Motortrend article: 100 MPG+ Chevy Volt, GM's "Moon Shot"

Sure, but that's not why this early adopter (engineer) bought the Prius.
I quickly installed indicators on various system functions, and a
ScanGauge, to make operating it more satisfying. It was years later that
gas prices skyrocketed. Somewhere in there, the state provided HOV-lane
stickers, which was a cherry on top of the cake. I could (and still can)
drive by myself in the HOV lanes.

So calculating the five-year costs of the Prius vs. a Corolla would not
influence the decision.

Back to your point, in my opinion the Prius is more comparable to the
Camry than the Corolla, so the difference is much less. And, there were
nifty features on the Prius that weren't on the Camry - at any price.

All in all, the Prius has been a good experience.



Mike Hunter wrote:
> Did you calculate how long you could have driven a Carolla, with the $5,000
> premium you paid to buy your Pruis, before you would have spend any
> additional funds on gasoline? I seems to me you could have driven the
> Corolla for at least four years on that $5,000 before you spent ANY money
> for gas
>
>
> "Ike" > wrote in message
> ...
>> There are several ways to figure the economy of the Volt, but perhaps the
>> most realistic is to forget about published MPG (really intended as a
>> comparative datum) and consider $ per 10k miles. Such a calculation will
>> include your local rate for electricity, and will consider your driving
>> habits over a period of time.
>>
>> I did that for my Prius, and discovered that it costs about 5c a mile for
>> fuel. Remember, 100% of the Prius propulsion energy comes from gasoline.
>> There is no other source whatsoever, but the hybrid system permits the use
>> of a highly efficient ICE that has poor acceleration characteristics,
>> supported by an electric motor which has maximum torque at zero rpm. The
>> Volt, on the other hand, can be 100% plug-in for average days (for me),
>> with the ICE entering the equation only when I drive further than, say, 40
>> miles between charges.
>>
>> If GM's Volt project delivers its promoted configuration, it will cost ME
>> less than 3c per mile.
>>
>> Neither figure includes maintenance, depreciation, (in)convenience, etc.,
>> but an ICE that is designed to run at constant rpm can be amazingly
>> durable, and electric motors are usually good for hundreds of thousands of
>> hours. I won't talk about the battery...
>>
>> Does it make sense to pay $40k to save $0.02 per mile? At 20k miles per
>> year that's $400, or 1% of the car's purchase price. So, the answer is NO.
>> But it's an engineering wonder that fascinates this early adopter - which
>> is why I bought my '04 Prius in Oct '03 when it first hit the market. $$
>> benefits over time were secondary but gratifying.
>>
>> I'd order a Volt today if my local Chevy dealer would accept the deposit.
>>
>> Ike
>
>

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote in message
...
> Did you calculate how long you could have driven a Carolla, with the
> $5,000 premium you paid to buy your Pruis, before you would have spend any
> additional funds on gasoline? I seems to me you could have driven the
> Corolla for at least four years on that $5,000 before you spent ANY money
> for gas
>
>

The Corolla is the most comparable Toyota model for the older Prius (we have
two 2002s in the family), but it is hardly a straight-across comparison. The
Prius comes standard with amenities like power mirrors and automatic climate
control (not available even as options on the Corolla, as I read the specs)
and power windows, power door locks, cruise control and ABS. In the last 40
years I have had a lot of cars. The Prius I now have is my second favorite,
edged out by a Lotus Europa from my bachelor days. If you haven't driven a
Prius long enough to get the feel of it you can be excused for wondering
what the attraction is. The perfectly smooth and competent delivery of power
is addictive - when I drive any other car I wonder what all the revving and
shifting is about. I can't speak for the current model Prius, but my wife
and I absolutely love the maneuverability of the sedan. I bought mine used a
couple years ago with 103K miles on it, and the seller's wife (it had been
her car, actually) got teary when they left it with me. I totally
understand.

The Prius (applies to my wife's and to mine) is also the most reliable car
I've ever owned, by a huge margin. Mine has 120K miles on it and my wife's
has 95K on it, and each has needed a windshield (this is Arizona, after
all!), tires and routine maintenance... nothing else. Neither is anywhere
close to needing brakes.

