You may already know the Chevrolet Volt: the multiple car of the year award winner and a revolutionary and ingenious piece of automotive technology that is capable of bridging the gap between the era of gasoline-powered vehicles and the time when all automobiles run entirely on electricity. Unfortunately, the Volt’s brilliant qualities, of which there are many, are enjoyed by a seldom few today. And while the car had seemingly become a pawn in the recently-concluded U.S. Presidential election, it’s time to put politics aside and focus on the future. But to look at the Volt’s time ahead, we must look back to where the Volt has been and where it is now.
A Car Everyone Would Buy
Everyone would buy a Volt, if they could. The car is simply excellent: it feels, drives, and looks like a premium product, rather than a car for the masses. Besides the impressive powertrain technology, the Volt has an immense amount of complementary tech — including all the gizmos you’d expect to find in a modern vehicle such as the Chevy MyLink infotainment system, an awesome OnStar app that lets the owner perform remote commands like remote start, lock/unlock doors, and check electric range, among other things, as well as a back-up camera and keyless entry. And if it’s a refined ride you’re looking for, then the Volt fits the bill, as well.
So why doesn’t everyone own a Volt? For starters, it only seats four — making it a non-option for those who purchase seven-seater SUVs or crossovers for their seating capacity. But the biggest reason still, in our opinion, is the Volt’s $40,000+ asking price.
Record-Setting Sales
The Volt’s high price, however, doesn’t make it unwanted; in fact, the car has been setting sales records left and right. Globally, sales of the vehicle (in its various variations such as the Opel/Vauxhall Ampera and Holden Volt) are on the rise. And in the United States, the extended-range EV sold 2,961 units in October, 2,851 units in September and 2,831 units in August. Sure, those numbers may seem paltry compared to the consistent almost-20,000 monthly unit sales of the Cruze. But as we mentioned earlier this year, it’s much more apropos to consider year-over-year growth for vehicles that create a category — like the Volt — than to focus on unit sales.
Looking at rate of change data, it’s clear that the Volt is catching on — and catching on fast. October’s 2,961 sales are a 167.2 percent year-over-year increase; September’s growth is equally impressive — at 294.3 percent. August is even more so — at a whopping 837.4 percent year-over-year growth.
In fact, the Volt is now the top-selling electric vehicle in the United States — more than 8,000 units ahead of Toyota’s (beloved by the public) Prius Plug-in, while the Nissan Leaf is a distant third behind both vehicles. And having sold 19,309 units through October of 2012 (YTD), the Volt is on track to break the 20,000 annual sales mark this year.
Discounts & Incentives
To address the issue of pricing, General Motors is adding incentives for the Volt. Currently, the discounts seem to be in the $2,000-$4,000 range, which are on top of the $7,500 federal tax credit offered to buyers of qualifying electric vehicles such as the Volt — even though some buyers may not earn enough to take advantage of the tax credit. Other Volt-specific offers from GM may include low-interest financing, subsidized leases, customer cash, and sales bonuses to dealers.
According to an October report, GM spokesman Jim Cain said that most Volt discounts come in the form of lease deals. Leases represent roughly two-thirds of Volt sales, and customers are to lease a Volt for $249 per month after a $2,400 downpayment in most markets.
A Loss Leader With Benefits
But even with the astronomic year-over-year sales growth, General Motors is losing thousands of dollars on each Volt sale. While exact figures aren’t made public, estimates from Munro & Associates — a company in Troy, Michigan that analyzes vehicle production expenses for automakers — report a cost of $60,000 to $75,000 to build a Volt. That includes initial research & development, manufacturing, and raw materials expenses.
Much of the reason for the high cost is the result of the Volt’s use of two powertrains — the electric system and the gasoline engine-generator. Assuming a $40,000 sticker price and allotting $5,000 for discounts and/or incentives, GM gets roughly $35,000 for every Volt, so it could be losing $25,000 (at the least) to $40,000 (at the most) per car.
But according to GM, Munro’s figures are high — since they don’t spread the Volt’s costs far enough into the future — when the automaker plans to sell more units of the vehicle. In a way, then, the real cost of the Volt to GM is a numbers game, one that depends on how far into the future the Volt’s R&D cost is extrapolated.
Usually, automakers spend around $1 billion to develop a car and don’t turn a profit until a model is several years into its lifecycle. Sharing vehicle architectures/platforms helps bring that initial development cost down, but even for vehicles such as the Volt — which shares the Delta architecture with the compact Chevy Cruze — platform sharing isn’t enough.
However, it’s safe to assume that Volt technology will be used in future GM vehicles — so vehicles carrying the Voltec powertrain will eventually lead to profits. But the question GM is likely asking itself is how long it can keep eating losses on the Volt, especially without aggressively rolling out variants of the car. The automaker showed off a concept Volt van, called the Volt MPV 5, at the Beijing Auto Show in 2010 — but the vehicle has yet to enter production. Meanwhile, Ford has the next-best thing with its C-MAX Energi.
Creating A Market For A Brand New Technology
Let’s forget, for a moment, about profits, losses, and other financial aspects and consider that the Volt isn’t just a car with a new nameplate — it’s a product that has created an entirely new class of a vehicle. “We’re trying to create a market for a brand-new technology,” Cain says. Fisker, Ford, and Toyota have all followed the Volt with competing products, which in itself is a confirmation GM isn’t alone in seeing a need to bridge the gap between the current gasoline-dominated transportation and the pure electric future.
Unfortunately, the rollout of the Volt couldn’t have come at a more inopportune time. In 2010, a bad economy and tight credit made a $40,000 mainstream compact car difficult to stomach; that’s still the case today.
“Let’s face it, over $40,000 is asking a lot for a compact car,” says Bob Lutz, a retired GM vice chairman who led the development of the Volt.
Slow initial sales were expected by many — and discounts starting coming into the picture. In June of 2011, GM reduced the Volt’s starting price by $1,000 while furnishing the 2013 model with an improved battery that increased electric-only range by three miles, from 35 to 38.
But even with the improvements and price cuts, we’re dubious that most consumers today understand the basics about the Volt — or its benefits. And that’s a problem in and of itself that someone (either GM or its competitors) will need to address.
The Fire Hoopla
Remember this one? The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was crash testing a Volt (or two), and then made a big stink that one of the vehicles it had already crash tested and left in a garage after the crash had caught fire. Mind you, this was weeks after the crash test took place. Even Congress got involved.
No real-world fires were ever reported, but engineers figured out that the fire experienced by the NHTSA was the result of a coolant leak that caused electrical shorts after side-impact crashes. GM subsequently offered to buy back all Volts in existence (an offer that 24 owners took advantage of) and retrofitted all Volts with more steel to protect the battery. And the NHTSA cleared
The California Emissions Game
Then there was the issue of the Volt not being eligible to use California’s carpool lanes. The Golden State has 1,500 miles of freeway lanes that can only be used by cars carrying two or more people. The State, however, makes exceptions that allow less-polluting vehicles to drive in the lanes with one person in the car.
