Talk:Chevrolet Volt

Fact tags.

Those claims strike me as controversial. If they're so well-known, documenting them should not be a challenge. MattyD 20:17, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

I've provided you with references. In the future I'd stick to topics that you have some knowledge about. The fact that you didn't know what a supercar was shows that you have little if any knowledge about the automotive world. CraigF2 13:57, 13 September 2012 (EDT)

Your reference said nothing about the electrocution claim and stated clearly that there was as yet no scientifically proven link between hybrid vehicles and health risks. I've edited the article to reflect that. And I know what a "supercar" is. I just think it's a silly word. MattyD 14:00, 13 September 2012 (EDT)

"An electric shock caused by an accident-damaged EV could kill an imprudent approacher." [1]--Jpatt 14:20, 13 September 2012 (EDT)

Great. Put it in the article. MattyD 14:28, 13 September 2012 (EDT)

There are many incorrect and unsupported factoids in this article.

1. All cars emit harmful radiation; it is a matter of how much. It is also important to remember AC EMF is much more harmful than DC EMF based on the simple and basic principle that AC current induces electric current in conductors, and also people, while DC generally does not. The Volt’s large DC battery under the driver and passengers is not inducing any current through the body of the car or the passengers. AC current is used by the Volt, like all cars, primarily under the hood. http://www.lessemf.com/pamphlet.html

2. The engine can couple itself to the drive train under certain circumstances to improve efficiency. Once the Volt’s battery is depleted, the engine fires up and clutches to the generator to produce the power required to drive the car. Above 70 mph, when the generator couples to the ring gear, the engine gets a more efficient direct mechanical connection to the wheels. http://www.motortrend.com/features/editorial/1010_unbolting_the_chevy_volt_to_see_how_it_ticks/#ixzz2PXuPwSce

3. As for the car’s alleged high inefficiency, the Volt is rated at 37 mpg while using the gasoline engine. Not bad for a 3700 lb car, which by the way does have a drive shaft. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/11/volt-20101124.html

4. The Volt is subsidized, but not through factory rebates. Someone who purchases, not a leases, can qualify for a tax rebate of up to $7500.00 using form IRS 8936. If someone buys a Volt and their tax is under $7500.00 they will not receive the full rebate. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8936.pdf

5. I would like to see the math concerning the alleged $100,000+ it is costing GM to produce the Volt. Every new car model is subject to development costs. Wonder what the development of the new Chevy Corvette cost? Corvettes are out sold by Volts yet it is considered to be a very successful car.

6. Based on what has been written in this article, it seems to me the person(s) know rather little about automobiles. And remember, the Volt has the highest rate of owner satisfaction. Not bad, eh? http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/12/01/survey-finds-chevrolet-volt-owners-most-satisfied/

7. I’d like to see this article conform to the Conservapedia Commandments. i.e. true and verifiable, cite sources, etc. The liberal/homosexual thing comes to mind, sounds like opinion, not fact. --NormaN 21:35, 4 April 2013 (EDT)

The fact that the $1.2 billion cost of developing of this car is unlikely to ever be recouped certainly belongs in the article. The Volt is all about politics, a way for GM to present itself as "green." Electric cars are notorious money losers. They exist primarily to meet a California regulation. Even if the techology made sense, GM is run by the auto workers union. So it will inevitably lose even more money. PeterKa 22:04, 28 January 2014 (EST)

The most recent edits concerning the development costs and an alleged response to California regulations are simply opinions unsupported by factual evidence. For this reason the last two sentences of the opening paragraph should be removed unless quality references are used. I’d like to see the math used by Reuters and an updated factual assertion from the WSJ.--NormaN 22:31, 29 January 2014 (EST)

Reuters and WSJ are where you get business news from. If something fits your agenda its "fact," and otherwise it's "opinion"? This is just word games. PeterKa 00:16, 30 January 2014 (EST)

Yes, Reuters and the WSJ provide news. Yet Reuters didn’t show their math and even admitted the limitations of their so-called conclusions. Your WSJ reference is dated, maybe try to obtain something more recent?--NormaN 20:35, 30 January 2014 (EST)

Rules proposal

I think Norman brought up some valid points about this particular vehicle, as well as Peter. I think green energy politics may be involved with this one, but I don't have the cites to back the allegation up. Setting that aside, there's going to be pros and cons with this and any other car on the road, and this article just isn't up to par. So here's a proposal on something akin to rules for a layout on this and any other article about cars and trucks.