So, over the average 95K miles of my wife's Prius it burned about 2000
gallons of gas (mostly city miles). A Corolla would have used somewhat more
than twice that, especially since a lot of the driving has been short trips,
but let's call it 4000 gallons. At an average price of $2.50 the extra gas
would have cost... lessee, $5000. How 'bout that. Now we are paying half the
amount for gasoline (it's like buying gasoline for $1 per gallon, in fact),
are driving cars we absolutely love, not paying for repairs. Kbb.com says
the base 2002 Corolla with auto tranny at 100K miles is worth $4300 as a
trade-in in my zip code, while the base 2002 Prius is worth $6400, which
puts us about $2000 ahead and increasing every day. What's not to like?

Mike

"Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Ike > wrote:
>
>> If GM's Volt project delivers its promoted configuration, it will
>> cost ME less than 3c per mile.
>
> Considering the cost of both gasoline and electricity?


That is probably a good measure of the cost of such a car.. But you would
have to add the
cost of maintenance, with respect to the cost of maintaining a more
traditional car, including
of course the cost of replacing batteries,etc.

Cost accounting makes these sorts of calculations relatively easy. But
breaking through the
bullscheit to get real numbers is perhaps a bit more difficult.

Let's look at the REAL total costs of ownership, energy, and maintenance.

> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote
>> Did you calculate how long you could have driven a Carolla, with the
>> $5,000 premium you paid to buy your Pruis, before you would have spend any
>> additional funds on gasoline? I seems to me you could have driven the
>> Corolla for at least four years on that $5,000 before you spent ANY money
>> for gas

Michael Pardee wrote:
> The Corolla is the most comparable Toyota model for the older Prius (we have
> two 2002s in the family), but it is hardly a straight-across comparison. The
> Prius comes standard with amenities like power mirrors and automatic climate
> control (not available even as options on the Corolla, as I read the specs)
> and power windows, power door locks, cruise control and ABS. In the last 40
> years I have had a lot of cars. The Prius I now have is my second favorite,
> edged out by a Lotus Europa from my bachelor days. If you haven't driven a
> Prius long enough to get the feel of it you can be excused for wondering
> what the attraction is. The perfectly smooth and competent delivery of power
> is addictive - when I drive any other car I wonder what all the revving and
> shifting is about. I can't speak for the current model Prius, but my wife
> and I absolutely love the maneuverability of the sedan. I bought mine used a
> couple years ago with 103K miles on it, and the seller's wife (it had been
> her car, actually) got teary when they left it with me. I totally
> understand.
>
> The Prius (applies to my wife's and to mine) is also the most reliable car
> I've ever owned, by a huge margin. Mine has 120K miles on it and my wife's
> has 95K on it, and each has needed a windshield (this is Arizona, after
> all!), tires and routine maintenance... nothing else. Neither is anywhere
> close to needing brakes.
>
> So, over the average 95K miles of my wife's Prius it burned about 2000
> gallons of gas (mostly city miles). A Corolla would have used somewhat more
> than twice that, especially since a lot of the driving has been short trips,
> but let's call it 4000 gallons. At an average price of $2.50 the extra gas
> would have cost... lessee, $5000. How 'bout that. Now we are paying half the
> amount for gasoline (it's like buying gasoline for $1 per gallon, in fact),
> are driving cars we absolutely love, not paying for repairs. Kbb.com says
> the base 2002 Corolla with auto tranny at 100K miles is worth $4300 as a
> trade-in in my zip code, while the base 2002 Prius is worth $6400, which
> puts us about $2000 ahead and increasing every day. What's not to like?

"needed a windshield (this is Arizona,.."

What or who breaks out windshields in Arizona?
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

"Mr. G" > wrote in message
.. .
> In article >,
> ) says...
>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 07:40:20 -0600, "HLS" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Michael Pardee" > wrote in message
>> >
>> >Promise them anything, but sell them a SUV?
>>
>> Just what do you want? Nobody forces anyone to buy
>> a SUV. GM attempts to sell what the consumer wants.
>
> Do you really think all the people driving pickups and SUVs bought them
> because they spontaneously got the urge to purchase an oversized,
> overpriced gas-guzzling behemoth? I think it's more likely that they
> were finally convinced by the advertising assault the car companies run
> day after day, year after year, umpteen times an hour showing their
> vehicles charging up mountains, braving the snow (over freshly plowed
> roads) and getting that last parking space because they can drive over
> medians (and terrorize the smaller cars.)
>
> The car companies make a big profit on the big metal, because they can
> charge much more $$$ for them, even though they're really mostly
> passenger cars with oversized sheetmetal and big engines to haul around
> all that extra weight.
>
> So no, it's not that the car companies want to sell us small, fuel-
> efficient cars, but people demand otherwise. It's their advertising
> that convinces people that's what they need to drive, and the idiot
> consumer is happy to oblige.