Initially, the Volt didn’t qualify to utilize the HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lanes because, according to California’s Department of Transportation, the Volt’s gasoline engine-generator didn’t meet the pollution standards. So GM engineers decreased the emissions produced by the Volt’s engine generator, and the State added the car as an exception to the HOV rule in late February of 2011. The move boosted Volt sales almost instantly — with nearly a quarter of Volt sales today being to California residents.
GM’s Green Image
GM says that the Volt has helped the automaker’s green image — a statement that few in their right minds would argue. The car has attracted and conquested new customers, some of which migrated from rival brands, while assisting Chevy to chip away at least part of the environmental halo from Toyota and its Prius line of hybrids — with most Volt buyers being new to the Bow Tie brand.
Perhaps even more important is the fact that the Volt has and will help GM meet stringent Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.
Profitability Is Still The Name Of The Game
While the Volt may not be contributing to GM’s bottom line today, the vehicle isn’t in danger of being cancelled. Of course, it will need to be profitable — but the timetable for such a requirement isn’t set in stone just yet.
If anything, climbing sales — to the tune of triple-digit year-over-year increases — mean that car buyers aren’t opposed to accepting electric cars like the Volt — but that the the vehicles need to be offered at the right price. So far in 2012, electric and gas-electric vehicles have accounted for roughly 3.5 percent of total auto sales in the United States.
The Volt’s “prime purpose was to introduce a new generation of technology,’’ says Lutz. “And at the same time, demonstrate to the world that GM is way more technologically capable than the people give it credit for.”
Of course, any company wants its products to be profitable… but some may take a bit longer than others to reach that point. To that end, customers could be weary of buying vehicles that don’t bring in a profit for an automaker, since such products could end up on the chopping block and result in a shortage of parts in the future. But which regular consumer pays attention to this kind of data?
The Future
Ultimately, the Volt is a long-term play for GM. If we are to assume that the final destination for gasoline-free transportation lies in electric-powered vehicles, then the Volt is an excellent “intermediary” step. Of course, this “intermediary” nature of the Volt means that the gasoline range-extender will no longer be necessary in the future — but that point might only be reachable in several decades.
As such, GM has just that long (however long that will be) to lower the cost of the Voltec powertrain and make it even more efficient. Lowering the cost of any technology usually involves lowering the cost of parts, production, or manufacturing by selling more of the technology, usually by making the product that contains it more attractive to the mass market. GM can do just that by continuing to look for efficiencies (in parts and material sourcing, for instance) while offering the Voltec powertrain in as many vehicles as it can.
All evidence points to The General doing just that in the future. As of this writing, at least one Voltec-powered vehicle — the Cadillac ELR — is in the works. The ELR will be powered by the next-gen Voltec powertrain, but it alone won’t increase economies of scale that will make any kind of sizable difference — since the Caddy will be a low-volume product; in fact, the ELR may just assist GM in breaking even on the Voltec program. But GM needs to offer Voltec-powered crossovers, MPVs, and sedans/hatchbacks in all sizes and categories to truly make the Voltec powertrain profitable.
And once we reach the point of widespread electric-only propulsion, GM won’t be caught cold, either: the automaker is already testing a fleet of electric-only Chevy Cruze sedans in South Korea and will launch an electric-only Spark city car in 2013.
In the short term, marketing to consumers who may not be familiar with the Volt or its benefits may be the next thing The General tackles. Combating myths with facts, something GM’s Just the Facts campaign set out to accomplish, is also a good idea, because there is plenty of FUD out there. And then there’s the issue of purely uninformed spinmeisters. However would GM deal with those?
[nggallery id=14]
Comments
The Chevy MPV5 concept seemed to be just the thing. It offers the increased practicality that is needed and should sell in fairly sizeable numbers. The ELR is very cool and a great halo car for the voltec power train, but won’t sell in enough numbers to make much of a difference. Toyota is in the process of expanding the Prius lineup in a big way, and GM needs to do much the same thing. Maybe we will see something in the next few months.
What about that Buick Volt?
There’s an official Buick Volt? , I though that was just some far fetched speculation..
This was a great article up until the part where you repeated the false figures of the Volt costing $75,000 to build. Since that number from Munro Associates us including the fixed costs to developing the Volt, you won’t pay those costs when building the next Volt. Those costs have already been paid.
Alex did a good job of refuting those erroneous numbers.
They are just as true as all those political claims we heard last month. True on the face of it but false with the “rest of the story”.
Yes as of today each Volt built cost somewhere north of $45k BUT the development/tooling cost per vehicle built will go down as that denominator number goes up. In one year GM will double that bottom number and the top number stays the same and that cost per car will go down by half
The first Cruze off the line cost $2 billion including the cost of parts in that car, the cost of all those engineers, the cost of all those plants around the world, the cost of testing and developing, the cost of all the pre marketing and the cost of all the overhead at GM.
The 2nd Cruze cost $1 billion to build (and the first one was reduced to $1 billion).
And it goes on. After awhile you start making profit but it takes a lot of vehicles. That is why low volume vehicles need to have a higher price to make up for the volume.
Well said
No, the numbers are true, they just seem ridiculous until you factor in that they include R&D and development costs, if you had included those costs for the cruze, the cruze would probably have cost somewhere around 40k when it first launched. So the numbers arent wrong, they are just misguided and measuring something no one measures when considering the cost to build a car, the volt actually costs around 40-45k to build.
As of 11/1 Volt only had 36 day supply at the dealerships. Looks like Chevrolet shut down the plant too long to bring in the Impala tooling.
Fine job, Mr. Alex 🙂
True that the Volt as a Chevrolet makes more sense as a Buick for it’s price.
As a statement, GM put it out as a Chevy ( the everyman’s car ) – I believe
as much to our government as to show Toyota the power and prowess
they could wield to counter Hybrid Synergy Drive.
Volt could become a sub marque, ala “Prius” or Scion. Chevy should have
a stripper or budget Volt that still qualifies for the tax credit. Imagine a
$30,000 Volt that would set back the consumer $22,500 after refund!
C-Max Energis are here. Ford touts 21 miles electric range ( a bit exaggerated ).
Still, GM has to counter. Try a different battery configuration which is possible
today ( Google GM-Envia battery ) with higher energy density that allows three-
across seating in the rear. Try a smaller pack with 30 mile range. Try roll up
windows without a fancy audio system. Cloth seats and no nav. This is the
Chevrolet we can bite on. Give Buick the 40-60 mile electric range, and
deluxe accutriments.
We all agree a Voltec CUV and people-mover light duty van would sell well.
I will continue to bang the drum for a Voltec pickup truck!….
In all – the plug-in and hybrid market is heating up bigtime. GM has to
poop or get off the pot.
Heads up – Ford introduced it’s hybrid C-Max last month and it outsold Toyota’s Prius-V, it’s main compeitor for that first month. GM, the market for these cars is there.
Ford’s battery pack is air cooled ala: Nissan’s LEAF whose owners in hot climates of AZ and Texas have found faster than advertised battery capacity loss.
