I don't understand why disney makes these 3D movies. My 4 year old can't keep glasses on during the whole movie. And I can't take my 2 year old to see it because he just wants to throw the glasses for fun. disney movies always bring out the young families, but young families can't watch 3D movies.

I think 3D animation is just plain creepy.

A movie geared for small kids about their mothers being kidnapped by space aliens didn't do well? I guess there really are no sure things.

The failure of the Volt makes me sad. If it were cheaper, I think it could have been a winner.

I never even heard of "Mars Needs Moms." Poor marketing?

The Kindle Fire is still an unknown quantity. I have (had) one. Got the epic splash screen of death, and am waiting for the replacement. It does what I want, but it has to work. If this is a systemic problem, Amazon may shell out more then they are making just fixing the hardware issue. I love the tablet for the price, and my chance to program on a large android interface, but buyer beware: the bugs are not gone yet.

"Mars"signaled that the market has become saturated and that digitally animated family films are not the sure thing they once were.

Seriously! They can draw that conclusion from the flop of one stupid (meant literally) movie? It can't possibly be because the movie was lousy, the ads looked stupid, and people just didn't think it was worth their hard earned cash? Do they think the general populace so mindless? *raises arms out in front and glazes over eyes* "Digitally animated family film... must see...."

Give me a break! People are entitled to be discerning. A movie is entitled to flop because it stinks. It doesn't have to signal a trend for the market.

And I like it that it said the message it sends to the studio higher ups is that the market is oversaturated with digital animated family films. While that may be true to an extent, digital animation isn't a ticket to automatic box office sales. Families still WANT A GOOD STORY. And parents, especially, want a movie they can likewise enjoy with the young ones. That's why Pixar reigns supreme on the market because they manage to make movies with compelling story lines that appeal to both adults and kids alike.

Mars Needs Moms was kid oriented from the get-go. I don't know any adults who appreciate Pixar movies who have a remote desire to see this movie.

Disney dropped the ball, plain and simple. They are falling back into the same trap they routinely fall into...make kids movies just to make kids movies, and focus on animation style more than the story. They deserve to fail when they do that.

I love animated films, but I didn't see "Mars Needs Moms" because it just didn't appeal to me from what I saw of the previews...neither did "Gnomeo and Juliet" (which I did eventually watch on Netflix, and was glad I didn't waste a ticket on). However, I believe the point the article was making was in reference to the uneccesary studio use of 3D, especially with the conversion process. "Avatar" was intentionally filmed in 3D, which made it good 3D, but it was a genuinely good film and a phenomenal success for more reasons than just the 3D effect. It had appeal. The money "Avatar" generated unfortunately created the side-effect of 'ro$e-colored gla$$e$' (or green?) for the studios...suddenly everything HAD to be 3D, which resulted in films not intended for 3D being rushed through the conversion process to meet the release dates, which resulted in bad 3D, which resulted in leaving a bad taste in moviegoers' mouths ... eyes...whatever. The conversion 3D effects were shoddy by comparison, ... and no matter how you dress it up, a bad movie is still a bad movie. Personally, I don't see the need to see an animated film in 3D, and there's so much bad 3D out there now that when I see a film in the theater, I go for the non-3D version on purpose (if I like the film, I might see it the second time in 3D). Even if "Mars Needs Moms" was purposefully filmed in 3D, even if it was a decent film, was it necessary and did it justify the expense? Well obviously not. Maybe they should have saved the expensive 3D effect for an established franchise, or shown "Mars Needs Moms" in a regular format and, if successful, made the sequel in 3D. That's where the market trend failed.

What you've said rings true for me, too - I was chided for quite a long by friends while with the relatively small and aged widescreen TV I own, but the bloody thing works and works well enough for me to enjoy; why should I go and spend another grand on something I don't need? As it goes with my car; it's paid off and proper, regularly scheduled maintenance ensures I can continue to use it reliably. It might be nice to own an EV or hybrid, but that's all it would be - nice, not a necessity.

It’s naive to think that the world is going to switch tomorrow to EVs (electric vehicles).

See, this is going to be the problem, people will look at this and say "see? No one wants an electric car!" (And these morons at Chevy are saying it as an excuse for being shills). The answer is simple "No one wants to shell out big money for a half assed electric car". I mean really? You have the technology (they made it 20 years ago) to make it go 200+ miles and you decided "no one really WANTS to do that". I hope TESLA eats you alive Chevy.

You can go 3000 miles in the Volt if you want to. It runs on gas too. It's not a half-ass electric. it gives you options.

The oil companies are "WHO Killed the Electric Car" 20 years ago by buying up the patents to the batteries.

TESLA is a different product at a very different price point.