1. Describe the car itself. This needs to be a physical description of the car, including company making it; where it's made; years of manufacture; performance packages; wheelbase; powertrains; prices; MPG's; speed, and so on. Since the Volt is electric, how many batteries does it have? Does it have a generator engine? How far can it go on a charge?

2. Describe the pros and cons of the vehicle; describe why people like it, and why others don't. Is the car very good, or is it just another lemon? For citations, limit yourself to using official press releases from the automakers (Chevy in this case); reputable publications (Car and Driver, Motor Trend, Consumer Reports, etc). If you use a blog citation, make sure that the writer direct connections to the above publications or is a respected member of the auto community (i.e. Chip Foose, Kammie Edelbrock, Jeff Gordon, etc). Karajou 00:54, 31 January 2014 (EST)

3. As to the politics involving the Chevy Volt, place it within a separate sub-topic heading. Karajou 00:54, 31 January 2014 (EST)

I concur. --NormaN 10:52, 31 January 2014 (EST)

• I take I've been outvoted. Is Conservapedia is ready for conservative-bashing energy articles? I guess we will find out. PeterKa 12:10, 31 January 2014 (EST)

Try not to see it as bashing conservative ideals, think of it as making factual and accurate articles that don’t make conservatives look miss-informed.--NormaN 12:51, 31 January 2014 (EST)

Like you're here to make conservatives look more informed. Aren't we "lunatic fringe climate deniers"? PeterKa 22:29, 31 January 2014 (EST)

If someone parrots the climate change rants of Monckton and Limbaugh? Then yeah, I’d say they subscribe to the lunatic fringe. Not all conservatives hold such views. The original version of this article made a bunch of literally stupid claims. The Volt is a fashion accessory, it is subsidized with factory rebates, emits harmful radiation, likely to electrocute passengers in a crash, the engine is not hooked up to the wheels, liberals and homosexuals have limited knowledge of automobiles, etc. If a person took the earlier versions of this article as gospel, they’d look rather silly regurgitating their facts to a knowledgeable Volt owner. Looks like I’m actually trying to make conservatives look more informed.

--NormaN 00:36, 1 February 2014 (EST)

So Limbaugh and Fox News are the lunatic fringe, but of course you don't have you anything against the conservatives who agree with you. Who would they be, anyway? If I wanted to know what mainstream conservative opinion was on a given issue, I'd check The American Spectator ("Volt sleeps with the fishes"), The Weekly Standard ("Chevy Volt: Still Not Selling"), National Review ("The GM Volt Is an ‘Electric Lemon’"), or Human Events ("Obama blew more money on the Chevy Volt than entire GDP of Djibouti"). These are all to the right of Fox News, so I assume they'd be extradoubleplus lunatic in your book. PeterKa 01:41, 1 February 2014 (EST)

On this question of what's fringe and what's not, I note that Richard Lindzen, John Christy, and Roy Spencer, leading climate scientists all, are skeptics. Stephen Schneider, father of the global warming scare, wasn't a climate scientist at all, but a rather mechanical engineer. PeterKa 03:42, 1 February 2014 (EST)

If a conservative, liberal, libertarian or authoritarian makes relevant and factual claims when discussing politics, environment, economics, etc. I’ll patiently listen. When people make crackpot claims I’ll display the contempt they deserve. By the way, lunatic fringe, fringe, skeptics and denial all have different meanings. I reserve lunatic fringe for the extraordinary. The Volt is not for everyone, that doesn’t mean the car is a failure. Many ridiculous claims were made in the articles you recommended. Auto plants periodically close for numerous reasons and the Hamtramck closure was not remarkable. One of the writers made a comparison to a BMW 3 series and the Volt. I own both, I prefer the Volt. And the tripe seemed to go on and on. The climate scientists you mentioned are among the 1% of climate scientists who are skeptical of anthropogenic climate change, but I’d rather discuss such matters on the relevant talk page. As for Dr. Schneider, he was also a mechanical engineer.--NormaN 13:19, 1 February 2014 (EST)

Am to understand that 99 percent of scientists agree with you, and only 1 percent agree with me? There was a survey a while back that found that an overwhelming majority of scientists agree that the Earth is warmer now than it was a century ago. But of course I don't dispute that, and neither does Lindzen, Christy, or Spencer. PeterKa 00:30, 2 February 2014 (EST)