Being that the Energi PHEV version of this hybrid and the Fusion Energi version coming in January, we’ll see if that three-across seating and cheaper, smaller, air-cooled battery wins any sales from potential Volt buyers. I agree the form factor of
C-Max and the 47/47 capabilities of the hybrids will lure many.
Voltec is a better system with 40 miles AER – but the price is what’ll sell the Fords.
Volt has superior thermally controlled tech – just increase the seating and decrease
the price.
I’m thrilled to see the battle heating up. POWER IN THE PLUG! Hybrids and PHEVs
will relieve us from the pain at the pump!
The Chevy Volt is a unique vehicle, just like the Chevy Corvette. If anyone looks for monthly sales, the Volt sells more per month than the Corvette which has a 55-year headstart. So if sales seem low, consider the Corvette. The old GM would cancel any vehicle that had low sales number (the Pontiac Fiero was one of the victims). The new GM will continue tp sell Volts and Open Amperas as long as we need this type of vehicle to get us off gas and oil.
The new Chevy Spark EV will begin in limited markets in 2013, but could be the biggest seller for GM and a big surprise for its competitors by 2014.
Chevy sales staff dealing with folks who are shopping Volt vs. C-Max and Fusion Energi PHEVs need to remind them that GM’s method is a larger buffer in it’s battery pack to increase longevity and reliability. Ford announced a 90% utilization of it’s pack which is risky indeed – good for short term sales, but bad when folks see their battery pack deplete before their very eyes.
Air-cooled + small buffer + smaller battery = lower price and less reward.
The Holden Volt won’t sell well or at all here in Australia. It is way over priced. $60,000 for a Volt as apposed to a luxury long wheel base vehicle (Holden Caprice) which is the same price. A Commodore is almost $10,000 cheaper and a way better car. A few months ago, a engineering group created an electic Holden Commodore. This would sell better in both Australia and world wide. It’s a proper 5 seater car that has an electric engine.
Not the Caprice nor the Commodore offer the promise of gasoline-free driving. End of story.
People who are after gasoline free driving are the same people who can only afford a Chevy/Holden Spark. If you’re the person who has $60k to spend on a car, you would much rather the driving pleasure and experience of a Commodore or Caprice. Even a used HSV would be a more favourable option. If the Volt was cheaper, then it would be the end of the story. Either way Australians don’t rate american made cars at all so it still won’t sell.
Doesn’t matter if the Caprice is huge, looks awful, and can seat 5. It can’t do what the Volt does, ever.
No one would buy the Volt just because it can do what it can, Aussies much rather buy a good car.
Let’s try to stick to the facts here… the Volt is as “good” a car as any, and better. Hence, it’s a car everyone would love to own (who doesn’t have dreams of smoking tires in the driveway). Have you ever drive a Volt?
Granted, it’s not a RWD tire burner, nor was it ever intended to be one. So once your Commodores and Caprices sit abandoned in garages and parking lots because gas is $16/gallon, the Volt will be more than happy to get your from A to B without breaking the bank.
It seems that you’re letting your fanaticism of GM’s Zeta-derived vehicles taint the rapidly-approaching reality. In this reality, gasoline is a very scarce resource and is thus expensive as all heck, making it pretty much unobtainable for today’s average driver. That’s why you should be rooting for the Volt with all your might — especially given that Australia, as small a country as it is, will have a tough time sourcing gasoline when it becomes a true global scarcity — leaving every single gas-powered vehicle useless.
Lastly, Aussies will buy whatever is available to them. On the global level, the AUS market is trivial; no offense — just the facts. That’s why very soon there will no longer be any Australia-specific vehicles from any manufacturer; they will simply be global vehicles with a RHD layout.
Those days of $16 gas prices are still a far way away. Aussie market trivial? For an automotive site, you really don’t research well. The Australia auto market is one of the toughest in the world. There are 52 car companies selling here and with a population of only 24 million… you do the math. Australians won’t buy whatever is available to us. We are very picky about what cars we buy. No Chevrolet vehicles will sell well here because they are obsolete compared to competitors. The Malibu has caught up to it’s rivals yet the rival vehicles are about to get new models that will be ahead of the Malibu. There is already an electric Commodore concept made by a third party group – Aussies would much rather that than a Volt. The Volt’s technology is brilliant but the car itself is nothing exciting.
“Those days of $16 gas prices are still a far way away.”
1. They’re not as “far away” as you think. Have a look at global gas reserve stats. We’re already on the downward slope of the gasoline equation. We’re not screwed just yet, but we will start feeling the effects of significantly depleted supply in the next decade.
2. Even if those days were “far away” (which they’re not), forget brand/manufacturer competition/rivalry/etc. — humanity needs a starting point in developing modes of transportation for the next century. The Volt is the perfect transitionary vehicle.
“Aussie market trivial? For an automotive site, you really don’t research well. The Australia auto market is one of the toughest in the world. There are 52 car companies selling here and with a population of only 24 million… you do the math.”
The research is rarely off… the piece you see above is based on weeks of research and fact-checking. But forget all that — you just proved my point: the state of Texas has a larger car market than all of Australia… and that’s one of 50 U.S. States…
That’s to say that Australia will get the automotive products that the rest of the world will get, bringing an end of Aussie-specific vehicles. It’s called globalization, and it impacts small markets (like Australia) the most.
“No Chevrolet vehicles will sell well here because they are obsolete compared to competitors.”
Really? Like the Cruze, Captiva, Barina, or Colorado? Those are all Chevys — and are in high demand in your country. In fact, GM can’t make enough Colorados to meet demand in Australia.
Ironically, all of those vehicles — including the Malibu — are in high demand all over the world. So let’s stop bashing Chevy, for it is just a brand that threatens the “unique” existence of Holden, and appreciate the Volt for what it is and its potential. That’s the topic du jour.
PS: the views expressed here are my own, and are not necessarily those of GM Authority.
All those cars you mentioned (excluding the Cruze) that are re-badged Chevrolets may be in high demand but they certainly aren’t the best in their class and only the Captiva sells some-what well, recently that is. The Malibu has just caught up to its competition but the next models of its competitors are ahead of the Malibu. The HOLDEN Cruze IS NOT A RE-BADGED Chevrolet!!! It may be virtually the same car but the Holden badged version is built in Australia. The Cruze sells well here because it’s built and partly design here.
Incorrect. The models you refer to (Barina Spark, Barina, Cruze) are class leaders indeed. Fuel economy? Best in class. Handling and agility? Also best in class. The same goes for quality (long term and initial), squeaks/rattles, infotainment, and safety.
The same holds true for Colorado, Colorado 7/Trailblazer.
As for the Malibu, have you driven one? It’s the best-driving vehicle in the segment that’s stylish, safe, and laden with technology. And unlike other FWD midsize sedans, its actually fun to drive. What new competitors are you referring to?
As it relates to the Cruze: the place of assembly is irrelevant in what we’re discussing, since manufacturing operations at a global automaker such as GM are fairly uniform around the world. The point is the Cruze was designed, engineered, and tested predominantly by GM’s operations in Korea, US, and Europe — invalidating your statement that American cars have a “stigma” or that Aussies won’t buy them (or something to that extent).