Paul is right in saying the Volt will go 3000 miles. 40 of it would be on electricity alone and 2,960 using the gas engine. My Caddy CTS will also go 3000 miles (on gas alone) and it's paid for. I could trade in my 2008 Caddy for $20,000 and buy a Volt for $40,000 or I could use the $20,000 difference to buy enough gasoline to go 150,000 miles. It's the relatively high price of the Volt that's killing sales right now.

Paul - A non half assed electric would have quadruple the range at the least, thats what makes it half assed. Sure it can go 3,000 miles, I CAN WALK 3,000 MILES if we want to split hairs. The difference is the range on electric. Having a gas back up isn't the problem (and its welcome for those who worry), the problem is limiting you down so you basically HAVE to use the gas unless you do the absolute minimum.

The problem is they make the electric cars and hybrids so friggin ugly people are embarrassed to drive them. Why not make an electric car that's a convertible, or has a sleek aerodynamic design? The smaller the vehicle the better the mileage, so why keep making hybrids in mostly 4 door models?

EV-1. Anyone? Anyone? We've handed the sector to offshore interests.

And it's not the first time either.

The volt may be viewed as a flop right now but the technology from it will find its way into many other cars and trucks as time goes on. This will make the costs more in line with the average consumer and will be one of the ways that GM meets future CAFE requirements. The volt itself was a statement that the biggest car manufacturer in America can mass produce a car of this type. They branded it a chevy to give a boost to that division but for pricing and marketability probably should have started as a Cadillac and had nicer amenities and been $50000 and would have sold the same amount and been viewed as a success.
As for the joke that is the Tesla mortor corporation where do we start. The company has yet to make a single dollar of profit NOT $1 This fact is checkable in many places. Their no longer in production roadster only sold 2024 copies. Their new model S sedan is not even in production yet Musk claims all of theses pre sales. The actual production of the roadster took years longer than they originally claimed and it was just a converted lotus shell. They have none of the new sedans ready and and they claim to be building them all in house. Oh and if you want to dispute the profit part dont forget that this joke of a company got a 465 MILLION DOLLAR BAILOUT WHEN THEY HAD YET TO SHIP A SINGLE DAMN CAR! Good to see that the american tax payers are financing a small group of ultra wealthy idiots who built a sports car that when driven hard can only hold a charge for 30 mile maximum, handles worse than the lotus it is built on, and costs $115000. And they claim they lost money on building all of them. Now this company claims to have orders for 6500 of theese. Orders that started being placed in 2009 and they have yet to make a single car, or even a prototype to send for its crash tests, epa fuel econ tests or press test drives.
The volt may not be perfect, and it may not have been embraced by the public with open arms. However it did get released to the public 4 months ahead of schedule, not 4 years later. The volt sold 6142 cars in its first year, the tesla 2024 delivered after 5 1/2 years. So GM has tried and put a good product out there and it will continue to improve on it. Dont however start praising a joke of a company like tesla motors who will do nothing but make junky kit cars for staggering prices and steal money from the taxpayers while doing it.

sin is a liar:

com/autopia/2009/08/tesla-profit/

/\ google tesla profit (wired.com)

I guess he thinks its easy to break into the car making industry as well, next he'll tell us he's going to start up a cable TV company and he expects to make a huge profit next quarter.

alwaysanother- First, Hydrogen fuel is way more dangerous (I personally hate hydrogen flames, because you'll be dead before you knew there was a fire, and that happens a lot). Second, all we are doing then is subbing out one fuel for another, if it comes from the ground cheaper than chances are we just opened 1,000 new frakking wells (I don't think I'd enjoy cancer). You can't honestly tell me that switching every car in the country around everytime we find a new power source is easier than just switching the power plants around. I've ridden in a hydrogen car, I think they are neat, but they are dangerous and not the solution we need.

Sin got more than a few things wrong, the biggest whopper being the "65 MILLION DOLLAR BAILOUT". Nope, no bailout, the got a loan that they'll have to pay back with interest. BTW, that "Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing" loan program was signed into law by President Bush, and Tesla was one of several that qualified for it.

As for hydrogen, while it is technically possible to run an internal combustion engine on it, the bulky nature of hydrogen combined with the inefficiency of internal combustion makes for a very short driving range and very high fuel costs. Power is reduced, too. Hydrogen fuel cells are more efficient, giving reasonable driving ranges and fuel costs, but the cost of the fuel cells and hydrogen storage is still a problem.

I think Ben Franklin once quipped that a newborn baby isn't much use either. The Volt and the even sillier Nissan Leaf are just opening salvos in a technological war that won't really be waged for another decade. Should GM win that war, a lot of the credit will go to what they learned building and marketing the highly publicized "flop" they had in the Volt.

Then Mike, don't ever complain about our unrelenting dependence on foreign oil, big oil company profits (and people getting filthy rich off oil), wars in the Middle East over oil, and the deterioration of our environment if you think electric cars are silly and you're happy to spend money on more oil. The point isn't that electric cars can't compete on cost with gasoline powered vehicles, the point is they are they first step toward a far better idea and should be supported as such. The Volt is about the future, not the present.

