Chevy Volt catches fire weeks after crash, prompting closer look at safety. The NHTSA put the Volt thru a 20 mph side-impact test to see if it deserved a 5-star crash safety rating. The results? Can we get a mulligan here? “The crash punctured the Volt’s lithium-ion battery, and after more than three weeks of sitting outside, the vehicle and several cars around it caught fire.” Unsafe at any speed, including zero. It’s the vehicular version of socialism.
This post was last modified on January 26, 2021
View Comments (42)
--- " There are reports of owners getting 800-1000 miles to the charge ... " .
This must be from the beta model video game , where fantasy and reality is equivalent to intellectual masterbation . Reality is a bitch sometimes , and the Libtards hate it. As I've heard , " You can ignore reality , but reality will never ignore you."
I wonder what the government's percentage of total sales is ?
As most of you know, I live in San Antonio, Texas. We are the picture of urban sprawl. I have a friend's car for a week or so while she is out of town. In 2 days of shopping, going back and forth to her house to play with the cat switch lights, etc., I have travelled 151 miles. How on earth could I get around town in a Volt, that has to be charged every what, 35 miles? It is simply impractible. Not to mention that I-10 and I-35 both run through town, as well as several state highways. You would get creamed by semis if you slowed down 2 mph. A car like the smart car is fine in Europe, where the roads are narrower, the city streets only 1-2 lanes wide and everything is crammed together in cities 1000 years old. Doesn't work well in America,where space has been the rule since its founding. Not all of us live somewhere like NTC where the transport is mainly cabs, subways, etc.
The chevy volt would be practical in your case, because of the onboard charging system. There are reports of owners getting 800-1000 miles to a charge on the Volt. Once you drive a chevy volt, it's a very fast and loaded with all kinds of toys.......very nice car....
I am concerned about the Charging stations that has the potential to kill people because of the inherent danger. I once saw a News Reporter on TV say, "It will take atleast 5 years and numerous bodies before we realize how danger it is"...
Language is not your first form of communication, is it?
your real cool......not another forum thug........I thought that was outdated.....
That's "you're" real cool. And it should be capitalized. And yes, he is, in case you were actually wondering.
Yes, you can go as long as you want between chargings, but you will be running on a puny little gasoline motor, not electricity. Kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
Yes, he is real cool, I know, I met him.
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/36686 .
I'm guessing the reporter you quoted was Stephanopolis or Couric...
Oh and that POS wouldn't get 1000 miles per charge if it was rolling downhill with a tailwind.
Yeah I'm going to rush out and buy a $42,000 dollar car that only goes 50 miles, and might catch on fire after a fender bender. Can't wait to hear the horror stories when people find out what kind of effect sub zero weather has on batteries.
I wonder how many of these failures have been sold in Montana, Idaho or Alaska? Time to do some research to see how many idiots living in cold country have bought a Voltless.
Sounds like the Smart car except the weight of the batteries kept it from doing this:
“After striking the front of the [Mercedes Benz] C class, the Smart went airborne and turned around 450 degrees,” the Insurance Industry for Highway Safety says in a press release on their new crash tests. “This contributed to excessive movement of the dummy during rebound — a dramatic indication of the Smart's poor performance but not the only one.
http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/Smart_ForTwo/
Once again, the eco-nuts favorite vehicles pull an epic FAIL!!
email that report to Olivia.
I posted it here when we were discussing her car.
She's seen it. Considers it to be Right-Wing Extremist propaganda, and racist.
Of course she does. Why am I not surprised? (LALALALALALAL LALALALALAA I can't HEAR you!!! playing in the background)
I've been waiting to hear news like this. That scrap is a nightmare. Bet they can't give them away. But Government Motors proudly says they intend to sell what, 10K of them next year? Haaa! Choke choke. Stimulas money destroys brain cells.
The Vega sold pretty well. But I think this is going to be more difficult.
The first new car I ever bought was a '76 Vega GT and it was a great little car. It would run a hole in the wind and get 38 MPG while doing it but, of course, the GT did not have a Chevy engine in it. They used a double overhead cam, Cosworth engine built in Great Britian instead and it was a good, dependable motor.
