I just came across this article in the Economist, which isn't all bad. However, the intro paragraph is misleading in a way that is not worthy of the Economist, and actually quite embarrassing:
The Chevrolet Volt, a compact, petrol-electric hybrid launched by GM a year ago, was already selling poorly before it emerged last month that its batteries had caught fire in crash tests.
- It is true that Volt sales are poor, but they are not demand bound, rather they are production bound. The way this is stated here suggests a lack of demand which is clearly not the case.
For a start:http://www.green.autoblog.com/2011/09/22/chevy-volt-sales-whats-the-real... article is from September. I just recently read that in the mean time they are even selling the demos. If you cannot find the reference, I can probably find it for you.
- We all know that it is very very hard to blame the Volt's battery on the fires that stirred the media. The issue has also been discussed in these forums, e.g., here:
Here is another article that puts those fires into some context:
I feel that someone should write a letter to the editor, citing some sources and all. Unfortunately, I cannot find the time, but there are so many witty and dedicated folks in this forum that I am sure one or more letters will be written! :-) Thank you in advance.
Does this belong into the Model S forum? Most definitely yes! If well renowned publications like the Economist thoughtlessly make serious, misleading mistakes like this, it is going to hurt all vehicles that carry a battery and an electric motor.