palmermd
Well-known member
Well that is one step too far.mitch672 said:nope wouldn't drive a Volt if it was given to me.
Well that is one step too far.mitch672 said:nope wouldn't drive a Volt if it was given to me.
palmermd said:Well that is one step too far.mitch672 said:nope wouldn't drive a Volt if it was given to me.
palmermd said:Well that is one step too far.mitch672 said:nope wouldn't drive a Volt if it was given to me.
mitch672 said:Face it, the Plug in Prius is superior to the Volt in almost every way, and when 3rd party mfrs start comming up with add on/larger replacement packs, the only advantage the Volt has (larger EV range), well, that will vanish as well.
Even by CARB's standards the BEVx is an asinine idea. But the Volt in its current form would work fine. Just needs a slightly larger battery pack and an electronic governor that forces a limp mode. This would have the advantage that, if you moved to a state where the bureaucrats weren't smoking crack, you could hack the car and get full performance!mitch672 said:CARB is looking for a new class of EV's, true range extended models, let's see if the General steps up and designs something for BEVx, with an innovative design, and small range extender, because i'm sure Toyota will be working on that product, it will be a game changer without the complexity of the Volt or the Prius, and it could make a huge impact on BEV adoption by the masses, which is what is really needed.
mitch672 said:Perhaps you should know the facts before opening your trap.
I do believe you're so hopelessly biased you can't even recognize it. Your first sentence says that GM and Toyota unloaded massive liability on to Tesla. Then you conclude this was a smart business move by Toyota. If true, wouldn't that have been a smart move by GM as well? :roll:mitch672 said:Toyota and GM unloaded their massive liability on the Numi plant to Tesla, a smart business move by Toyota. The RAV4 EV has been around before, they could have just updated the design, but since it's a compliance car only, and they only plan on making 2,600 of them during the next 3 years, perhaps they made a smart decision here as well...
It might have been a smart business move on GM's part as well, but they didn't get that option because while Toyota remained solvent, GM gave it up as part of their bankruptcy. :roll:SanDust said:I do believe you're so hopelessly biased you can't even recognize it. Your first sentence says that GM and Toyota unloaded massive liability on to Tesla. Then you conclude this was a smart business move by Toyota. If true, wouldn't that have been a smart move by GM as well? :roll:mitch672 said:Toyota and GM unloaded their massive liability on the Numi plant to Tesla, a smart business move by Toyota. The RAV4 EV has been around before, they could have just updated the design, but since it's a compliance car only, and they only plan on making 2,600 of them during the next 3 years, perhaps they made a smart decision here as well...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/opinion/16herbert.htmlThe New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. plant (generally referred to as NUMMI) began as a joint venture between Toyota and General Motors in 1984. G.M. abandoned the venture when it collapsed into bankruptcy proceedings last year. Toyota declared that the plant was no longer viable because of the absence of G.M. and announced that it would close at the end of this month.
Would it have been so difficult to read the post directly above yours?TomT said:Agreed! There is no place for such hubris here!
palmermd said:Well that is one step too far.mitch672 said:nope wouldn't drive a Volt if it was given to me.
Actually his comments were nonsense because he was wrong on the facts. GM did not offload any crushing liability on to Tesla. I didn't bother going there because it's fairly apparent he is more or less making this up as he goes along. No reason to clutter things with facts. But my point, which is that his mental state is evidenced by the fact that, in the same sentence, he can say that GM and Toyota did EXACTLY THE SAME THING and then conclude that ONLY TOYOTA made a good business decision, remains perfectly valid.AndyH said:It might have been a smart business move on GM's part as well, but they didn't get that option because while Toyota remained solvent, GM gave it up as part of their bankruptcy. :roll:
Seems to me that Mitch was spot-on with his assessment...
This is such a yawner. Unsubstantiated claims at odds with the EPA tests are useless. If the PIP gets 15 miles of electric range then the Leaf has a range of 100 miles and the Volt has an electric range of 48 miles. Except they don't. :lol:mitch672 said:First of all, to all of you who believe the PiP gets just 6 miles of EV, that's not true, the least I have seen has been 10 miles at 60MPH. With stop and go crawling traffic, I typically make the entire 15 mile commute in EV, some of that is regen.
Logic and reason getting your goat?mitch672 said:Hey, just wanted to say "f all of you ". Have a nice day a-holes.
mitch672 said:Hey, just wanted to say "f all of you ". Have a nice day a-holes.
Am I missing something or are you? GM could only have made a business decision similar to Toyota's IF THEY REMAINED SOLVENT through the process - and they did not! It's apples and oranges. Maybe in a parallel universe where GM didn't end up in a government-supervised bankruptcy/bailout they decided to sell their portion of the NUMMI partnership. In THAT universe I'll agree with you 103.5% - they made a good business decision if they sold off a liability. But that didn't happen in THIS universe.SanDust said:Actually his comments were nonsense because he was wrong on the facts. GM did not offload any crushing liability on to Tesla. I didn't bother going there because it's fairly apparent he is more or less making this up as he goes along. No reason to clutter things with facts. But my point, which is that his mental state is evidenced by the fact that, in the same sentence, he can say that GM and Toyota did EXACTLY THE SAME THING and then conclude that ONLY TOYOTA made a good business decision, remains perfectly valid.AndyH said:It might have been a smart business move on GM's part as well, but they didn't get that option because while Toyota remained solvent, GM gave it up as part of their bankruptcy. :roll:
Seems to me that Mitch was spot-on with his assessment...
Hey, just wanted to say "f all of you ". Have a nice day a-holes.
Enter your email address to join: