Chevrolet Cruze Forums banner

1 - 20 of 53 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
316 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
If it weren't so expensive, I would be interested in this sometime in the future.

Here is a rather favorable review of the 2017 Chevy Volt.

2017 Chevy Volt - EPautos

Basically, it is a car designed to run on the battery, and the gas engine is there to charge the battery. When the battery is dead, the engine sends power to the electric turbine that drives the car...and perhaps does a little charging.

Very interesting. And a 50 mile range on a fully charged battery before the engine kicks in!

Thoughts anyone, reactions?
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
25,207 Posts
I test drove one over Memorial Day weekend. The car drives well - better than the first generation Volt, but I felt the overall size and lack of spare tire combined with the confusing cockpit and steering wheel controls make it a non-starter for me.

I actually feel the first generation Volt drives better.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
853 Posts
Well ... I guess it depends upon where you live and how much of a tax credit you receive from federal and state. Here in Colorado, you get a $7,500 federal tax credit (that's like an actual refund amount) as well as a $6,000 state tax credit! So even if you were to purchase a very well loaded 2016/2017 Volt for $40,275 (adaptive cruise control would add $595) then factor off the tax credits, you'd be spending roughly $26,800 in Colorado ... $32,800 in most other places. Factor in options and mpg savings, is the car really that much more expensive in the long run as a comparably optioned Cruze? Then again, you can get the Cruze with a manual transmission, and that's a plus in my eyes.
My wife and I traded in a 2012 Eco 6MT for a 2013 Volt, and I drive 60 miles one way up 1500 ft in altitude to get to work. In the short time we owned our cruze we purchased it new for just shy of $20,500 with rebates and supplier pricing. We put 60k miles on it leaving a lifetime average of 39 mpg. With the '13 Volt, I do the same drive, and have put 108k miles on the car and have a lifetime average of 58 mpg (and slowly climbing during summer months). If I'd have driven the same number of miles with my Eco, I calculate that I would have used 907 gallons more fuel. That's a pretty large number of gallons during $4 gas prices, so cost wise, in MY situation, the Volt will still be more economical in the long run than the Eco would have been. If you do a lot of city driving less than 50 miles per day, the Volt is a no-brainer in my eyes.
It's all personal preference when you get down to it. Yes, there are days when I wish we still had our Eco. Other days, I look at that 250+ mpg driving around town on days off and I'm glad we got the Volt. Drive them both if you're on the fence and weigh costs versus your driving situation and determine what you think is best for you.
My step-son just purchased a 2016 Cruze LT automatic (dealer didn't have a manual on the lot) with an MSRP of $25,795 (didn't pay that much though) so the prices aren't too far off ... in this state anyway. But then again, that Cruze doesn't have leather seats and other features the Volt has.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,682 Posts
I test drove one over Memorial Day weekend. The car drives well - better than the first generation Volt, but I felt the overall size and lack of spare tire combined with the confusing cockpit and steering wheel controls make it a non-starter for me.

I actually feel the first generation Volt drives better.
Non sequitur.

Time for either some more sleep / or another coffee.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
316 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I wonder how one could quantify the cost of recharging this car every day. That takes a lot of electricity. Maybe then it isn't so economical. One has to pay for the electricity. Is it like running an electric heater or air conditioner to energy wise while recharging?

Well ... I guess it depends upon where you live and how much of a tax credit you receive from federal and state. Here in Colorado, you get a $7,500 federal tax credit (that's like an actual refund amount) as well as a $6,000 state tax credit! So even if you were to purchase a very well loaded 2016/2017 Volt for $40,275 (adaptive cruise control would add $595) then factor off the tax credits, you'd be spending roughly $26,800 in Colorado ... $32,800 in most other places. Factor in options and mpg savings, is the car really that much more expensive in the long run as a comparably optioned Cruze? Then again, you can get the Cruze with a manual transmission, and that's a plus in my eyes.
My wife and I traded in a 2012 Eco 6MT for a 2013 Volt, and I drive 60 miles one way up 1500 ft in altitude to get to work. In the short time we owned our cruze we purchased it new for just shy of $20,500 with rebates and supplier pricing. We put 60k miles on it leaving a lifetime average of 39 mpg. With the '13 Volt, I do the same drive, and have put 108k miles on the car and have a lifetime average of 58 mpg (and slowly climbing during summer months). If I'd have driven the same number of miles with my Eco, I calculate that I would have used 907 gallons more fuel. That's a pretty large number of gallons during $4 gas prices, so cost wise, in MY situation, the Volt will still be more economical in the long run than the Eco would have been. If you do a lot of city driving less than 50 miles per day, the Volt is a no-brainer in my eyes.
It's all personal preference when you get down to it. Yes, there are days when I wish we still had our Eco. Other days, I look at that 250+ mpg driving around town on days off and I'm glad we got the Volt. Drive them both if you're on the fence and weigh costs versus your driving situation and determine what you think is best for you.
My step-son just purchased a 2016 Cruze LT automatic (dealer didn't have a manual on the lot) with an MSRP of $25,795 (didn't pay that much though) so the prices aren't too far off ... in this state anyway. But then again, that Cruze doesn't have leather seats and other features the Volt has.
 

·
Conservative Acoustic Foam
Joined
·
1,028 Posts
I wonder how one could quantify the cost of recharging this car every day. That takes a lot of electricity. Maybe then it isn't so economical. One has to pay for the electricity. Is it like running an electric heater or air conditioner to energy wise while recharging?
I think that is taken into account, and the general consensus is that the cost and pollution of using the electricity from the home is still considerably better than a gasoline counterpart.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,656 Posts
I wonder how one could quantify the cost of recharging this car every day. That takes a lot of electricity. Maybe then it isn't so economical. One has to pay for the electricity. Is it like running an electric heater or air conditioner to energy wise while recharging?
depends where you live

here its 7 cents/kwh....economical

i cross shopped the volt and cruze diesel....at that time driving habits favored the diesel, theyve sinced moved more towards the volt, but i still made the better choice for MY needs...

i hated the interior of the volt, too flashy, but liked the hatch.

another thing i hated aboot the volt was it doesnt show how much electricity it consumes (plugged in) and it doesnt have the ability to show how much charged at home (at x price) or charged somewhere else, like at work, (for free) for totally accurate cost per mile, gas vs electric.

the charts you get from the car show how much the car is on electric mode and how much gas mode, but thats incomplete.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,682 Posts
Three years ago I also cross-shopped volt with CTD. CTD won my competitive assessment - but a few weeks after I placed my order the volt came down in price. So in the end volt won out but I had already committed to volt.

CTD has been a complete success for me. I'm not sure that volt would have been able to adapt to my changing needs as well as CTD has. So in the end I'm the winner.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,900 Posts

·
Conservative Acoustic Foam
Joined
·
1,028 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,900 Posts
True, but since electricity generation is a dynamic variable, it can get better. Gasoline will always be gasoline.
It CAN get better. But realistically, short of moving, I think the best you can hope within the lifespan of the car is trading coal for natural gas.

In order to get solar into the picture, you'd have to charge the car during the day. For that, you'd either have to be working night shift or charge at work.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
25,207 Posts
Interesting article. However, it's more of an indictment of the US power generation grid. Even in some of the super "dirty" areas if you have rooftop solar and only charge your Tesla (only model with decent range) at home you have a zero carbon footprint from the actual act of driving. The article also states that the study didn't look at the overall impact of the energy source selected, which must be looked at.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,900 Posts
if you have rooftop solar and only charge your Tesla (only model with decent range) at home you have a zero carbon footprint from the actual act of driving.
Maybe. You'd have to be charging during the day. Secondly, the panel would have to be putting out enough to cover the charger.

Anything else is playing with numbers.

Even then, you still might come out short. Sure, the car might have a "zero" footprint, but I'd argue that if you had the same panel and a gas car, less coal would have been burnt and the energy difference was made up with gasoline.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
316 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Ctd?

three years ago i also cross-shopped volt with ctd. Ctd won my competitive assessment - but a few weeks after i placed my order the volt came down in price. So in the end volt won out but i had already committed to volt.

