Dear Linus, The Chevy VOLT is being discontinued.

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, Disgruntled Homer said:

I consider a Crossover a Hatchback sub type, as the crossover I know the most (someone I know ones one) is a raised Impreza Hatchback (Crosstreck.)

The Crosstrek and the Impreza Hatchback (5-door version) are different vehicles. The Crosstrek might be styled from the Impreza and modified from it, but let's take the height spec, for example:

1. Crosstrek is 1615 mm tall (63.58 inches)

2. Impreza 5 Door is 1480 mm tall (58.25 inches)

 

That's a 135 mm difference (5.33 inches). 5 inches doesn't sound like much, but that's a huge difference for a car, especially in terms of interior clearance, headroom, etc.

 

A Hatchback is also not a very clear sub-type itself. What do you consider a hatchback? A Ford Expedition has a hatchback style 5ft door on the back, but no one would consider that a Crossover, or a Hatchback.

 

Anyway, I digress - a Crossover is specifically called a crossover because it merges design aspects from both cars and traditional SUV's.

 

So personally, I would consider a Impreza 5 Door hatchback as a Hatchback Car. And I would consider the Crosstrek as a Crossover SUV.

 

But again, these definitions are all very fluid and there's not much industry standardization between brands (or even between models of the same brand).

3 minutes ago, Disgruntled Homer said:

I'd love for my first car to be a Manual, I find them to be fun. I think you can get a Corolla with a Manual Transmission.

It wouldn't surprise me if you could - but that also would vary based on Region. Here in North America, Manuals are much less common than they are in Europe. Because of that, an Automatic isn't much more expensive (if at all) compared to a manual version. In fact, some cars (particularly performance cars) you're spending more to "upgrade" to a manual.

 

But manual vs automatic is entirely personal preference. For me? I'd only ever get a manual as a weekend fun car. And since owning a car just for fun is entirely impractical for me, that will have to wait until closer to my retirement.

[Gunbust3r]

How is the G2 Volt? I test drove the original Volt and it had the driving dynamics of a wet noodle.

[KuronoXD]

On 11/27/2018 at 12:40 AM, Arika S said:

So? It's not going to unbuild itself

He bought it over other more "techy" cars because he thought it would have better lifetime support from the manufacturer. Linus thought he was making a responsible decision instead of going with the flow and buying a Tesla or something. 

[dalekphalm]

10 minutes ago, KuronoXD said:

He bought it over other more "techy" cars because he thought it would have better lifetime support from the manufacturer. Linus thought he was making a responsible decision instead of going with the flow and buying a Tesla or something. 

Well what exactly are we considering "better support"?

 

1. He's still going to be able to get replacement parts. By law, cars sold in North America have to have replacement parts available for 10 years after said car is manufactured.

2. He's still going to be able to get full warranty, and service done by the manufacturer's approved dealer. Chevrolet isn't going anywhere. They still exist. They're just not making new models

3. Things like updates to the Infotainment system may still be available, as this kind of part is typically used across many different models.

4. Resale value - the car will still be able to be sold on the used market. If anything, this might cause a spike in resale value due to low availability.

 

So, what is he losing, that he would get if they continued to manufacture new models?

[Arika]

18 minutes ago, KuronoXD said:

He bought it over other more "techy" cars because he thought it would have better lifetime support from the manufacturer. Linus thought he was making a responsible decision instead of going with the flow and buying a Tesla or something. 

there's a different between something being discontinued (no longer being manufactured) and no longer having support.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, KuronoXD said:

He bought it over other more "techy" cars because he thought it would have better lifetime support from the manufacturer. Linus thought he was making a responsible decision instead of going with the flow and buying a Tesla or something. 

Contrary to popular belief, its the lifetime of the car, not a human lifetime for support. So it's really like 10 years. 