I even picked up a so called eco car owner once, -35C west of Brandon
Manitoba in my nice warm and safe V8 4x4. He was sure glad to see me.

Nope, many buy them for the way they can be used, year around and pulling
trailers or boats. The fact you have a poor safety record in many a small
sized crap boxes does not make it the truck drivers fault. I am sure
hitting a deer with a semi or F150 has a much better survivability rate than
a eco box. Your choice is not our problem.

Since driving a truck, smaller cars are often the nuisance. Especially red
ones, don't ask me why, it is just an observation. They zip in and out,
can't even see their rear plate on some cuttoffs and seen more that one with
a semi up their rear. Not a pretty sight.

If this is a hard sell for a Volt, will not ever buy one. It can't do what
I need out of a vehicle, so it might as well be junk. In fact, I don't know
of an eco box that can meet my needs, the stupidity of paying so much for
two power plants (Volt) exceeds the cost of the gas makes no sense. Why not
100% electric?

For example, are you telling me I should buy a Volt (POC) and have a truck?
I only need one depreciating asset. So the cost of gasoline would have to
be about $20/gallon before it made sense. Seriously, if I had 2, one
depreciates without use. Spend $40K on a Volt, at least $5K/year in
depreciation, added insurances, added maintenance, garage clutter... who
needs it to save $1000 annually on fuel?

Yes, I drive my V8 4x4 to work, nothing in the back or in tow. Come
weekends and vacations hitch up the boat or trailer and go. Haul stuff to
the dump in spring avoiding a $250 pickup charge, pickup fridges, stoves,
sofas, do this also for 1/2 my relatives. Even haul lumber and building
supplied on handiman projects but you will not see that when I am in 7am
rush hour M-F.

Don't be a presumptious ass when thinking what people use these vehicles
for. Many might even have them so they can go skiing 3-8 times a year
without renting a safe winter vehicle at $100+/day each time. You don't see
SmartCars at ski hills unless being pushed in 2" of snow going down hill.
You don't know what people use them for. Just a scared and ****ed rabbit in
an little unsafe POC.

"A Muzi" > wrote in message
...
> Michael Pardee wrote:
>>
>> The Prius (applies to my wife's and to mine) is also the most reliable
>> car I've ever owned, by a huge margin. Mine has 120K miles on it and my
>> wife's has 95K on it, and each has needed a windshield (this is Arizona,
>> after all!), tires and routine maintenance... nothing else. Neither is
>> anywhere close to needing brakes.
>>
>
> "needed a windshield (this is Arizona,.."
>
> What or who breaks out windshields in Arizona?
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Rocks being flung up from the road are a fact of life here - the state is
mostly rock covered. My work truck averages a windshield every two years or
so, but I put 25K per year on it and most of that is highway and freeway
driving.

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 18:07:48 -0500, Mr. G > wrote:

>In article >,
) says...
>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 07:40:20 -0600, "HLS" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Michael Pardee" > wrote in message
>> >
>> >Promise them anything, but sell them a SUV?
>>
>> Just what do you want? Nobody forces anyone to buy
>> a SUV. GM attempts to sell what the consumer wants.
>
>Do you really think all the people driving pickups and SUVs bought them
>because they spontaneously got the urge to purchase an oversized,
>overpriced gas-guzzling behemoth? I think it's more likely that they
>were finally convinced by the advertising assault the car companies run
>day after day, year after year, umpteen times an hour showing their
>vehicles charging up mountains, braving the snow (over freshly plowed
>roads) and getting that last parking space because they can drive over
>medians (and terrorize the smaller cars.)
>
>The car companies make a big profit on the big metal, because they can
>charge much more $$$ for them, even though they're really mostly
>passenger cars with oversized sheetmetal and big engines to haul around
>all that extra weight.
>
>So no, it's not that the car companies want to sell us small, fuel-
>efficient cars, but people demand otherwise. It's their advertising
>that convinces people that's what they need to drive, and the idiot
>consumer is happy to oblige.

Sounds like you could be talked into buying anything. You don't happen
to have a mortgage that you have no possible way of
paying off. Do you?

On 5 Feb 2009 17:37:42 -0500, Scott Dorsey cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:


>
> They don't. They're starting to get it... but GM currently does not have
> any economy cars worth a damn in their product line. Compare the Aveo with
> similarly-priced offerings from Toyota and even Hyundai. They look similar
> on paper, but they sure don't drive similarly.