I think we're getting a little further beyond the subject of the article. This article shouldn't be a debate ground for global warming - that's not really necessary. The article should be about the car. Link to global warming in a comment about how the car is targeted towards the environmentally friendly crowd - but what are we doing talking about Limbaugh and Fox on this talk page? Norman's right the original article was terrible and borderline parody. So far you guys have done a good job improving it.--IDuan 13:31, 1 February 2014 (EST)

This car's primary notability is as a money pit. It's GM's attempt to follow California's idiotic regulations and appease the environmentalists. Sales are insignificant. The politics of this issue belongs in the lead section. We are not Consumer Reports. PeterKa 00:30, 2 February 2014 (EST)

Appease is probably the wrong word - it's them targeting a type of consumer that looks to purchase "environmentally friendlier" cars. The politics of a global warming debate do not belong on a car page, no. Norman's correct. We might not be Consumer Reports, but we also try not to be idiots.--IDuan 00:46, 2 February 2014 (EST)

I have already refuted this argument more than once. GM is selling only 100-to-200 vehicles a month. They'd have to sell something like 5,000 vehicles a month to justify their development costs. Please check the articles I link to above. Since GM went to court to try to avoid California's ZEV regulation, I assume that they were already aware that there was no demand even before they decided to go ahead with the project. PeterKa 01:37, 2 February 2014 (EST)

So it's for positive publicity? And what's wrong with that business model? And do you have another source confirming it? And you mentioning that the sales numbers are low isn't actually refuting any argument I made. It's just stating the fact that there are low sales. And how does going to court over regulation indicate knowledge of the future? They knew how successful marketing and an ad campaign could be because they were in a California court? Fascinating.--IDuan 07:50, 2 February 2014 (EST)

I was responding to your claim that GM is, "targeting a type of consumer." I guess in a sense they are. But sales are so low, that's obviously not a big part of the equation. The car allows GM receive government subsidies, and that money is far more significant than what they are getting from consumers.[2] PeterKa 09:03, 2 February 2014 (EST)

Further Reading

The Conservative News and Views article is a travesty of journalism filled with numerous faults and should not be featured under Further reading.

1. General Motors went into bankruptcy on June 1 2009 and emerged on 10 July 2009. A total of forty days. How this article could even imply otherwise is rather mystifying. No other entity other than the U.S. government stepped forward to assist GM, without reorganization funded by the feds; even Ford would have shut their doors. http://www.motorsliquidationdocket.com/ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/business/11auto.html?_r=0 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-09/ford-would-have-shut-without-auto-bailouts-rattner-says.html

2. GM received a government bailout that prevented the company from being broken up and terminating all their employees. As of 2012, GM employs 77,000 Americans, less than their heyday but still a lot more than zero, which is what they would have employed had the auto maker been allowed to break up. http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2012/07/american-made-index-which-automakers-affect-the-most-us-workers.html

3. ...energy-efficient vehicles, otherwise known as The Volt. This statement makes no sense, the Chevy Volt is not the only energy-efficient vehicle produced by GM.

4. The sales figures are also incorrect. There were 326 sold in 2010; 7671 sold in 2011; 23,461 in 2012 and 23,094 in 2013. http://www.hybridcars.com/gm-sells-50000th-chevy-volt-in-october/ http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/05/chevy-volt-sales-inch-nissan-leaf-sales-2013/

This embarrassment of an article should not be linked on Conservapedia. It gets almost nothing right and the people who read and believe the alleged facts will be sorely miss-informed. --NormaN 11:46, 31 January 2014 (EST)

Only the Facts Please

Unreferenced assertions concerning the general public and environmentalists have been inserted into an otherwise factual article. Could references please be provided?--NormaN 23:12, 1 February 2014 (EST)

Electric vehicle generation of CO2 compared to a gasoline vehicle

A gallon of gasoline equals 33.4 kWh and produces 19.6 lbs of CO2. Coal produces 2.08 lbs of CO2 per kWh. Using electricity generated by coal, a Volt will travel, on average, 123 miles on 33.4 kWh, the equivalent of a gallon of gasoline and generate 70 lbs of CO2. A car (BMW 328) driven by gasoline 123 miles at 27 mpg will use 4.6 gallons of gasoline and generate 90 lbs of CO2. The Volt will produce 77% of the CO2 of a comparable gasoline powered car, when using natural gas the percentage will be much less. When accounting for CO2 during the production of gasoline compared to the much more efficient method of powering electrical plants, the difference will be even more profound. When the home owner uses solar panels or wind to generate electricity to power their home and drive a car 12,000 miles a year they will save thousands. Using an electric vehicle is indeed a game changer. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3 http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11 http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html