Also, I just noticed your comment stating that the “Volt’s technology is brilliant but the car itself is nothing exciting.” Have you ever driven a Volt?
They’re not class leaders. The VW Up is better than the Spark. The Ford Fiesta, Suzuki Swift, Kia Rio are all better than a Barina. The Mazda 3 is unfortunately way better than a Cruze and that is why it is now the most sold car in Australia. At the Paris Motor Show, all new versions of the Ford Mondeo (Fusion) and Mazda 6 have been rated as way better than a Malibu which has just caught up to the outgoing Mondeo and Mazda 6 variants. Wheels Magazine said: “The Malibu has caught up to the outgoing Mondeo and Mazda 6. However, the all-new generations of those models at the Paris show now feel far more premium and classy than the Malibu, leaving Holden, again, with a mid-sizer that remains a generation behind.”
If you don’t know who Wheels are, they have the world’s longest running and highly respected Car Of The Year Award. The Volt scraped through to the finalists but I can tell you know that the Toyota 86/Subaru BRZ will most likely take out the award.
like I said, the Cruze sells well here because it’s built here – removing that stigma. American cars are known to have poor driving quality and ability on Australian roads – That’s why the Commodore’s driving quality was rated so highly in America with the G8.
The Volt’s expensive price tag here makes the Volt not so exciting. It’s Holden Caprice money. The Caprice is full of luxury features that the Volt doesn’t have. The Caprice has 5 seats and heaps of leg room as apposed to the Volt which has 4 seats and standard (or even less) leg room.
“They’re not class leaders.”
Really? Do any of them get better fuel economy, for instance, than the comparable model from GM? Or have better infotainment features? The answer is “no”, and that’s not counting the fact that every single new GM model (Chevy or Holden) has far superior driving dynamics than most if not all competing vehicles.
“The VW Up is better than the Spark. The Ford Fiesta, Suzuki Swift, Kia Rio are all better than a Barina. The Mazda 3 is unfortunately way better than a Cruze and that is why it is now the most sold car in Australia.”
Again, the general nature of your statement “are all better than…” is unqualified and frankly inaccurate. Let’s go down the list:
1. The Up is a very low-quality product — as are most new VWs (trust me, my fiancé has a 2012 Jetta). They may rank well on paper, but the story is entirely different once you drive them. There are several noticeable design flaws in each VW today and that’s not to mention a world of squeaks and rattles that is the result of poor quality control, subpar engineering, and inattention to materials during the parts sourcing process.
2. The Ford Fiesta or the Suzuki Swift don’t hold a candle to the new Sonic/Barina/Aveo. This isn’t even a point of contention; just drive all three for yourself if you have a chance.
3. The Mazda 3 is technologically superior to the Cruze, but the tangible benefits of tech superiority are lost in real-world testing. Some real-world facts to get us started: the Mazda is less efficient and has a horrible interior (quality of materials and build quality). But it has a direct-injected engine that makes slightly more power than the gasoline range in the Cruze; even still, the Cruze is more fun and more efficient (while being slightly heavier).
As for the new Fusion/Mondeo — which I have driven several times: there’s no question that it is a competitive product. It has an aggressive design and its hybrid powertrain is especially impressive. Is it a generation ahead of the Malibu? No, it’s not. We can literally sit here all day and put objective/quantifiable metrics on both the Fusion/Mondeo and the Malibu. In the end, each vehicle will have its pros and cons, but the Ford won’t come out “an entire generation ahead” of the Malibu; if anything, the Malibu is just as competitive without having the brash design of the Ford. Perhaps the folks at Wheels reached their conclusion too soon…
“American cars are known to have poor driving quality and ability on Australian roads…”
1. Are Australian roads entirely different than those found anywhere else in the (developed?) world?
2. Have you driven any of these American cars you speak of? Have you actually driven the Spark/Barina Spark, Sonic/Aveo/Barina or Malibu yourself? Perhaps you’re referring to the circumstance of 10-20 years ago, but your statement is entirely false (based on facts, rather than consumer perceptions) today.
As it relates to the Volt: one can buy a BMW, a Camaro, a Malibu, or even the Commodore or Caprice — as you mentioned — for the amount of money a Volt costs. None of those vehicles have the promise of gasoline-free electric driving, as is possible with the Volt.
But forget about all that. the fact of the matter is that the C segment (where the Volt and Cruze compete) is the most popular vehicle class world wide… meanwhile, the segments that encompass Commodores and Caprices are shrinking to niche-level volumes.
“There is already an electric Commodore concept made by a third party group – Aussies would much rather that than a Volt.”
BAH! Some left-field engineering firm with no proven or searchable track record of workmanship is all that is needed to trump any Holden engineer from making their own EV Commodore?
End of the pier quality for something that few people in the segment want, in a segment that is dying, in a world with less and less crude oil to go around.
…and you’ll hang your case for the Commordore on the vague idea that a bunch of engineers not connected to GM or Holden have put forth a proposal for an EV Commodore.
Didn’t get the price of the EV Commodore did you?
As for the yanks, well they haven’t let my family down in over 30 years. Can’t say we ever looked at the G8 when it was available. But then again, why would we have ever wanted one with gas as expensive as it is?
Australians would definitely take an Electric commodore over a volt any day. Here in Australia, american cars have a certain stigma about them that Aussies just don’t like. Holden would make their own if GM let them or funded it. The third party group worked closely with Holden engineers but Holden can’t claim it as their own engineering.
An electric Cruze costs $40,000. Imagine what an electric Commodore would cost. Plus packaging of the battery packs would be an issue due to the rear drivetrain. Electric commodore sounds cool, but you’re overlooking how practical the design of the Volt had to be to save costs on an already expensive product. That is why the final product differed so greatly from the original concept shown in 2007.
An electric Commodore would cost about the same as a Volt here and the Commodore has much better features and quality than the Volt. The engineering group i mentioned actually made a full working EV Commodore – so the battery packing works.
Here’s what you’re missing: a one-off design is irrelevant. I, too, can stuff my scooter with a 500 HP V8, but:
1. At what final cost?
2. Is this desired in the marketplace?
3. Is it replicable on the production line?
In the case of the 500hp scooter, the answer to all three questions is:
1. At a high cost
2. No
3. No
The same applies to the EV Commodore you’re referring to.
“the Commodore has much better features and quality than the Volt”.
Whoa there; have you actually driven a Volt?
No, I think Toyota is still right. Lithium Ion batteries will never work as a primary energy source for a vehicle. 😉
Good write-up, sir. I like that you touched on the important reputation aspect. It helps curb the public’s idea of ‘Toyota good. GM bad.’
Alex, for some reason i can’t reply directly to your comment so here is my reply:
Your comments and opinions on GM cars are very biased towards Gm. VW is one of the world’s most reliable vehicle manufacturers. The Polo and the Golf have both taken home the Wheels Magazine Car of the Year in their release years. You’re probably thinking I’m biased towards Holden but I can admit the Commodore has its flaws. For example, the A pillar is too large, some pipes and the exhaust can be seen in the rear of the car from behind the car due to its angled design. Even with these minor flaws, I still stand by my belief that it is superior to the Volt. I haven’t driven a Volt yet – I’m only 16. I have driven a Commodore however and I can say that as a driver and passenger, it is the best car i’ve been in ever. I did sit in a Volt at the Sydney International motor show and all I can say is when you take away its electric engine, its nothing more than your everyday car. This argument with you started because you disagreed with my beleif that the volt won’t sell well here. As an Australian I can tell you that it won’t. If someone here had $60k to buy a car, they would be the type of person to get a Caprice, Commodore Calais or a used HSV or a more popular european car. A diesel BMW 3 Series is about the same price and the fuel economy is similar. I’m sure it will sell a few units but the Commodore Calais model will sell more let alone the entire Commodore range. Once again, not saying the Volt is bad – but the Commodore will sell more and I would say the Caprice would too. The Australian automotive industry (production wise) is in danger of collapsing and a lot of Australians are choosing to buy Commodores, Cruzes and Ford Territory’s in order to save local production – another reason not to buy the Volt.
“Your comments and opinions on GM cars are very biased towards GM.”
No bud, they’re not. My comments are what you call objective. As a journalist, it’s one of the duties I must fulfill. The fact that you would even suggest my opinions are biased is rather insulting to me and my profession.
But the following has me in complete bewilderment: you haven’t driven (most, in not all) the vehicles we’re discussing (GM vs. its competitors). This doesn’t paint your previous comments in a good light, and makes them rather baseless. Yet as someone who has had long-term first-hand experience with all of the cars we’re talking about, somehow, I get painted as “biased”… how does that work?
“VW is one of the world’s most reliable vehicle manufacturers. The Polo and the Golf have both taken home the Wheels Magazine Car of the Year in their release years.”
You’re severely mistaken here:
1. VW is one of the world’s LEAST reliable manufacturers. This has been the case 30 years ago, as it is the case today. Show me one objective/quantifiable study where VW has come out on top when it comes to reliability or quality.
You won’t be able to do so because VW has NEVER won any such studies, perhaps with the exception of its models based on Audi architectures (Phaeton, Touareg) that sell in volumes even lower than the Volt.
2. The fact that a model wins a Car/Truck of the Year award speaks absolutely nothing about its reliability, past, present, or future. Personally, I like VW vehicles as they tend to have very appealing design, great chassis dynamics, and well-designed interiors — and would probably vote for one in a COTY/TOTY shootout.
However, VW quality (short- and long-term) and reliability might as well be as good as a Lada. This is especially true now that VW is aiming to be the largest automaker worldwide by volume — which has resulted in a general decrease in quality.
Some prime examples: New (2011) Jetta, new Passat (NMS), New Beetle — the company’s bread-and-butter vehicles outside of Europe.
“I did sit in a Volt at the Sydney International motor show and all I can say is when you take away its electric engine, its nothing more than your everyday car.”
That’s the thing though. You’re only sitting in the car. Drive it, and your perceptions will change drastically. From the moment you step on the throttle, you’ll experience unmatched acceleration that also happens to be emissions-free. There’s no gear shifting and no delays (and related jerks/pulls) caused by the work of a gearbox. The experience is surreal. The same can be said of the Volt’s cornering abilities: since the battery pack runs the length of the vehicle, the center of gravity is brought down to a point that the additional weight grounds the car on every turn. The result is some of the best handling (and cornering) abilities I’ve ever experienced in any car.
But all that is to miss the point of the Volt, along with the point of the article you initially commented on.
The Volt was never intended to be a luxury car, or a car that is in any other way not your “everyday car”. The fact that you found it to be nothing more than such (outside of the powertrain) is indeed the point. It’s meant to be “an everyday car” that also happens to be electric. Unlike other EVs, you don’t have to treat it like an EV (by worrying about the limited range). As a side note, the Volt won Car of the Year in the U.S. 2 years ago. It’s not only a great car, but it also holds so much promise.
In other words, the Volt was intended to be today’s electric car; the car that transitions us from a world where people operate vehicles powered by (finite and dirty) gasoline to one where cars run on electricity. The Volt is creating a product category– and in doing so, no one expected or is expecting it to “sell well” at launch. That’s exactly what I discussed in this article.
Here’s the way this works in chronological order:
– Early adopters and trend setters purchase revolutionary products at a premium.
– Technology improves (in scale, manufacturing, etc.) to a point that revolutionary products are no longer sold at a premium. This point of transition takes place years after the initial revolutionary product is introduced.
– Masses adopt the revolutionary product as the norm, at which point the product is available at affordable prices and becomes mainstream/mass-scale.
The Volt is currently at the first stage, so your comment as it relates to any kind of sales success are correct — it won’t sell in huge numbers… at first. We went through this kind of transition with the Prius (the first gen was expensive and sold in low volumes), and we will go through the same kind of transition with the Volt. So again, any expectation that the vehicle will sell in mass quantities is a thorough oversight and a complete blunder as to how these things work.
Lastly as it relates to the Volt: let’s see where Australia is this time next year. I am certain that (given ample supply and no production/export/trade constraints from the U.S.), you will see a triple-digit year-over-year increase in sales of the vehicle. And looking even further into the future, I’m certain that most, if not all, GM vehicles worldwide will be powered by Voltec/Voltec-like powertrain in the next two decades.. even the Commodore and Caprice — given they’re still around.
Furthermore, my “beef”, so to speak, with your comments isn’t about the Volt’s sales numbers per se — as we all know that the sales volume (during the first stage of the above list) will be minimal. Instead, I take issue with your unfounded (talk about biased) statements that today’s line of GM vehicles is in some way inferior to that of the competition. What say you about that?
Edit: this post was initially posted as if it was coming from Silent Electrician; that was my mistake as I was commenting from the back-end of the website while editing one of Silent’s comments and got the streams crossed. Again, this was my error and my apologies go out to Silent Electrician for using his name by mistake.
If my original comment is correct, why argue with me in the first place?
GM makes some great cars but every automotive group outside north america will tell you the cars i mentioned earlier are better. Your view on VW is incredibly wrong.
The Wheels COTY award is the world’s longest running and most respected award. They give out the award not for performance or technology but a number of categories and you have to do well in all of them to have a chance to win the award. Every year they add additional requirements such as having a safety feature as standard etc. The 50th Wheels COTY award is currently being judged thus there have been 49 COTY awards handed out…nope! Only 46 awards have been given out. 3 times Wheels deemed a year’s release of new cars/models insufficient for the award – So for a car to win their award, it truly has to be an amazing car. They continually rate the Polo and Golf as incredible cars still after they won their COTY awards. The Volt made it to the final 10 but the competition is tough. There is hope though, the Honda CRZ won last year’s award and that is a hybrid.
I don’t think we’ll ever meet eye to eye on this issue. so i’ll leave you with this, this is Wheels’ take on the Volt. This is from the Wheels showroom section of the magazine, it’s where t they list all the cars sold in Australia along with specifications and review points. Here it is:
Holden Volt:
Pro’s: Worthwhile electric (and petrol) range, good efficiency, decent dynamics
Con’s: Expensive, economy figure not great when driven on petrol
The pick (what model or direct competitor they recommend to get): It’s priced to compete with BMW 320d. Audi A4 1.8T…
*Remember, my whole point for arguing was simply to tell you the Volt won’t sell well here. So unless you’re going to come down here an interview Australians, take my word for it. The Volt might sell well in a decade but for now, the Commodore is Australia’s second favourite car. Screw the Mazda 3 🙁 – Excluding last year, the Commodore was Australia’s favourite car for 15 straight years. If the VF came out before last year – the Commodore would have sold the most instead of the Mazda 3.
“If my original comment is correct, why argue with me in the first place?”
Who said we were arguing? I thought we were having a civilized discussion, as two car enthusiasts would…
“Your view on VW is incredibly wrong.”
On the contrary, my “view” is based on facts and is right on the money. Here’s some data that should set you straight.
http://autos.jdpower.com/content/press-release/ws4mUEA/2012-u-s-initial-quality-study.htm
Notice VW at the very bottom of the IQS chart.
Mind you, this isn’t unique to 2012; VW has been WAY below industry average for years, if not decades. This also applies to long-term reliability. There are literally hundreds of studies that prove this. It’s nothing new. I just happened to have stumbled on the linked study first.
To my dismay, my fiance and I are learning this the hard way with her 2012 Jetta TDI. The car has been at the dealer 12 times in the last 4 months. Luckily, they provide loaners.
“GM makes some great cars but every automotive group outside north america will tell you the cars i mentioned earlier are better.”
In what way are the cars you mentioned better? Here I am presenting to you real-world arguments (fuel economy, safety, infotainment, etc.)… it seems that you’re letting your non-factual and far-from-objective perception get in the way of reality. Could you show me a way in which these cars — as a whole — are better than comparable vehicles from GM?
As it relates to Wheels/COTY: is reliability/quality one of the factors for the award? I’m willing to bet that it’s not. So while it’s great that there are at least some standards, the fact that VW is at the top of their list is irrelevant as it relates to long-term quality or reliability.
To summarize:
– you’ve offered up several subjective “blanket” statements that GM vehicles are in some way inferior to the competition, but have provided no objective evidence of this being the case. I’ve provided several specific examples that show GM vehicles being superior to the competition (safety, handling, cabin tech, etc.)
– Without objective or factual proof, you’ve concluded that VW makes great, quality-laten, and reliable cars. I’ve provided a link to a trusted study that measures initial quality. In this study, VW is nearly last — while GM vehicles are mostly above average. Other studies support this one. Remember, making cars that look good and drive well doesn’t necessarily translate to reliability or quality.
– My original qualm with your statements surrounds the short-sightedness you seem to be expressing as it relates to the Volt. Again, the point isn’t what the car is or isn’t right now. The point is what it will become in a matter of a few years and the promise of a gasoline-free driving experience — something the Commodore, Caprice, any BMW, etc. can NOT offer today. So saying that the Volt will or will not sell in high volumes today (in Australia or anywhere else in the world, for that matter) is like saying that the Apple iPhone won’t sell in high volumes during its first year on the market… to say that is to miss the point, entirely.
Alex, you do often seem biased against VW and VAG products in general. Yes, they have had problems in the past. But, “VW quality (short- and long-term) and reliability might as well be as good as a Lada” is a ridiculous broad, inaccurate statement. The 2009 Jetta and Rabbit were Consumer Reports top picks for reliability and I happen to own one. She’s only been through 3 years and 45,000 miles (problem free), but the time has been spent with a harsh owner and with tires that put stress on the chassis that it was not designed for in 3 years of 20-30 autocross events. Of course one example is not enough to say an entire brand is reliable.
Agreeably, Volkswagen products have seen more hit and miss reliability than say, Toyota. However, when a company advances it’s technology and challenges the status quo to achieve what you accurately observe as “very appealing design, great chassis dynamics, and well-designed interiors,” it is not uncommon to encounter hiccups.
The new Jetta and Passat that you mentioned, however, are very toyota like. Don’t confuse quality with reliability. As these new vehicles are nothing I would consider buying, I see no reason to dismiss them as unreliable. They are bland mobiles, like Toyotas. I would say they have poor perceived quality. I would say the same for a Toyota. I bet, however, that they’ll continue offering that bland driving experience for years to come, reliably. It is too soon to say with certainty that the new VW NA bland appliances are reliable or not. But, I’m glad we have Toyota for setting industry standards and causing more bland, uninspiring vehicles to hit the streets /sarcasm.
Reliability is only one aspect of quality. I will be happy to buy another Volkswagen when I am ready to trade up. VAG and GM are truthfully the only companies I foresee myself buying a car from in the near future.
Ramos — not sure what gave you the impression that I “seem biased against VW and VAG products in general” — especially given that I swore by the new Jetta to my fiance. She bought it — and the ownership experience has been anything but pleasant. Do you consider my praise and recommendation of a VW product as a negative “bias”?
As far as CR is concerned, we’re all aware of the inherent flaws in their testing and rating methodology — and I don’t even want to go into it here, as it has nothing to do with the subject in question. But as you said, one good/decent model does not speak of the entire brand/lineup.
That said, my girl’s Jetta is a great vehicle and I would absolutely adore it if it were not for the dozen (or more?) times it’s been in the shop. I love its styling, driving dynamics, and interior (except for the cheap plastics, which have been fixed for the 2013 MY). But that’s not to mention the plethora of new squeaks and rattles that are popping up all over the cabin. For reference, it has under 7,000 miles and isn’t abused, driven hard, or anything of the sort. It’s the TDI in the top-of-the-line trim (Nav plus sunroof) and all of the issues it has had in its short lifespan, coupled with rattles galore, has substantially dropped our ownership satisfaction, and makes my fiance question her choice (and my recommendation) in buying it. Of course this is just one example — but it’s an example that hits close to home.
However, I don’t agree with you that VW is advancing technology and challenging the status quo. Yes, its designs (inside and out) are great, and so are the driving dynamics; if modern VWs are appliances, they are much better than the bland ones offered up by Hyundai and Toyota, for instance — and that is not to mention the high-performance GTI/R/GLI models offered by VW that are offered by so few others (ahem, GM). But VW still lags far behind when it comes to basic powertrain technology. For instance, The 2.0T makes measly power and fuel economy and the 2.5 I5 is a joke. Luckily, both will soon be replaced. Then there’s VW’s uncompetitive infotainment systems (they are very far behind those from GM and Ford) along with major quality control issues (rattles, squeaks, mostly from the American- and Mexican-made cars). Mind you, these are not issues you will find in GM vehicles — especially when it comes to quality control. On the other hand, VW offers DSG (which is still a bit quirky in our Jetta TDI), but its benefits are somewhat lost when comparatively non-tech-laden vehicles like the Cruze offer better MPG and power delivery than the base 2.5. The Cruze does so without squeaks, rattles, or other imperfections (i.e. new Jetta’s noisy and rough trunk springs). Ultimately, I really want to like VW vehicles, but the quality issues make it difficult. On a side note, I’m still puzzled that with all its supposed “German engineering” and “strivings for perfection”, VW released a product like the new/current Beetle, Jetta, and Passat. It seems that more CGI and testing was in order for all three.