The Vega didn't explode in a fender bender, and was used extensively as the framework to carry an L-88 Corvette engine. Making it one hell of a fast street car!
Yeah, it was the Chevy motor that they designed specifically for the Vega that was a problem. Biggest joke of a motor I ever saw. GM decided they wanted a diesel for their pickups, so they just "converted" a gasoline block for diesel use. Anyone with any knowledge of diesel motors knew that wouldn't work, but GM built it and the ignorant public bought it. It's been a long time since I had any respect at all for GM.
Obama refers to it as the chevy ''vote.''
I guess "Volt" is Newspeak for "Trabant."
I was gonna leave it at that, but just gotta share some of this, it does sound familiar!
... reports inaccurately described them as having cardboard bodies...the body of the Trabant was Duroplast, a material that, in East German production, often made use of varying quantities of different fibers, such as cotton, or occasionally paper.
--
it could take years for a Trabant to be delivered from the time it was ordered,
--
The earlier models have no fuel gauge; a dipstick is inserted into the tank to determine how much fuel remains.
--the car lacked a fuel pump, the fuel tank was placed high up in the engine compartment so that fuel could be fed to the carburettor by gravity
--
With its mediocre performance, inefficient two-stroke engine, noxious fumes and production shortages, the Trabant is often cited as an example of the disadvantages of centralized planning;
--
And Number 1 on this week's Top Ten List! ---
... there was no place for the Trabant in the reunified German economy. The inefficient, labour-intensive production line was kept open only because of government subsidies.
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant
Yup, sounds like Chevy!
Symbol of Obama's Presidency - it's expensive, goes nowhere, and ends up in flames.
The Ford Pinto of the green generation...Unsafe at any speed.
Hey now! Don't be cussing the Pinto, it was a great little car!
Of course they blew up if hit just right, all cars could back then because they had metal gas tanks at the rear of the car. Gas explosions are rare today because of the advanced technology in fuel cells, not the design of the car.
The Pinto flaw was more significant than most other rear tank cars in that the impact required to crush the tank was minimal and the placement was such that fuel would then spew into the passenger compartment. This was only on the hatchback model, not the little wagon. Tank placement on the hatchback was really not well thought out. I kinda liked those cars back in the day, sorta.
I'd still rather have a Pinto.
OK Dean, time to fess up!
What the hell is your Gravatar picture?
I can't make it out clearly enough to tell.
If it were bigger, maybe, but not that small.
HeeHee, I had no idea what it was either. I even changed the zoom level on my computer to enlarge it and still had no clue. I guess I just shoot the gun and don't bother looking at the bullets afterward. ;)
I bet the block of gel didn't fare well.
milk jug full of water...leaks like a sieve now.
The picture is a fully expanded .45 ACP Winchester Black Talon, recovered from a block of ballistic gel. Pretty, ain't it?
Ahhhhh....I see!
Nice, very pretty Dean :)
Now that I know what it is, it's obvious to me!
Yea, it's real purty!
Well, in it's defense, the Volt didn't explode, it just caught fire.
Geez! You guys haven't figured out my sarcasm by now?
Well you are right, but the toxic fumes can kill just as quick....There are safety bulletins out about this car and the hazards it presents to first responders, basically stay upwind, and away from the vehicle if it catches fire. I don't see much difference except the pinto explodes first. I have seen a lithium battery explode...its ugly and can kill just as quick.
Plus with the pinto it was all over in a flash, this pile of government crap sat unattended for a couple weeks and then caught fire..Imagine it it were in your garage when that happened...
Since the government is so concerned about our personal safety, perhaps they could ban this clearly dangerous, expensive disaster. Oh. maybe not.
It doesn't have gasoline vapors to assist in the process.
Sorry, Rose. It does have a gas tank. So the combination of the battery's fumes, and gasoline fumes, is sure to be extra dangerous.
Oh. Well. Guess no redeeming factors then , huh?
It's the new Mission Impossible car, it self-destructs.
Mission Impossible: Sell more than 10,000 of them in a year.
Mission Impossible: Get good gas mileage after the batteries puke, which ain't long.