CRB, please take the wool off your eyes. The US is now exporting record barrels of gasoline overseas. You see, you can drive your electric cars here in the US. That lowers our consumption and provides a surplus that the oil companies can sell overseas for an even bigger profit. If you think you are saving the planet, think again. Whatever gasoline we save here in the US is just burning up in the atmosphere somewhere else.

So where is the electricity coming from to power these cars if not the same oil and gas companies? Most power plants are still fossil-fuel based. Unless of course you are talking about nuclear power plants.. and nobody seems to want that either. Wind and sun aren't going to power all those vehicles, and electricity doesn't just magically appear out of the wall socket.

If you think you are saving the planet, think again. Whatever gasoline we save here in the US is just burning up in the atmosphere somewhere else.

So you're saying that other countries only use oil if we don't? Otherwise, our reducing our consumption still reduces net consumption worldwide.

Dave, please. Many countries don't have refineries to make gas. We will never reduce our dependency on foriegn oil because whatever we can't use here will be refined and sold to these other countries. Don't you get it? The only reason gas has become so expensive here is so we will use less so more can be sold elsewhere for larger profits. Even when oil prices decrease and US demand decreases the price of gasoline does not. They use every excuse or crisis in the book to raise gas prices by 30-100% but when the reverse senario occurs it only drops by 1-5%. Seems rather suspicious don't ya think?

You guys really need a wake up call. If auto makers wanted to they would make an electric car tomorrow that had hundreds of miles in range (on electric motor not gas), and cost around $20k. But they do not want to. If it were an economical choice everyone would own one and then who would buy the gas guzzling SUVs they are cranking out? And they would never piss off the oil companies.... If you want to waste money to think you are saving the planet go for it.

wrecker... you seem to not even read his posts, he is saying "if we consume less oil, less oil gets consumed" you are saying "it doesn't matter, oil still costs money to the world!"... they just aren't even the same argument... who gives a @!$%# if the rest of the world still stays on oil? If we can get off it (And some people confuse this, I don't think we can ever get off it 100%, but we can certainly make a dent in what we consume) we won't have a bouncing DOW everytime gas prices go up, our food won't magically cost more if another Gadhafi appears somewhere... it will be nice

Mikes got it 100%, if the big car companies really wanted to produce a fantastically competitive car that cost very little and went long long distances (or at least take the first step so charging stations start popping up and the public goes crazy for EV's) they could have a new model out this quarter (hell there are companies that are popping up because the big companies WON'T do it).

They don't WANT to, the public needs to force them to, they will literally fight us, just look at the EV1, they literally took the cars they MADE off the road, and refused to accept extra money on a FINISHED product. Instead of taking IN money without spending much they SPENT money to take that product away and destroy it. Tell me any instance of a company taking a product that is 100% safe, 100% made that they have a base that wants to buy and is offering to in which instead of making a profit on capital/equipment/materials ALREADY SPENT they decided to just say "ah well, I don't feel like making money".

CRB, please take the wool off your eyes. The US is now exporting record barrels of gasoline overseas.

And the US is importing most of the oil needed to make that gasoline we're exporting. Profits for the oil companies, but it doesn't keep fuel prices down, nor does it decrease oil imports or worldwide oil demand. But plug-in cars do reduce oil demand.

Who is transporting gasoline from our refineries to the rest of the world? On the high seas? I know that there are LNG tankers, but gasoline is also mighty flammable and dangerous to transport in bulk.

Glad you jumped in -- there are so many misconceptions about the Volt... But one that needs to be set straight is there is not a limited range -- yes there is a limited All Electric range - but even after shifting to gas -- still cheaper to drive.

And yes -- to sell an innovative car like that needs to be in the hands of as many consumers as possible -- the price has to fall. If teh car is THAT expensive to build - imagine the maintenance costs (even if I'm wrong -- just going on impressions). The cost also WAY out ways the gas savings for a long, long time.

See my post above, Chevy didn't make a good electric car, they made a severly inhibited model. The EV1 could go 200 miles (20 years ago, don't tell me batteries never improved over 20 years), add an engine to recharge the battery and BAM, you have a car thats 20 years older and 20 times better than the volt. Chevy didn't try to make an innovative new car, they didn't even try to make something better than their competitors, they made a pile of crap and hoped people would pay big money for it.