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

On 11/27/2018 at 8:51 PM, dalekphalm said:

This is a shame - the Volt is a kickass car, that has the main benefits of an EV (enough range on battery only to make it to work and back without using any gas at all), but also alieviated range anxiety by having the large fuel tank which could extend range up to 680 km (420 miles).

 

They're also discontinuing the Cruze, which is a popular compact car.

 

The simple fact is, that in North America, car sales are slumping like mad, and Truck/SUV sales are soaring. Ford already announced earlier this year they were discontinuing pretty much all Car models within the near future, and only selling Trucks/SUV's, and specialty cars (Mustang, etc).

That's a damn shame.I really liked the Cruze too

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, OrbitalBuzzsaw said:

That's a damn shame.I really liked the Cruze too

Yeah it seems like a nice sub-compact entry level car - and you can still get a decent amount of tech inside as well. My fiancee's sister bought a near-new model last year.

 

Now some people think there's actually a secret trend going on. I watched a long discussion/analysis video on the subject not too long ago. Basically, this "theory" (I don't want to call it a conspiracy theory, per se) states that a large chunk of the middle class population have decided that they want an EV as their next car.

 

Therefore, because there still aren't a lot of EV's on the market - let alone one's that are pretty cheap - the theory goes that these people have simply stopped buying new cars - hence the slump in car sales. Basically the theory goes that these people are simply waiting for the EV that fits their requirements to appear on the market.

 

The theory goes on to say that Gasoline based vehicles across all product segments are going to start dropping massively as we see wide-scale adoption.

 

Now - we've all heard this before. But here's the difference. The theory goes on to say this will happen in 5 years max (whereas more traditional thought is that EV's will take over in 15-20 years).

 

Personally I'm not convinced by the theory just yet. As much as I support EV adoption and tech, I know that a lot of people still struggle with the paradigm shift in how you own an EV (Eg: they get caught up in the lack of charging stations, despite the fact that your "home" is the charging station, and you leave your house with a "full tank" every single day) - and of course, the smaller amount of people who legitimately need a vehicle that has higher-than-EV range on a regular basis (the vast majority of people don't need this, and can rent a gas car when they take that once or twice a year trip).

[Guest]

3 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Therefore, because there still aren't a lot of EV's on the market - let alone one's that are pretty cheap - the theory goes that these people have simply stopped buying new cars - hence the slump in car sales. Basically the theory goes that these people are simply waiting for the EV that fits their requirements to appear on the market.

It depends on government subsidies and how much money you have already. What my dad does is buy a new Nissan Leaf every year and sell the old one. Because the batteries are still above 85% capacity and they don't depreciate very much, he sells it for around 5k less than he bought it (39k vs 35k), and seeing as he drives a lot he saves around 5k in petrol costs anyway, so if you have that initial money, which is a large amount, then it can be worth it. Not everyone has 40k lying around, but it's a way to save a little cash, and be able to have a new model every year until the market changes. 

[handymanshandle]

4 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

snip

Personally, the only reason I agree to wanting to innovate alternative fuel solutions for vehicles is because in the grand scheme of things, gasoline is a limited resource and so I think it's beneficial if we do ease into alternative fueled vehicles.

 

Personally, I really like the idea of Hydrogen Fuel Cell however the energy cost for capturing Hydrogen is pretty intensive so it does make it less desirable.

I really don't feel the supposed environmental benefits of all vehicles being electric and all energy either being nuclear or renewables, really matters.

 

Sure in some densely populated areas, switching to all EV will be beneficial but in most areas it frankly won't matter all that much.

Truthfully once an EV can charge in <10 minutes then more people would be comfortable adopting them and once there's the infrastructure in place along major and minor roads like there are with gas stations, which can just re-use preexisting infrastructure really.

 

I also sorta wished that maybe we could simplify stuff a little because the tech does make it more complex and harder to fix

 

[LinusTech]

On 11/29/2018 at 5:15 PM, KuronoXD said:

He bought it over other more "techy" cars because he thought it would have better lifetime support from the manufacturer. Linus thought he was making a responsible decision instead of going with the flow and buying a Tesla or something. 

