 |
| Photo courtesy of 'GreenAutoBlog' Seriously, not kidding... |
The Obama Administration wanted to turn the economy around by having U.S. Citizens BUY more Chevy Volts (which 'might possibly' catch fire and burn your house down as you sleep).
Once your house is gone, you (assuming you are not a crispy critter in an upstairs bed) will contract with a construction guy / gal to rebuild your charred and damaged home. In addition to propping up Government Motors' financials you'll also be doing your part to bring Construction Numbers back up prior to the next election, assuring four more years of "Hope and Flames" (oh, sorry, that last entry SHOULD read "Hope and Change").
The Two Birds One Stone scenario be illustrated mathematically by the following equation:
One Chevy Volt + One Siemens Car Charger = $200,000+ of Economic Stimulus
As illustrated above, your initial Volt investment of $46,000 will 'possibly' yield a 400+% return on investment (ROI) for the US economy. It should be noted that this is a MUCH greater return than we've seen with Abortion ROI's over the past several years from Planned Parenthood.
Perhaps if the Federal Government provided Chevrolet Volt vehicles to pregnant women considering aborting their unborn child we'd have the Economic Trifecta. The "Three Bird - One Stone" ROI model in which we would reduce funding to Planned Parenthood, sell a GM vehicle AND stimulate the construction industry simultaneously!
Alas, this uber-potent Economic Stimulus model will never come to pass.
Why?
Oh, sure, you want to know WHY?
I learned this morning that there is NOTHING wrong with the Chevrolet Volt. No, really, I did - nothing wrong at all with the Volt.
For the past several months I was giving credit to the Obama Administration for coming up with its ONLY innovative method of stimulating the economy and turns out...
Well, suffice to say that their Innovative Job Creation counter remains firmly set somewhere in the -2,200,000 range.
According to a Bloomberg article this morning: U.S. regulators, who ended their investigation yesterday into the Chevrolet Volt, said electric- powered vehicles do not pose a greater risk of fire than gasoline cars.
“Based on the available data, NHTSA does not believe that Chevy Volts or other electric vehicles pose a greater risk of fire than gasoline-powered vehicles,” the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said in an e-mailed statement.
The conclusion by NHTSA came two weeks after General Motors Co. (GM) told Volt owners to bring the vehicles to dealerships for repair.
The government started investigating the Volt after a side- impact crash test in May led to a fire three weeks later. During that test, the lithium-ion battery pack broke open and coolant leaked into the battery. When the car was physically rotated as part of the test, more coolant leaked into a circuit board, leading to a fire. NHTSA replicated the fire in November and started an official probe Nov. 25.
...
The Volt blaze had little effect on sales of the vehicles, so there may not be any significant improvement with the government completing its investigation, said Jeremy Anwyl, vice chairman of auto-researcher Edmunds.com, in an e-mail.
“Volt buyers tend to be passionate about their vehicle,” Anwyl said. “They really want an electrified vehicle. The small risk represented by the potential for fire wouldn’t have been an obstacle for this group of buyers.”
“We see gasoline powered vehicles blow up in the movies all the time,” he said. “A vehicle with batteries catches fire and it is portrayed as a big deal.”
PAUSE
PAUSE
PAUSE
PAUSE
Sorry, I was shootin' milk all over the keyboard with that last quote. I'm okay now, I just thought it was 'kind of' funny that a guy defending the Chevrolet Volt would use, "We see gasoline powered vehicles blow up in movies all the time" as his primary defense of a car which has, on several occasions (NOT MENTIONED in this report), caught fire and burned down homes while people slept.
This 'other' issue, of course, has been linked to the battery charging station and NOT the batteries themselves. But I guess that's all the NHTSA was concerned with in releasing the 'ALL CLEAR!' declaration for the vehicle which the Federal Government (NHTSA) owns 32% of.
Not that there might be any perceived conflict of interest THERE...
General Motors states that they have sold 8,000 Volts since its introduction in November, 2010, for an average of 525 cars per month. Sales numbers like these have not been seen since the introduction of Neptune Manufacturing's "Submarine Screen Door" back in 1971.
By way of comparison, the Chevy Cruze, introduced last year, sold 230,000 units during the same period. Of course, at less than one-third the cost of the Chevrolet Volt, this shouldn't really come as that big of a surprise to anyone who has ever had to make a car purchase decision before.
If the two vehicles deliver roughly the same gas mileage (they do) and provide transportation from Point A to Point B... WHY would you pay 3x the cost for a Volt?
Oh, that's right, because the guys over at Green Auto Blog told you to - right?
Good luck with that. When YOU get yours, remember to place your charging station OUTSIDE of your home, preferably on an exterior concrete wall. Last time I checked, concrete does not burn. As for your Chevrolet Volt vehicle, battery, and charger? Well, they are NOT made of concrete, are they?
If Government Motors truly wanted a cost-efficient, reliable, all-electric vehicle, they could have looked no further than right here...
THE ROBERTS ELECTRIC VEHICLE
 |
| Built in 1896, the Roberts Electric Vehicle gets over 40 Miles Per Charge -- Same as the Chevrolet Volt! Only major differences are that it's 115 Years Old and has not (yet) burst into flames |
The Roberts Electric Vehicle - Now there's: "Charge You CAN Believe In!"
For over 11 Decades.
Have a nice weekend folks!
Drive safely.
No comments:
Post a Comment