EV's aren't going anywhere if a company can solely exist on only making them and is booming. Yes, they need to be a LOT cheaper to get widespread use, yes they need charging stations, yes they need better charging ability (Some new Li-Ion battery technology recharges in 1/10 the time, check out Altair Nanotechnologies batteries). I see these things as improving only for the better as Chevy gets chewed up for being stupid and companies like Tesla take off (Haven't even realeased their new MORE affordable EV and its sold out for a year or more).

arjohn- REAL EV's don't need much of anything but a tire alignment for years at a time... the maintenance costs are infintismal compared to your gas car.

hoping to pick up a good used one or damaged in collision volt and get it on the road for cheap

Hugin: How can you know so much and still be on the wrong side of the Volt debate? Did you not know about the battery patents issue?

Hugin and Munin

The EV1 could not close to 200 miles, when GM brought one to our university for an energy show, they fully charged it, then loaded and a charger on a flatbed truck to haul it a distance of 120 miles, when I asked why I was told it was beyond the range. The EV1 was not the first either, they had a small number of Chevetts that were EV's for testing back in the late 70's early 80's but the public was never given access to them.

The batteries in todays EV's can be charged in under an hour if you happen to 480 volts into your home.

Questions for Volt owners that will be helpful to compare apples with apples:

As mj said, it gets him/her 65 miles per gallon. GAS EXPENSE: At an average of 25mpg of a regular gas car, and using it for 15,000 miles per year at an estimated $3.70 per gallon of gas you spend (15,000/65)*$3.70 =$854 dlls per year in gas (PLUS ELECTRICITY COST) on the Volt, vs. (15,000/25)*3.70=$2,200 per year on the gas only car. The savings in 3 years is $4,440 minus the ELECTRIC CHARGING COSTS. Now, in the formula I am missing the cost of the electric charges. If someone could help figuring it out, what would the cost of all the charging be which will give the real FUEL/ENERGY cost per mile travelled?

edward- the earlier battery level (one of the earlier generations) went 120, newer generations got it to 160 miles (The NiMH batteries, they went through a couple generations of battery usage in the short time it was on the road, also, I rounded because it had been a while since I read the article).

Paul - wrong side? We should be supporting full innovation getting us off foreign oil, not this piddly attempt to convince us a company cares all the while they really just tried to sell us out. I love a new EV car but don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining, give me an honest attempt and I will support it, try to fool me and I'll be the one laughing.

If you want EVs with longer range, you are still going to have to build out the grid infrastructure to get people around. What good does a 200 mile range do you if you drive 4 hours from home and have to wait 8 hours before you can finish your trip or return home? If you do build out the grid infrastructure properly, range is then much less of an issue. The "problem" negates itself. Before that happens, the VOLT makes perfect sense.

There's no such thing as 'getting off of foreign oil'. That's a right-wing canard and an impossibility in the real world. All oil, regardless of origin, is sold on the same world market. The US could become energy-independent (by completely weaning itself from oil usage and/or forbidding export of US oil) but given the present capitalist structure of the oil market, you can NOT 'get off foreign oil').

Hugin: there are all electric cars STILL driven in the Dayton area (Wright-Patt AFB) that were built in the early 80's. Single speed electric motors (made in SW Ohio btw). Marine deep cycle batteries. Nothing revolutionary here. If the makers had only used a more appealing/sturdy chassis to assemble this in (not a Renault LeCar), who knows where we could be today? Lectric Leopard.

Hugin and Munin ---- I know the maintenance might be lower -- but that is not pushed out there by the Mfg. Still while Tires and wiper blades are less; a 4-5K$ battery change could hurt. I like the Volt concept, if you use a car like a large percentage your gas mileage is really infinate, but if you do travel further you don't have to stop and charge...

thats the thing you all keep getting at: "I have options" thats fantastic, I never said "we should never have small engines in EV's just in case we can't make it" I specifically said:

Having a gas back up isn't the problem (and its welcome for those who worry), the problem is limiting you down so you basically HAVE to use the gas unless you do the absolute minimum.

I don't have a single issue with the gas back up, if Tesla started doing it I wouldn't berate them. My issue is with the fact that they made the car with a severely inhibited battery. They could have easily put in a good battery and sold it as a 1up of their competitors. "Hey we made a great EV with this added bonus so your never worried". Why give up an advantage like that? Instead they went with

"we'll just sell you an electric car that most days you still have to fill up with gas and call it an electric car, then when it fails we'll blame the american people for not liking electric cars!". They took a chance to put new technology out there, a chance to get into a new market, and a chance to shut down these competitors that are quickly growing and may be a threat one day (eliminate them while they are small by offering a similar product for cheaper since you can manufacture 1000 times easier). Instead? FLOP!

Here's a thought! How much MPG do you get out of a horse and buggy?

Contrary to what above posters have written, I enjoyed Mars Needs Moms. Saw it with my 4-year-old son, just me & him, so that's the memory I carry most from that. But, we also saw it in 2D. I agree that the whole 3D thing is a gimmick & rarely worth seeing a movie in that format.