If we could afford to buy a $250,000 car for all 7 billion people on the planet, global warming would be the least of our worries. PeterKa 20:03, 2 February 2014 (EST)

Your reference is completely out of date. A selective use of math and assuming only Chevy Volts will use the batteries manufactured at the subsidized plants is very disingenuous. The Hamtramck plant also manufactures the Malibu. Where are these facts included in the math? Nowhere of course. Using MCC’s dubious math, selective reasoning and the increase in Volt sales, each car is now subsidized at $27,000. And this number itself is still completely inane. I’ll cut them some slack concerning the past government ownership of GM, but this doesn’t excuse anyone from using this dated reference to trash the Volt.--NormaN 19:37, 3 February 2014 (EST)

Editing Compromise

Took SamHB’s advice and corrected the paragraph in question to include references. Hopefully everyone will be satisfied.

It's a "game changer for the environment"? Oh my. Can we slobber over this vehicle some more? I hope GM and the UAW appreciate this work. PeterKa 20:01, 4 February 2014 (EST)

Please review the edit once more, I said electric vehicles, not Volt. --NormaN 20:03, 4 February 2014 (EST)

Given that Obama plans to make electric rates "skyrocket,"[3] I assume the Volt will end up taking one for the team. As near as I can tell, the environmentalists oppose all forms of power production: nuclear, coal, gas, oil, hydropower, etc. With Obama flying in the world's least fuel efficient airplane and rolling in an eight-mile-a-gallon limo, a lot of peasants will have to do without for the result to be carbon neutral. PeterKa 00:59, 5 February 2014 (EST)

I’m sure every Pres. Obama basher has heard your skyrocket factoid. Of course what his critics never mention is the context. If you can’t persuade the American people that, yes there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long-term -- because of a combination of more efficient energy uses and changing lightbulbs and more-efficient appliances, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy -- that the economy will benefit. Cap and Trade used to be a huge Republican method of environmental change. Low sulfer coal, CFC gases, and unleaded gasoline were successful targets of cap and trade during Republican administrations. Even Gov. Palin and Sen. McCain were big supporters of cap and trade but now that Pres. Obama come out in favor using this mechanism to reduce CO2 the Republicans had turned tail and derided it as cap and tax. It seems if a Democrat is for it, like your current president, then they are against it. --NormaN 19:23, 5 February 2014 (EST)

Something-for-nothing is not the way economics works. Obama is an economic idiot. This is a man who once announced that he wanted a minimum wage of $100 a hour, for crying out loud. If he knew any less about economics, the country would be broke after repeated multi-trillion dollar bailout and pork packages. Oh, wait a minute, we are. FDR let the banks go belly up, and a historic recovery followed. That's the kind of president we need. PeterKa 03:11, 6 February 2014 (EST)

@PeterKa, you wrote "This is a man who once announced that he wanted a minimum wage of $100 a hour, for crying out loud." All I could find in reference to a $100/hour minimum wage seems to be from conservative commentators using a slippery slope to oppose any form of minimum wage increase. Could you please tell me more information about this Obama announcement? Thanks, GregG 09:28, 6 February 2014 (EST)

What can I say? I watched Obama make the speech on CNN. When he proposed the $100 hour minimum wage, his audience cheered. I don't think he was actually president yet, or this speech would have been a bigger deal. This was around the time of the 2008 election. The $100 an hour minimum wage is an old Milton Friedman favorite, his way of illustrating the absurdity of wage regulation. So I was startled to hear Obama proposing it, and I checked the transcript just to make sure I didn't mishear or anything. In any case, the speech is not on the CNN site anymore. Perhaps it's still on the Wayback Machine. PeterKa 23:02, 6 February 2014 (EST)

Coal

Well nuts, looks like I can’t win. My last edit was removed because it was liberal propaganda, yet the sources Jpatt used are rather liberal also. I’m racked over the coals if I dare to mix in alleged liberal sources with conservative sources yet an administrator can do so with impunity. Of well, at least this article wasn’t the embarrassment it used to be. Only if that pesky item about coal could be altered then Jpatt’s edit would reflect reality since coal only generates 37% of America’s electricity. Coal is being phased out; renewable and other non-polluting sources of energy are becoming more wide spread. It would be nice if this article could spell this out.--NormaN 23:57, 15 February 2014 (EST)