I want every thing on the planet to have an electric motor and battery. Have you seen my signature!!! Why would you think this??? Show me once where I have stated ONLY BEVs should exist. I just want people not in the EV fight to get out of the ring to help those that do. I just care much less about PHEV or Hybrid tech since they are trying to lead from behind without any skin in the game. If this is a problem for you, deal with it! This is a LEAF forum dedicated to the worlds first mass produced BEV. I am stating my opinions on how to best promote and develop the technology for BEV's... and no matter what you say it is NOT by marketing a PHEV as an EV.

 

[mwalsh]

Ooh, I know what the "foe" setting does now! Goodbye posts I don't care to read!

 

[evnow]

1. GM authored and pushed through the $7500 tax credit for EVs. (If you dislike GM so much send back your tax credit).

Wrong. They manipulated the credit to get max credit for Volt and nothing more for BEVs.

2. Its launch of the Volt forced Nissan to move up its launch date of the Leaf.

Wrong. Nissan had been saying for years, they will release a BEV in 2010. See my sticky on History of Nissan EV.

3. It worked with the other major car manufacturers to develop the J1772 standard for NA and Japan.

J1772 would have been there with or without GM.

4. It worked with other major manufacturers to develop a single charger which will be used in both Europe and NA.

This is a delaying tactic to burn BEV.

5. It partnered with LG Chem, and now Envia, to develop the best batteries for EVs.

Pure unadultrated BS. LG chem has an older gen battery that needs thermal cooling or will blow up.

6. It partnered with SPX to install home chargers throughout the entire country, not just a few roll out states.

LOL. How many SPX chargers have been installed in non-rollout states & why ?

Not that I feel this way, but one could ask: And what, pray tell, has Nissan done, besides develop second rate batteries, take advantage of the heavy lifting done by GM on the tax credit, and suck down taxpayer money?

The first mass produced, affordable EV in a century. Any more questions ?

ps : Did someone forget we all own GM and bailed it out from a definite bankruptcy ?

 

[mitch672]

ps : Did someone forget we all own GM and bailed it out from a definite bankruptcy ?

nope, and I think the U.S. should have let them go bankrupt, we wouldn't be in much worse shape than we already are, and we wouldn't have to deal with them any longer, so instead, we bankrupt the entire country?

Free enterprise would have stepped up to fill the void left by their absence, it always has, and always will. It's not the governments job to bail out private business's, even ones deemed "to critical to let fail"

 

[hodad66]

free enterprise? Give me a break. Manufacturing has been leaving
the US for decades... (gotta pay the high CEO salaries somehow)..

 

[hodad66]

Ooh, I know what the "foe" setting does now! Goodbye posts I don't care to read!

DAMN... that is cool.....