I agree about the 3D technology. Seen the final Harry Potter in 3D jsut to say that I tried it and I was not impressed. So not worth the extra money and I will not get a 3D TV or the 3D Nintendo DS. Not worth it!

I don't understand why disney makes these 3D movies. My 4 year old can't keep glasses on during the whole movie. And I can't take my 2 year old to see it because he just wants to throw the glasses for fun. disney movies always bring out the young families, but young families can't watch 3D movies

3D generally detracts from the quality. The cinematography suffers because they force these weird camera angles and effects to enhance the 3D instead of sticking with a consistent style the enhances the story telling. It's hard to NOT make 3D seem gimmicky.

Many reviewers said it had a lot to do with the title "mars needs moms". Potentially frightening for some kids (moms being stolen away), not "cool" for young boys ( an action movie about moms), and not "cute" enough for young girls (yucky aliens instead of woodland creatures). You figure you have competition from karate-kicking pandas, garden gnomes singing Elton John songs, race cars that talk with hillbilly accents, and good 'ol Pooh bear and you see how they had no chance with that story concept.

No, it was the 35 mile range that killed it. Not too many people who are walking distance from work want to spend 40K so they can drive.

Of all these flops, releasing the first all electric vehicle with a 35 mile range was the stupidest. Just goes to show, you need a really big corporation to make such a monumental blunder!

Its 35 mile range would be more than enough for my needs. That would drive me across town 5 or 6 times atleast. Twice is all I usually need. The fact that it could be charged up for free, in just a few hours, if you have the set up. Makes it very worth it. Anyone in an urban area would see great benefit from one of these. And better air quality.

Lets see, 35/6/2 = 2.9 miles. Not exactly an average commute. And where are you charging for free?

Sounds like a bike commute to me. Save the 40K.

Brian: Are you brain dead? The VOLT runs on GASOLINE. When the batteries are expended after 35-40 Miles, it kicks over to a gas generator of electricity to run the electric motor. No biking or walking required.

Read up, learn something.

No, it was the 35 mile range that killed it. Not too many people who are walking distance from work want to spend 40K so they can drive.

Um ... you walk 35 miles (or 17-1/2) to work? I live across town from work, and if I had a Volt, I would have to remember to run the gas engine manually from time to time just so the fuel wouldn't go bad sitting unused in the tank. I could bike, I guess, on nice days, if I wanted to lose the extra sleep time, but I work downhill from home. Who wants to bike a dozen or more miles uphill at the end of the day? A Volt would work just great for me.

Yeah, I know it has a gas engine. Again, not exactly a selling point for an 'all electric' car is it?

Dave, it was a quip. But I do know people in Colo. who bike this distance every day, even in winter! In Colorado we call them "nuts" or "the people who will out live us if they are not killed by a car first". Which happens quite often.

If I had a short commute where the volt actually was a viable alternative I simply would not be concerned that much with MPG. And if my commute was that short but I still had to worry about the mileage then I probably couldn't afford the volt. You see the basic dilemma they built into the car?

It DOES NOT have a gas engine. It has an electric MOTOR, batteries, and a gas powered electric generator. Stop mixing the two things up.

Fuel electric hybrids are not new. Basically are commerical attempts to scale down the powertrain found in locomotive (diesel-electric) engines. Limiting factor of this model is the battery storage method; the best technology is not widely available. Company that produced the most reliable lithium-ion batteries was bought by GM for later model EV-1, after which was sold to Chevron when production was discountinued. Good news: the inventor has turned his attention to domestic production of thin-screen solar cells.

Paul, It DOES have a gas engine regardless of whether it directly drives the wheels or not! It still a gas engine burning gas! When the battery runs dry it runs on gas!

Medic, right you are. Diesel/electric. They also use regenerative breaking like a hybrid but toss out the energy as heat, where as a hybrid feeds it back into the battery.

I would have to remember to run the gas engine manually from time to time just so the fuel wouldn't go bad sitting unused in the tank.

Actually, you don't. The Volt is smart enough to keep track of such things, and runs the engine when needed - to provide power, to provide heat, when the batteries get low to propel the car (yes, there really is a mechanical connection between engine and wheels), and to use up stale gasoline after several months.

Talking about smart. Riding a horse virtually never causes accidents. With the exception of accidents involving buggy or buckboard accidents. I've never heard of a head on collision involving horses. No matter how "smart" you make a car, horses will always be smarter.

or New Coke!

It would have been better but the FDA made them remove the crack from the formula before release. It total ruined the product and they didn't see nearly the repeat business they saw in testing.

Calls to mind the SNL ad parody for "Crystal Gravy."

See if I can find that on YouTube. Those commercial are the best part of SNL!

Try making the unions take that pay cut along with the CEO. But really? A $40K car, with a potential battery problem, whose competitors are in the $25K-$30K range? THey are lucky they sold any of them.

Try making the unions take that pay cut along with the CEO

Sorry, the auto unions took a pay cut even before the recession. They agreed to a two tiered system where new hires make 1/2 of what the old timers made. Between attrition and buy outs there are very few union workers making $20+/hour today.

A $40K car, with a potential battery problem, whose competitors are in the $25K-$30K range?

Well you are partially right, the car costs too much for the average buyer. The battery problem is being blown out of proportion. The gas that runs a regular car can be a problem in an accident. It should be noted that any of these cars that caught fire after the crash test had the gas drained from them as a precaution. Why were the batteries not discharged as well? (Just saying)

stupified-1351097

They never took a pay cut, they agreed that a new employee could be hired for less, but new employee can only be hired if the recall list has been exhausted.

Edward, you did read that part where I said:

They agreed to a two tiered system where new hires make 1/2 of what the old timers made. Between attrition and buy outs there are very few union workers making $20+/hour today.

Please excuse the misunderstanding you had with my "pay cut" statement but; by agreeing to a two tiered system the union did take a pay cut, since new workers would be coming in at a lower wage.

Also, during restructuring the "job bank" was eliminated and hourly employment, at GM, went from 78,000 to 49,000. Any increase in hourly employment will be through new hires at half the pay as old GM workers. Union workers gave up some paid breaks, and are now only paid overtime after 40 hours of work. (not anything over 8) There were other "give backs" involved but; hopefully you get my point.

Although I personally believe that a lot of hourly workers at GM, etc were over paid for the work they did and skills they had, they negotiated these in good faith with the company. Hourly wages and benefits for union workers did not cause the bankruptcy of GM or Chrysler, poor management did that.

I would ride in a buggy pulled by a horse in a minute, if the whole f-in country weren't designed for those infernal mechanical contraptions. Talk about going green!

GM earned the Volt it's top place and it has nothing to do with the battery fires. I t has to do with the fact that it's a 40K car with the range of a golf cart! Period!

They earned all the bad press that can be written. Oh, you might want to look at those sales figure. When you only send one car to a dealership it pretty easy to find a sucker and 'sell out'.

Brian, these cars will sell, especially as more of them make it to the road, and people see them. Hybrids started out slow too. I would buy one if I could afford it, I agree the price is prohibitive.

Its range is more than enough for most urban use. So you wouldnt buy this for travelling, or extensive highway use. Its a city car for Mom, or student. Its cheap to run, and most importantly, its CLEAN!

I agree. Add Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and South Dakota to the list of places unfriendly to the Volt. the 35 mile electric range won't even get me across town and then I would have to find a place that would let me recharge. Forget the gas engine, if you name a car Volt it should be all electric.

I live in Colorado. Yes the average commute is more then 35 miles. Mine is 18 miles one way. Many drive 30-40 miles one way. I've had to do this too.

On the plus side I see that our local Walgreens has installed a charging station. Never been used but...

Brian - now I have to take that Walgreens off my list of places to shop as some of what I spend there will be used to help "fuel" other people's cars. The electricity is simply not free for all.

The Volt reminds me of the infamous Ford Pinto and Pontiac Fiero fires. The Pinto would blow up if hit from the rear and the Fiero would burn up just for the heck of it.

Maize, It was called the Fiero! They just didn't tell you why! And lets not forget the GM S10 with saddle tanks.

Neal, I think you've got a couple years before you have to start worrying about paying for other peoples charges at Walgreens. I'm pretty sure there are more charging stations then cars to charge at this point.

Neal: It doesn't have a gas engine. It has an electric generator to run the electric motor, after 40 miles of battery usage..

Brian - I forgot to include a smiley face in that post, wasn't serious.

Paul,

The electric generator is run by an everyday gas engine, that is why unlike the Leaf or Tesla cars you can drive a Volt cross country in the same time as any other car or truck.

now I have to take that Walgreens off my list of places to shop as some of what I spend there will be used to help "fuel" other people's cars. The electricity is simply not free for all.

Oh, I missed where it said the charging stations were free (let alone subsidized by other people's purchases). Or was that the part you were kidding about? If so, the humor was ... subtle.

It's the first station that I've ever seen. It's pretty simple and I didn't see any card slot but I didn't go over and look at it. I was wondering though.

Paul, as an E.E. I can tell you that the whole generator running a motor thing really doesn't work unless you have something driving the generator. With that said I don't know if the Volt uses a direct drive from the gas engine of if it drives a generator.

So you're a mixed up, unaware, E.E. Did you cheat your way through school? Why are you here winging it on a subject you could easily be an informed voice upon instead?

In AUTO parlance, the engine runs the the flywheel and drive train, etc. In the Volt, the gas powered generator of electricity is the back-up to the batteries for the ELECTRIC MOTOR which replaces the traditional AUTO-ENGINE. The result is a low maintenance vehicle. If the gas powered electric generator goes bad, it can be switched out, likely under warranty.

edward: No kidding. Read comment #2.3.

Where in what I wrote in comment#11.8 was that point contradicted?

Yeah Paul, I'm mixed up. A gas engine is a gas engine regardless of what it is powering. Is your lawn mower not a gas engine because it's not driving your car? That's some pretty weird logic you got there.

The volt has a gas engine and a gas tank, get over it. When the engine is running the car is being moved by the chemical energy released by the burning of gas, regardless of how that energy get's to the wheels.

Oh, and because I don't work in the auto industry.

man, look it up. an engine is the "prime mover" of a car, truck, boat, tractor, etc. a gas-powered generator is NOT an engine. period. yes, they both burn fuel in a similar fashion, but one is a generator and one is an engine and they are NOT the same.

Again Brian, why are you here spouting ignorance when you could get informed on the subject at hand?

Stop conflating an engine with a generator.

Paul, you're relying on outdated information. When the Volt concept was introduced, they had planned to use a series hybrid design, with a gasoline engine powering a generator that provided electrical power for the motor, when the battery was low. Problem was, the power conversion losses lead to low fuel economy, so they came up with a combination series/parallel design that used a planetary gearbox, 2 motor/generators, 3 clutches, and a gasoline engine. Most of the power from the gasoline engine is transmitted mechanically to the wheels, resulting in higher efficiency and better fuel economy, while the rest goes to one of the motor/generators to produce electrical power for the other motor/generator and other uses.

It is similar to the Toyota and Ford hybrid designs, but with enough differences to avoid patent infringements.

CM-6969, you are correct.

For those who are interested, Motor Trend had an excellent article explaining the Chevy Volt Powertrain. Check it out:

Motor Trend Explains the Volt’s Powertrain

--
¢ommon ¢ents
AKA @CommonCentsUSA

I stand corrected. The interesting thing is that the article today about the 8,000 Volt recalls for structural enhancements around the batteries still describes the "small gas motor electric generator" as existing in the cars.

The Motor Trend powertrain article is very informative and interesting , though it focuses on the planetary ring arrangement of the transmission and the I.C.E's ability to make a direct contribution to the drive train at speeds above 70, more than on any electric generator redesign. The I.C.E. doesn't appear to be where I thought it would be from the original descriptions that i had gotten. It is odd that GM hasn't gone to the trouble of revising their press kit on the Volt so the main stream media, as in the RECALL article of today, don't continue to repeat old information which is outdated and now false.

To elaborate a bit, because the picuture in the first article I linked shows only the electric/hybrid drive unit at the top of the article, that unit goes where the transmission would be in a conventional, transverse engine, front wheel drive car. The engine bolts up on the far side of the case piece shown in that picture.

Actually, I just found the actual Motor Trend article on MotorTrend.com, and the pictures there actually show a cutaway of the engine (crank and pistons) bolted up to that drive unit.

Check Unbolting the Chevy Volt to See How it Ticks at motortrend.com for better pictures of the Chevy Volt Drivetrain.

The volt doesn't have a multi-ratio transmission. It uses one of it's motor/generators (in generator mode) to produce power from the engine and that electrical power drives the main electric drive motor. It doesn't need reduction gears for the engine. It just doesn't engage the mechanical clutch to drive the wheels from the engine until it's up to a speed where direct coupling the engine to the pinion gear is efficient. The generator/motor act as the "reduction" system for lower speeds when it's running on the gasoline engine.

Eliminating all the reduction gears and additional clutches from a traditional transmission makes room for a much bigger electric motor.

On the Ford, Toyota and Honda hybrid systems, there is still a traditional automatic transmission with reduction gears and clutch packs and all the hydraulics associated with an automatic transmission. In those designs, the electric drive system is between the engine and the transmission, in what would traditionally be the bell housing area.

--
¢ommon ¢ents
AKA @CommonCentsUSA

@Ya

At least they're trying. Tell us all, what are you do nothing, no vision, no imagination folks on the right doing? Oh, I know, not a thing, that's what.

What an incredibly underwhelming group you people are.

What a silly argument.

Paul: please explain. Electricity is not "clean." It burns coal, or at best, natural gas or fissionable material. There is waste either way; running cars off electricity just exports pollution out of urban areas to power generating stations. Is there something Neal is missing here? I'm completely in favor of alternative energy sources, and I have no desire to malign the innovative Volt; it's just that Neal brought up a valid point, and I would honestly like to see your counterargument to it, not just a snide brush-off.