That wasn't really a factor. I was talking about 3rd party parts support

[SenKa]

18 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

That wasn't really a factor. I was talking about 3rd party parts support

You had some pretty sound logic. I don't know of a more auto-enthusiast loved hybrid other than maybe the Gen 1 Honda Insight.

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

Personally, the only reason I agree to wanting to innovate alternative fuel solutions for vehicles is because in the grand scheme of things, gasoline is a limited resource and so I think it's beneficial if we do ease into alternative fueled vehicles.

While gasoline is definitely a limited resource, due to recent technology innovations, the "Mad Max" style oil scarcity is unlikely to happen within the next 100 years. There's so much explored-but-untapped oil reserves we've discovered as to not know what to do with.

2 hours ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

Personally, I really like the idea of Hydrogen Fuel Cell however the energy cost for capturing Hydrogen is pretty intensive so it does make it less desirable.

Hydrogen is so impractical to use as to be absurd. There are two good ways to make Hydrogen fuel:

1. Using Natural Gas Reforming - reacting natural gas with high pressure steam - bad for the environment

2. Using electrolysis to convert water into Hydrogen via electricity - very energy intensive, so you might as well use that energy to just charge an electric car.

 

It's a neat idea - and in the 80's and 90's when EV battery tech simply wasn't there, it made a ton of sense as the future. But compared to current EV tech, it just makes no sense.

 

And Hydrogen powered cars don't even typically have the range benefits of a gasoline car, with most only doing ~300-400 KM (Quite a few EV's can get similar range now).

2 hours ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

I really don't feel the supposed environmental benefits of all vehicles being electric and all energy either being nuclear or renewables, really matters.

How so? Gasoline exhaust is - without doubt - bad for people, bad for the environment, and bad for the atmosphere.

 

Even considering the more environmentally unfriendly battery construction (note: contrary to myth, there's very little lithium in the actual battery), an EV is significantly better for the environment over the usable lifetime of the car.

 

Gasoline is "fine" because it's the most practical and useful fuel we've discovered. But it's certainly not the end-game. We need to get off of Gasoline as soon as possible, if for no other reason than for our own health and well being.

2 hours ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

Sure in some densely populated areas, switching to all EV will be beneficial but in most areas it frankly won't matter all that much.

Most people don't travel very much each day. Some people do commute hundreds of KM per day, but they are in the vast minority.

 

So most people could easily switch to an EV without any changes in their driving habits (With the exception of never having to go to the gas station anymore). For those that do the odd long range trip a few times a year, the gas savings over the rest of the year pays for a rental easily.

2 hours ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

Truthfully once an EV can charge in <10 minutes then more people would be comfortable adopting them and once there's the infrastructure in place along major and minor roads like there are with gas stations, which can just re-use preexisting infrastructure really.

That will certainly alleviate range anxiety. The problem is that most people misunderstand how you're supposed to use an EV.

 

Range is legit not a problem for the vast majority of people. For example, I often drive between branch locations at work, and I live in the next adjacent city to the one I work in. And owning an EV would not impact that even a little bit.

 

Most modern EV's can get you over 400 KM in range, and even the lower end ones will give you at least 200 KM in range.

 

That's 200 KM per day. I could easily drive to work, drive around to every branch multiple times over, and then drive home, and still have charge left over.

 

And the EV would be fully charged for the next day.

 

Honestly, only long trips need to be addressed, and most people don't take long trips frequently. So they have two options:

1. Plan their route based on charging stations - Doable. A Supercharge station can give you 80% charge in like 45 minutes - though less convenient because you've got to wait for the recharge. Or

2. Just rent a gasoline car for your long range trip. Rentals are extremely cheap.

2 hours ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

I also sorta wished that maybe we could simplify stuff a little because the tech does make it more complex and harder to fix

Yes and no.