In addition, I urge you to consider the fact that JD Power IQS is often looked at as a precursor to long-term reliability throughout the industry. I know for sure that VAG itself looks at IQS (and similar studies) to determine what minor changes to make to their North America-market vehicles throughout the model year and for model year changes.
i don’t know what VW North America are doing differently but VW in Australia are known to have good quality. Maybe you’re right for long long term but today’s VW’s certainly have a reputation for good quality here for a car’s average life span. The Jetta however doesn’t seem to live up to VW’s reputation as I have discovered. I was on an Aussie motoring site (Drive.com.au) and looked up reviews by Jetta owners. Majority were positive but a few complained about some poor quality issues. I investigated further with other VW cars and it seems you’re right about VW having a reputation for poor quality however I believe this is a changing trend and it seems that it is starting with the Golf and Polo.
As for GM vehicles, they may be great cars with brilliant quality but they are considered to be behind direct competitors here. As for sales, the Colorado 7 will have the lowest sales – it’s just not better than competitors. The tail gate doesn’t even go up high enough for the average height human as i discovered at the Sydney Motor Show. The Malibu will sell decently but most will favour the Cruze or Commodore in order to do their share to save local production. The Commodore and Ford Falcon were neck and neck in terms of which is the better car but the Commodore has a better reputation now that Ford are killing off the Falcon in 2016. The Toyota Hilux is the most popular pick up here and the Colorado won’t beat it. The Ford Ranger is better than the Colorado and is seriously challenging the Hilux.
Again, lets keep to data. Here is what JD Power said of the 2009 VW (in the US) for long term reliability (which is different than initial quality BUT do correlate).
VW comes in 7th from last just below KIA and well below the industry average.
http://businesscenter.jdpower.com/news/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2012008
As far as “media/press/whatever” awards. Except for CR they only look at how the vehicle does today, not in 5 years. Motor Trend gave the Vega the award back in 72. While I agree with their assessment (I owned a couple used ones) the reliability was awful.
As a 74 year old volt owner,my comment is,At 16 years of age I owned a Austin 10 circa 1936.Since then a large variety of vehicles from Jowett Javelins to various Rover P4s to Sunbeam Talbots to Austins To Standards Vanguards to Hillman Hunters to Hillman Imps .Would be glad to supply a list of cars owned during the the last 20 years {modern} At 16 I think you need another 10 years of experience before making comments on things of which you you have no knowledge..
Alex, your opinions are shared by many others, but many of your comments about the technology side are misguided.
JD Power scores come with their own level of bullshit that I too will not get into here. We could argue reliability and quality all day. My brother already praises his Mk6 Jetta that he has had for a year and comments that his 2006 Trailblazer SS (which is on it’s 2nd transmission at 50,000 miles) was already making squeaks and rattles and hasn’t heard a peep from his Volkswagen. I think we could at least agree that GM and VW make less reliable cars than Toyota but we give them some benefit of the doubt for producing cars that are at least worth driving.
As a unique car nerd, engineer type, I have a different view from many of yours on automotive technology. A while back I tried to explain why the S4 does not have an inferior drive setup to the Cadillac CTS. It is a matter of opinion. I would agree with you if you were talking about the TT-S which IS front wheel drive based.
The new example of where I disagree with you is on the 2.0t. It is actually quite advanced. “Measly power” is underrated, like many VAG vehicles. Check out some comparisons between the Focus ST and GTI. Although most pick the Focus, it’s 252 horsepower normally are not enough to outrun the 200hp GTI in a drag race. They run astonishingly similar times and trap speeds. Also, driving them both, you will also find the GTI to be more responsive, while also offering competitive fuel economy (32 mpg hwy?) even though the engine debuted 4 years earlier than the Focus ST. (The Focus ST is still a great car, but not for me) Many automotive enthusiasts, even well versed ones, gloss over the responsiveness of the VAG 2.0t EA888 and comment on it’s (omg not 260 hp) power rating. The main reason for that is the decision to favor responsiveness over power and the use of a Borg Warner K03 turbo, rather than a K04 found in for example, the LNF, LHU, etc. Lower power, better response. Also offered in the beginning of next year in the new Audi S3 will be a higher output version which will have 300 horsepower and 280 ft lbs of torque from 1800 rpm, to satisfy the power rating junkies.
While on the topic of the S3, take a look at the future MQB offerings. The all wheel drive, 300hp S3 utilizing this platform will weigh less than 3100 lbs and most of the saved weight is out of the front end. It may be the best balanced vehicle to date with a front, transverse mounted engine. The next gen GTI touted to be released in 2014 will be of similar size to the Focus ST, utilizing the same lightweight, cost saving MQB architecture, and looks to weigh in at near 2900 lbs, or at least 300 lbs lighter than the ST, without sacrificing structural rigidity.
This was made possible by VAG spending time and money on R&D during the financial crisis while most companies cut back. They plan to spend 80 billion on R&D in the next 5 years. I stand by my assessment that they challenge the status quo and will even supplement that by saying that they create standards. Look at the heavy usage of 2.0t engine types. Which was the first company to strike gold with that engine type? Which company also is a steady target for what an interior should look like? Sure, they’re still fallible. But, I believe they are in the best shape out of any auto company as of now. However, only the market will decide that in the long run. After all, many of them drive Toyotas. Who knows if automotive technology is the key to success…
Ramos — different perpectives is right. What you’re describing with the next-gen MQB architecture is great. I’ve been looking forward to it for the last several months, as I have been to the MLB.
Personally, I also hope that the MQB results in the unification of the Golf/Jetta back to a single wheelbase and overall design. However, that’s neither here nor there. What is here, however, is the fact that the MQB is not available in the U.S. at this point in time and is only present on the all-new Golf, which will arrive to North America in 2014 (or late 2013), as far as I know. So while we’re looking at next-gen architectures, perhaps we should also discuss next-gen platforms from Ford, GM, and others. My point is that GM/Chevy, with its (on paper) “overweight” Delta II and rather antiquated 1.4T (LUJ/LUV) still reigns supreme in fuel economy among compacts in the U.S. It even (arguably) created the 40+ MPG metric for gasoline-powered compact vehicles. Of course, fuel economy is but one metric — but I thought it very apropos since you brought up the creation of standards.
On the topic of quality in the MK6 Jetta: perhaps your brother was lucky. But that still doesn’t change the fact that my fiance’s so-far negative experience with her loaded TDI (that scratched the $30,000 MSRP mark, by the way) — specifically as it relates to squeaks/rattles — won’t help in getting her into another VW, which is a shame, because she also really likes the new Beetle. Ultimately, you have a new-to-VW customer who isn’t happy — and little has been done to address this from corporate or from the dealer; even though both are doing their best, the results are negligible. And that doesn’t help VW’s case in becoming the #1 volume automaker one bit.