I don't know why you would say that. They have built such luxury cars as
the Park Ave Ultra since the very early 90's that got mid-twenties in the
city and over 30 on the highway. At the same time the Grand Am got equal
mileage. Two ends of a scale in terms of types of cars - one excellent
luxury and the other a fairly sporty car for American tastes. They are by
no means the limit of GM's offerings, just two representative examples.

Maybe we are talking two different things here. I'm not talking about the
smallest possible thing you can mount on 4 wheels. Those cars all suck, no
matter who they are from. They ride like crap, are under powered, and feel
like junk when you sit in them. Why would anyone want that kind of
offering when you've been able to match or beat the mileage of those pieces
of junk, with a decent sized car?

>
> They're getting a LOT better, mind you. It's clear that they are trying to
> do something on the economy side, and they have done nothing short of amazing
> with the Cadillac CTS which actually is the first GM car to actually be fun
> to drive in many years.

Notwithstanding the hybrids, just how many of those Toyotas and Hondas and
Hyundais, et al, smoked GM on the mileage ratings? Do you really even know
what GM cars got for mileage over the past 10-15 years?


>
> I want a small car because I like the way it feels more than because I want
> good mileage. I want a car with a tight turning radius and good handling,
> that is light and nimble. GM isn't doing that. Even GM's sports cars
> don't have great handling.
>

Ok - I understand that you want a small car. Clearly not GM's strength.
But that does not make their offerings weak in the mileage area. As has
been stated - they've made the mark on mileage. How many of those very
small cars get the mileage of GM's offerings? I'll give you that they are
not as nimble and tight as some offerings from the competition, but they
sure are a lot more comfortable. And - they aren't horrible.


>
> That sure didn't help. But I think they let themselves get too far behind
> the technology curve, they spent too much time concentrating on one or two
> market sectors rather than trying to keep a diverse product line, and they
> did so much to use the same platforms for different models that they wound
> up blurring the differences between makes. When you can buy the same car
> from Chevy or Buick, you lose whatever cachet the Buick name has.
> --scott

Not so true Scott. There has always been a big difference between a Buick,
and a Chevy and a Pontiac. Built on the same platform, but handling
packages, trim packages, etc. made them completely dissimilar. Completely
different suspensions, sound deadening, seats, engines. The list goes on.
The common platform was not as bad an idea as it's getting credit for these
days. The only people who would state that there was no difference or
little difference between a Buick and a Pontiac and a Chevy, were people
who never drove all three.


--

-Mike-

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 18:07:48 -0500, Mr. G cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:


>
> Do you really think all the people driving pickups and SUVs bought them
> because they spontaneously got the urge to purchase an oversized,
> overpriced gas-guzzling behemoth? I think it's more likely that they
> were finally convinced by the advertising assault the car companies run
> day after day, year after year, umpteen times an hour showing their
> vehicles charging up mountains, braving the snow (over freshly plowed
> roads) and getting that last parking space because they can drive over
> medians (and terrorize the smaller cars.)
>

You don't seem to understand how marketing works. It doesn't set many
trends, it responds to trends and capitalizes on them. Marketing does not
convince anybody of anything they don't already lean towards. All of those
advertisements only appeal to a base of people who are already convinced of
the need for those things - real or perceived.

> The car companies make a big profit on the big metal, because they can
> charge much more $$$ for them, even though they're really mostly
> passenger cars with oversized sheetmetal and big engines to haul around
> all that extra weight.

You don't know much about pickup trucks do you? Or even a large segment of
the SUV market. Yeah - the foreign SUV's were/are typically cars with more
sheet metal, but you need to look under one of the American SUV's (not
those foolish what-ever-they-call-them-now - crossovers.

>
> So no, it's not that the car companies want to sell us small, fuel-
> efficient cars, but people demand otherwise. It's their advertising
> that convinces people that's what they need to drive, and the idiot
> consumer is happy to oblige.

Again - you don't understand how marketing works. It's nice to bluntly
throw the blame on a big old machine that forces something upon the people
that they really don't want - thus creating an evil empire to hate, but
that's just not how marketing and consumer purchasing works in the real
world.

--

-Mike-

"Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> >Promise them anything, but sell them a SUV?
>>
>> Just what do you want? Nobody forces anyone to buy
>> a SUV. GM attempts to sell what the consumer wants.
>
> Then why do businesses spend so much money on advertising and marketing?
> They try to get consumers to want what they sell.

What's your point? People buy what they want, and no one forces them to buy
anything. Unless you are saying you would purchase something just because
the advertisement told you to, in which case, I would advise you to start
using your brain, and to think for yourself.