Cars are already ridiculously complicated. EV's actually simplify the drivetrain significantly because instead of the Engine (Multiple moving parts and literal controlled explosions), gearbox/transmission, etc, there's a lot of mechanical parts that can wear out.

 

An EV has the motor, which only has one moving part basically, and then of course wheels and maybe a drive shaft (some EV's have 2 or even 4 motors, making a drive shaft unnecessary).

 

So yes a modern car period is harder to fix. An EV hardly changes that at all. But there's absolutely no way that cars are going to do anything but get even more complicated - whether we stay on Gasoline or go EV.

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, LinusTech said:

That wasn't really a factor. I was talking about 3rd party parts support

Even if it were a factor, GM still exists, and any factory warranty or dealer support you'd be entitled to still exists.

[leadeater]

On 11/27/2018 at 7:40 PM, Arika S said:

So? It's not going to unbuild itself

Transformers roll out

 

 

 

On 11/28/2018 at 10:27 AM, Edzel Yago said:

If only you could buy cars used from the factory, then manufacturers would see more interest in these 'great' cars and continue to make them.

Or buy those over produced cars that sit in huge lots of new cars in the thousands that they use to control price fluctuations of the vehicles and control market supply. From what I understand they largely go unsold.

[leadeater]

8 hours ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

Personally, I really like the idea of Hydrogen Fuel Cell however the energy cost for capturing Hydrogen is pretty intensive so it does make it less desirable.

Use high temperature fuel cells then that don't require pure hydrogen and can use most hydrocarbons/alcohols. There's a fair amount of technical challenges with that though, even simple ones like keeping it hot enough when not being driven and that not so nice thing about driving around with a huge slab of 500C+ material.

 

If you could get one working at 200C-300C and a rapid way to heat it, as well as keep it cool and armor protected maybe it might be viable.

 

Though downside here is all the farm land required to grow crops to make fuel, we need that for food.

[Guest]

On 11/27/2018 at 3:59 PM, LinusTech said:

Total bummer. My review of the Volt was going to be very positive. I think it's great.

 

I wish consumers would wake up to the fact that they don't need a gigantic vehicle for 99% of the things they do.. and that it's only a matter of (a very small amount of) time before you can just Uber a pickup truck for that TV purchase or dump run and drive your economical sedan the rest of the time.

 

*sigh*

Howdy Linus. I'd like to point the fact that Sedans aren't more economical. Despite being smaller, they're not actually more efficient. Take the Toyota RAV4 & the Toyota Camry. Both of these vehicles share the GA-K platform, which means they have similar dimensions (the Camry is a little longer, and the RAV4 is a little wider. The only difference they share is height). Now, Since the RAV4 is a much heavier, & larger vehicle you'd think it wouldn't be as efficient, right? wrong! the MPG difference between the LE trims is only 2 miles per gallon. You get nearly 5 times as much cargo room for a minor efficiency hit. And, if you really need that added efficiency, Toyota offers a hybrid model for not much more initial upfront cost. And if you need an even larger vehicle like the Highlander (which is also offered as a hybrid), you only loose 8 mpg (only two mpg in the V6 version of the Camry). You get more cargo room, and a third row for not much of hit. Unfortunately, the sedan is going to be phased to the luxury & drivers-car segment of the market. SUVs are just more practical for people to consider the minor hit to efficiency.