Paul - I am so tired of people touting things as clean when they aren't. I would agree that , in general, the Volt is cleaner than a corresponding all gas car. But the zealot tout the electrics, hybrids and fuel-cell cars as totally clean without any consideration of where they get their fuel. The electrics and hybrids pass some of their dirtiness back to the power plants (even if those are coal, the end result is cleaner) and the fuel-cells pass some on to whatever generates their hydrogen (the current most popular gets is from methane and releases CO2, yikes). So if the disciples would only use the word cleaner instead of clean, I would not have such a problem.

I like Neals definition much better. It should be cleaner, nothing CAN be 100% clean, and EVs are a step in the right direction. Cleaning a few plants up or replacing them with cleaner alternatives is magnitudes easier than switching every car in america as soon as a new tech hits the market (and much more manageable, no state to state regulations allowing one state to have cars that pollute more, no more just checking once a year but not seriously).

By the same token, gasoline doesn't just magically appear at your local gas station, it also has upstream energy and environmental costs. As much as 6 kWh is used just to refine a gallon of gas, plus the energy costs of pumping crude out of the ground, transporting it to the refinery, then transporting it to your local gas station. 6 kWh is enough power to drive an electric car more than 20 miles, which is about how far the average car in the US travels on a gallon of gas.

And that's just for CO2 emissions. The story's even better on other pollutants which are much better at power plants than tailpipes.

Environmental considerations are just one reason to drive electric. More compelling are the benefits to our economy and national security. We spend $80 billion per year keeping world oil routes, like the Straits of Hormuz, open. Thanks to Iran, we're looking at more gas price spikes and perhaps yet another oil war in the Mideast in 2012. The more Americans we have driving on electricity produced from domestic energy sources, the more secure we are.

Even ignoring our obligations to our country and the next generation, driving on electricity is a superior driving experience with instant, smooth acceleration and it's cheaper than burning gas.

Well put Tom Saxton. Dave in NM are you still reading along?

That's because the average consumers IQ is highly overrated. Why shop for the best phone when you can just say 'me too' and pay too much for a logo? Can't make a call? Who cares as long as it has an apple logo. If we're lucky we'll find out apple products make their users sterile. Too many sheep on the planet already.

Apparently parents of four year olds!

The $40k price tag is completely baffling to me. There is no way to re-coup the initial cost in gas-savings over the expected life of the vehicle! I compared my 200 Civic to the Volt on a comparison site and the Volt came out 3 times more expensive to own. Note: the Prius was only about 1.5 times and eventually (10 years) came close to total cost of ownership of my Civic, way too long for most people.

Who is trying to "recoup initial cost in gas savings"? Nobody. False premise.

Try this thought exercise: If you agree that driving is a PRIVILEGE. Suppose the Federal government requires that for you to have a valid driving license, you have to own either a VOLT or a fully electric car, and use it to get to work 90% of the time you go to work. Are you going to buy the EV, both, or the VOLT?

This is exactly what I was thinking. I saw a Volt in traffic and was interested. Looked it up on my phone and that was all she wrote price wise.

I can buy a vehicle that is less than a year old that uses gasoline only for under 18k. 14k if I'd consider a Kia or a Hyundai. If my goal was to save $ on fuel and drive a smaller vehicle the price of the vehicle can't be 2x more than any vehicle I've ever purchased.

It frustrates me to read that GM believes the vehicle and the concept itself failed. Everyone I talk to immediately mentions the price of the vehicle or already owns a Prius.

Paul - The people touting the Volt or the Prius to me are the ones claiming it will save me money. As for your, I hope, rhetorical question I am getting a new government, because that one is oppressive.

Sticking your head in the sand is only going to cause you more problems. Contemplate the hypothetical, it is very likely your future. Like it or not.

No one should expect their car to "save them money". It is an unrealistic expectation and a doubtfull selling point. Operating any car will always COST you money. Some might cost you less than others, but none will save you anything. "Saving" is taking income and putting it in an interest baring account which at least keeps up with inflation. Reducing your expenses is not saving. Much like your "clean" and "cleaner" argument. Sticklers are a b!tch.

Cuz they want to slow down/halt production to reduce overhead?

And deal with the quality issues.

Brian - GM has quality issues? Really? I am shocked and amazed! **tries to stifle uproarious laughter** I do apologize, but I have been watching GM (and Ford and Chrysler and, yes, Toyota, Honda, etc.) for a long time and they never seem to be able to squash that particular bug in new models.

It was just a guess.

We can probably thank the execs and marketers for pushing things out the door before the engineers feel they are ready. But as an engineer I'm probably a little biased. But I have seen it myself. I've seen one of my designs gutted to the point of almost being useless and was embarrassed to admit involvement with it at all.

Well, Brian, I happen to be an engineer too. I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised about the Volt when I took it for an extended test drive -- longer than an hour -- through city streets and canyon roads. You could feel that the engineers and not the bean-counters were in charge of the drive train. Have you gotten behind the wheel of a Volt? Srsly.

It was, but they cut it back to a 'G' rating and ruined it.