Since you brought up the GTi, let’s stick to the stats:
– Focus ST: 252 hp/270 lb-.ft of torque while achieving 23 city, 32 hwy, and 26 combined
– GTi: 200 hp, 207 lb.-ft. of torque while achieving 21 city, 32 hwy
Ford doesn’t provide an exact 0-60 time for the Focus ST, but some press material has cited a “sub 6-second” time. The GTi, meanwhile, is officially rated by VW at 6.8.
So not only is the Focus more powerful, it’s also more efficient AND quicker to 60. I’m not one to discount the subjective nature of driving, so perhaps the VW “feels” faster as you’ve said… but having driven the Ford for several days, I can definitely say that the subjective difference is minuscule — as I didn’t notice it. What I did notice is that both cars were great performers. But after looking at the numbers, I don’t see how one can’t reasonably and objectively say that the VAG 2.0T EA888 is not outdated.
As it relates to our previous discussion of the CTS vs. the S4, I replied to your comments and was waiting to hear back but never did. I’d be more than happy to pick up where we left off — but on that individual thread.
On a side note, this has turned into a VW thread, where it should have been about the Chevy Volt. I’d love to keep talking about Vw, but perhaps we should create a separate discussion in the forum for this.
Always a slice, Alex 🙂
Good points. The only thing I object to is your return to the rated stats. I made mention that reviewers are getting very similar 1/4 mile times and trap speeds from the ST and GTI. This is much more telling than company sourced ratings. Amazing for a smaller turbo utilizing car. Any car can have a good efficient:power ratio with a big turbo. A friend of mine has a 500 horsepower srt-4. He gets 30 mpg during highway cruise. He did a great job with it but its not the future of engines. Its transient response suffers greatly. By contrast, the GTI’s 2.0t transient response is second to none. And for me that’s more important than a high power figure. I hate turbo lag. Its the reason that I will not buy a Golf R (k04 turbo) or the ST or Cobalt SS while I’m at it. The GTI is much more responsive than all of the above. It is more livable as opposed to being a hot boy-racer at all costs.
I’ll have to check again but I thought the ball was left in your court on the S4.
I agree. The on-paper stats only tell half the story…
What’s the word on the next-gen GTI as far as powertrain is concerned?
At any rate – no sense in arguing with a 16 year old, headstrong kid who thinks his
opinions are above world realities and the sun rises and sets above an Aussie
Commodore…
Holden4Life – I’ve got to give you credit, you are passionate, and that goes for something…Perhaps as you grow up a bit and become more experienced in real
life, you’ll learn what all we here are speaking about – as in, world realities.
Go buy that Commodore you dream about, and work hard to earn it. We know
you sit at home at night and draw pictures of it – and read articles about it …Hey,
it’s that cheerleader in school we always lusted after, and then, when old enough
to figure out how to get a date with her – we FINALLY realized she wasn’t worth
the trouble! LOL.
Get the big engine, vrrrrrrooom vrrrrrooom, gas gulping part of your life over with.
You are one of the last generations to dream only of big 19th century, over 100
year-old mechanical technology as – THE BIG DEAL in human motivation
( or “motorvation” ). People coming up after you will think lithium batteries and hopped up electric motors. Sure, the vrrrrrooom is gone, and that’s ….well….
good and bad…But the quickness, lightness and sheer goodness of an electric,
or hydrogen/electric drive will be proven out in your young lifetime. Go to YouTube
and watch Tesla Roadsters spank all sorts of exotic smoke-spewing rides like
Porsche Turbos and Italian exotics. Even a Holden Volt has 100% torque at 0 rpm.
This means for the first 30-70 feet, your Commodore will still be sucking air, and
using it’s torque converter to downshift and figure out what ratios it’ll need to get
going with that throttle input. Once you experience instant neck-jerking quickness,
you’ll start second-guessing why an automobile needs hundreds of oiled, greasy
parts, and flammable fuels to do the job an electric motor does with just 2 parts!
In keeping with the Aussie independent spirit, you can place solar panels or a
wind turbine ( or geo thermal system ) at your home, and not be
dependent upon public utilities to generate your energy. Plug in your EREV or
electric vehicle and power it from the sun or earth’s energy! On
those stormy days when other’s power is out – plug the house into
your car and live happily – NO WORRIES, MATE!
Your comparisons of these two cars is way off. It’s not even apples vs. oranges…
It’s more like trucks vs. cars – they’re two completely different vehicles for
different purposes. What is quickly becoming the big question is: What is the
practical reason-for-being of a large, heavy gas sedan? Show cars, race cars,
garage/weekend queens…sure – but the explode-and-burn method of travel is
becoming passe. For the time being the battery packs are so expensive, cars
need a gas engine of some kind ( diesel, wankel rotary or three cylinder? ) as
a rang-extender. As batteries come online that can rival the performance of
what resides in Tesla’s Model S ( Motor Trend Car Of The Year 2013 ) with
ranges of 300 miles or so – range extender is no longer a need. Here in the
U.S. fast chargers are sprouting up regularly with the capability to charge
your EV to 80-85% in around 30 minutes. When these two capabilities
are commonplace, the old Commodore and all it’s gas siblings will soon
be memories and collector’s items.
In the end, we Americans love Australians and vice versa, pretty much. I
think it all stems from the fact we’re both doggedly independent, and
won’t take crap from anybody who tries to challenge our liberties. Only
thing is, many of us feel using up a diminishing resource ( it could be gas,
it could be water ) is their God-given right, and not just pigheaded
and greedy. We all have to breathe, and we all have to consider
what natural resources we have to work with. Nobody should claim
to be patriotic and country-loving when they are buying cars that
must have lots of a natural resource that makes their country
beholden to other countrys that do not hold their ideals of
freedom and liberty, but endorse slavery and religious fanaticism
to the level of being murderous.
@Holden4Life and Alex:
Go to YouTube and type “White Zombie” EV into the Search
field.
This’ll show you a guy who wanted to prove a point. He
stuffed the trunk of an old Datsun ( Nissan ) subcompact
tin box with batteries and went to the drag strip to
stomp Corvettes, supercharged drag cars and anything
that doesn’t come to the track on a trailer ( and some
that do ).
It’s funny and eye-opening at the same time. He
starts out with old, heavy lead-acid batteries and
is doing 1/4 mile times in the 12s, and later
gets his hands on lithiums and all hell breaks
loose!
When you watch, think about how much
gasoline or racing fuel HE ISN’T USING!
– And that this is some middle-class
everyman in his little garage doing this.
When badmouthers blab about “coal-fired”
powerplants producing electricity – just
look up what “well-to-wheel” means…It’s
how much energy and cost it takes to
drill, float, protect, ship, refine, truck and
deliver that gasoline to the pump vs.
powerplant-to-wire-to-home/ charging
station. Use your rational mind to
figure which method of fueling is
superior. My home is powered by
hydro power as is most of my state
of Washington, USA. So that argument
has no merit here – but elsewhere in
my country and the world – it’s the big
oil company dung they try to shovel
at you.