Ctd has been a complete success for me. I'm not sure that volt would have been able to adapt to my changing needs as well as ctd has. So in the end i'm the winner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
316 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
I never like it when the government subsidies a car. I prefer a car that stands and is produced on its own merits. Electric cars should have their cost determined by what it costs to make them...rather than being offered to the public at a discount through taxing the rest of us.

If we really want less gas consumption, the best policy, not saying I want this to happen, but it would be to put a 1- 2 dollar tax on gas per gallon. (That money could then be used to study ways to generate energy more efficiently...or just to fix the roads.) I guarantee that more people would be buying Chevy Cruzes, Ford Focuses etc. Social pressure to buy a big truck would go down. People that owned trucks would only use them when necessary...and use their efficient cars at nearly all other times. Problem solved. Most often, the best solution is the simplest solution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,656 Posts
I never like it when the government subsidies a car. I prefer a car that stands and is produced on its own merits. Electric cars should have their cost determined by what it costs to make them...rather than being offered to the public at a discount through taxing the rest of us.

If we really want less gas consumption, the best policy, not saying I want this to happen, but it would be to put a 1- 2 dollar tax on gas per gallon. (That money could then be used to study ways to generate energy more efficiently...or just to fix the roads.) I guarantee that more people would be buying Chevy Cruzes, Ford Focuses etc. Social pressure to buy a big truck would go down. People that owned trucks would only use them when necessary...and use their efficient cars at nearly all other times. Problem solved. Most often, the best solution is the simplest solution.
yeah

except nothing would exist without subsidies

nuclear wouldnt exist, they cant afford the insurance

the subsidies o&g get are retarded, etc, etc...

the playing field is nowheres near level, too much money in it for it to change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
316 Posts
Discussion Starter #19 (Edited)
You are making my point. Things would exist now far superior to what we have. One often only sees what was created by the subsidies. What one doesn't see are all the wonderful things that could have been created if resources hadn't been diverted into things that otherwise would not have made economic sense.

And as far as nuclear...if the waste is so dangerous that you can't pay anybody enough to store it for 50,000 years....then maybe the waste should never have been created?

You're right though...when these "artificial crony free market" companies are created that otherwise wouldn't exist, they will fight tooth and nail never to allow their lifelines...subsidies...to fade away. But we can hope better minds will prevail one day!

One sad story...don't know if it is true, is that there are farmers in North Dakota that would love to produce hemp for the sake of creating an ethanol superior to corn based ethanol. They could do it without a subsidy and make a profit. But because of the laws against hemp...and perhaps because the corn lobby wants no competition...it isn't allowed.

Here are two articles on it: http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/1194/north-dakota-wants-dea-to-leave-industrial-hemp-alone


http://truedemocracyparty.net/2014/07/hemponal-hemp-based-alcohol-fuels-hemp-fuel-the-way-out-of-foreign-oil-dependency-refuel-america-campaign-pt-1-google-mainstream-media-censorship-level-highactive/
yeah

except nothing would exist without subsidies

nuclear wouldnt exist, they cant afford the insurance

the subsidies o&g get are retarded, etc, etc...

the playing field is nowheres near level, too much money in it for it to change.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
25,207 Posts
Maybe. You'd have to be charging during the day. Secondly, the panel would have to be putting out enough to cover the charger.

Anything else is playing with numbers.

Even then, you still might come out short. Sure, the car might have a "zero" footprint, but I'd argue that if you had the same panel and a gas car, less coal would have been burnt and the energy difference was made up with gasoline.
Soar electric systems have existed for a couple of decades that can store sufficient power to run for three to seven days without any sun so there is no requirement to charge during the day. Granted, they were cumbersome but they did exist. Now Solar City (Elon Musk) is producing 4KWH wall mount storage systems that will provide up to 24 hours of power in a single "battery".

Don't confuse the standard utility connect system that doesn't store power locally with what solar can really do.
 
1 - 20 of 53 Posts
Top