[dalekphalm]

12 hours ago, MagnesiumPC said:

Howdy Linus. I'd like to point the fact that Sedans aren't more economical. Despite being smaller, they're not actually more efficient. Take the Toyota RAV4 & the Toyota Camry. Both of these vehicles share the GA-K platform, which means they have similar dimensions (the Camry is a little longer, and the RAV4 is a little wider. The only difference they share is height). Now, Since the RAV4 is a much heavier, & larger vehicle you'd think it wouldn't be as efficient, right? wrong! the MPG difference between the LE trims is only 2 miles per gallon. You get nearly 5 times as much cargo room for a minor efficiency hit. And, if you really need that added efficiency, Toyota offers a hybrid model for not much more initial upfront cost. And if you need an even larger vehicle like the Highlander (which is also offered as a hybrid), you only loose 8 mpg (only two mpg in the V6 version of the Camry). You get more cargo room, and a third row for not much of hit. Unfortunately, the sedan is going to be phased to the luxury & drivers-car segment of the market. SUVs are just more practical for people to consider the minor hit to efficiency.

2 MPG is not insignificant. 8 MPG is massive.

 

So yeah - while the RAV4 is pretty efficient, context still matters. You can also opt for a Corolla and get even better mileage.

[Terryv]

On 11/27/2018 at 9:12 AM, NelizMastr said:

That's usually enforced by law, for products like this. I think for cars that's actually like 20 years or something.

You better tell Ford that. 

 

I used to work parts at a Ford dealer, some pieces were unavailable as early as 4 years after the vehicle in question was discontinued.

[Guest]

13 hours ago, MagnesiumPC said:

Howdy Linus. I'd like to point the fact that Sedans aren't more economical. Despite being smaller, they're not actually more efficient. Take the Toyota RAV4 & the Toyota Camry. Both of these vehicles share the GA-K platform, which means they have similar dimensions (the Camry is a little longer, and the RAV4 is a little wider. The only difference they share is height). Now, Since the RAV4 is a much heavier, & larger vehicle you'd think it wouldn't be as efficient, right? wrong! the MPG difference between the LE trims is only 2 miles per gallon. You get nearly 5 times as much cargo room for a minor efficiency hit. And, if you really need that added efficiency, Toyota offers a hybrid model for not much more initial upfront cost. And if you need an even larger vehicle like the Highlander (which is also offered as a hybrid), you only loose 8 mpg (only two mpg in the V6 version of the Camry). You get more cargo room, and a third row for not much of hit. Unfortunately, the sedan is going to be phased to the luxury & drivers-car segment of the market. SUVs are just more practical for people to consider the minor hit to efficiency.

Theres nothing thats more practical with a highlander that you can't do in a Sedan. 

[dalekphalm]

40 minutes ago, Terryv said:

You better tell Ford that. 

 

I used to work parts at a Ford dealer, some pieces were unavailable as early as 4 years after the vehicle in question was discontinued.

It seems that - at least with Canada, there's no specific car parts guarantee. Not nation wide anyway. Quebec has a consumer protection law that states car manufacturers must provide parts for "a reasonable amount of time" - subject to interpretation no doubt. Consumer Protection groups say that number should be 15 years - since that's the average road life of a car in Canada.

28 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

Theres nothing thats more practical with a highlander that you can't do in a Sedan. 

Not to mention that a Highlander costs another $10,000 for the base model. A RAV4 or Camry are both far better purchases for most people.

[Terryv]

12 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

It seems that - at least with Canada, there's no specific car parts guarantee.

I'd argue this was the case for the US as well.

 

We would also order from the US (rather often) if all Canadian warehouses out of stock.

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

Theres nothing thats more practical with a highlander that you can't do in a Sedan. 

Carry 8 people, actually have room for luggage, have larger seats for added comfort, etc.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MagnesiumPC said:

Carry 8 people, actually have room for luggage, have larger seats for added comfort, etc.

You show me a RAV4 that can fit 8 people, have room for all their luggage,  I'll show you my 8 million dollar mansion. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

2 MPG is not insignificant. 8 MPG is massive.

 

So yeah - while the RAV4 is pretty efficient, context still matters. You can also opt for a Corolla and get even better mileage.

Actually, the Camry has a higher MPG rating. And, according to CARMAX, the difference in annual fuel costs is only $324. For $324, you get seating for 3 additional people, more legroom, & greater flexibility is cargo storage.