Sales of the GM Volt.

[rwh11385]

here ya go, more info on .gov purchasing the volt to help green up the military.


The Pentagon is buying Chevrolet Volts to help “green up” the military—while propping up sales of the bailed-out automaker’s most politicized car.
The Department of Defense began purchasing the struggling luxury electric car, which retails at $40,000, this summer as part of its goal to purchase 1,500 such green vehicles. The Marine Corps Air Station in Miramar, Calif. purchased its first two Volts in July, and 18 more vehicles will come shortly to Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, where Air Force One is based, according to military magazine Stars and Stripes.


http://freebeacon.com/great-green-car-fleet/

Old news. As mentioned in about the global warming (or maybe this thread too already?) DoD is attempting to drastically reduce its oil consumption and be sustainable at each base.

http://solarfeeds.com/100-ev-at-los-angeles-air-force-base/

100% EV at Los Angeles Air Force Base

“With gas prices rising and the cost of batteries falling, now is the time to move toward electric vehicles,” says Under Secretary of the Air Force Erin Conaton. “The 100% Electric Vehicle Base initiative is a critical first step in this direction and will help guide the way for broader fleet electrification.”

“(Los Angeles) Air Force Base will serve as a model for future efforts to bring EVs into the Air Force and DOD,” says Camron Gorguinpour, Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics.

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=687eb8a9-0102-4507-8eb1-85dea2abc912

Moving forward, our goal is to develop more than 1,000 megawatts (MW) of renewable power, including more than 600MW from solar.
By making the most of private sector knowledge, technology, and financing, we plan to improve our energy security by capitalizing on underutilized land on our installations to develop those projects. Currently, the Air Force has 131 operational renewable energy projects and another 50 under construction across a wide variety of renewable energy sources, including 8.7MW from wind energy, 26.2MW from solar, and 2.4MW from waste-to-energy projects

In FY11, the Air Force spent $323 million on fuel for ground vehicles and equipment, or 96 million gallons, which equates to approximately 3% of the overall Air Force energy costs. This is an increase of $13 million from FY10, even though consumption declined by 20 million gallons. The Air Force is committed to reducing the amount of petroleum products it utilizes for its ground vehicle fleet, and has targets to reduce fossil fuel consumption 2% annually through 2020 while increasing alternative fuel usage 10% compounded annually by 2015. The Air Force has made significant progress towards both targets, seeing a reduction in vehicle petroleum consumption by 8% and an increase in alternative fuel use by 70% since 2005 (in its CONUS based vehicle fleet applicable to executive orders and federal mandates). The Air Force’s plan to meet its targets include: implementing an acquisition strategy to procure the right-sized, least cost vehicle option; maximizing the use of alternative fuels; and increasing the use of hybrid electric vehicles and explore the use of plug-in electric vehicles.

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/04/16/u-s-army-has-net-zero-vision-for-national-security/

U.S. Army Has Net Zero Vision for National Security

[MattTHEe30GURU]

The volt is nothing close to the Prius

[Vedubin01]

GM disputes claim it loses $49,000 per Volt sale

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-auto-chevrolet-volt-losses-20120910,0,3613718.story

[BraveUlysses]

Aww they even added a section just for the joshh's of the world

The car, which travels about 35 miles on electric power before a gasoline engine kicks in and extends the range by another 300 miles, has become a political football and favorite target of "GM haters" who are angry over the federal bailout, said Thilo Koslowski, an automotive analyst at research firm

and i must say i'm shocked, utterly shocked that he hasn't come in to continue his super-persuasive argument from a few days ago

[joshh]

If joshh were anything more than a troll he could at least find the data which tells us what percentage of the cost of a GM vehicle is due to assembly labor. If you wanted to make accusations that the cost of the vehicles is too high due to union labor you'd have to compare it to the labor costs of other vehicle manufacturers (don't forget most of them are unionized in other first world countries).

trolls gonna troll

Oh good thing you said in other countries because those same manufacturers, many of them are not union in the states. Where they assemble many of their cars for the American market.
UAW pensions....look it up.

[tjts1]

Once again joshh made a complete arse of himself. Keep up the great work.

[BraveUlysses]

Oh good thing you said in other countries because those same manufacturers, many of them are not union in the states. Where they assemble many of their cars for the American market.
UAW pensions....look it up.

I'm not talking about things like south carolina's non-union BMW plant or anything like that.

If you're going to claim that GM's union costs are too high, back it up with some data. To make a CONVINCING ARGUMENT you really should look at what percentage of the total cost of a GM vehicle is due to assembly labor. This should then be compared to the % of vehicle cost due to assembly of unionized workers in Japanese or European countries.

I know all about GM's pension woes but its your job to make your arguments and provide data to back your assertions.

[gwb72tii]

^^^
is it fair then to include the $30 billion GM still owes the taxpayer?

[joshh]

I'm not talking about things like south carolina's non-union BMW plant or anything like that.

If you're going to claim that GM's union costs are too high, back it up with some data. To make a CONVINCING ARGUMENT you really should look at what percentage of the total cost of a GM vehicle is due to assembly labor. This should then be compared to the % of vehicle cost due to assembly of unionized workers in Japanese or European countries.

I know all about GM's pension woes but its your job to make your arguments and provide data to back your assertions.

So you know about the woes of the UAW pensions yet you want data to back up the data you already know about. So you need data to show that the data you already have is adding to the cost of cars for GM.
Japan made a car built in Japan and shipped it over here. Sold it for approximately $22k and made a decent profit (the Acura Integra). While GM at the time was making cars in their own country, with mostly american made parts and they were not only over priced but poorly made (in comparison). And you think the bailout has somehow changed the UAW into a fine tuned machine that is just as efficient as the Japanese auto manufacturers?

And Toyota had to help teach GM how to build cars.

Yet GM is the one that needed the bailout...the UAW and the pensions are a part of the problem, not the only problem for GM and costs of their vehicles. I don't need to break out all the numbers to know that effects the cost of every car GM rolls off the line.
Even if you could find all the accurate numbers GM would just deny everything anyways...lol. Like their losses on the Volt so far.

[rwh11385]

So you know about the woes of the UAW pensions yet you want data to back up the data you already know about. So you need data to show that the data you already have is adding to the cost of cars for GM.
Japan made a car built in Japan and shipped it over here. Sold it for approximately $22k and made a decent profit (the Acura Integra). While GM at the time was making cars in their own country, with mostly american made parts and they were not only over priced but poorly made (in comparison). And you think the bailout has somehow changed the UAW into a fine tuned machine that is just as efficient as the Japanese auto manufacturers?

And Toyota had to help teach GM how to build cars.

Yet GM is the one that needed the bailout...the UAW and the pensions are a part of the problem, not the only problem for GM and costs of their vehicles. I don't need to break out all the numbers to know that effects the cost of every car GM rolls off the line.
Even if you could find all the accurate numbers GM would just deny everything anyways...lol. Like their losses on the Volt so far.

So again, your argument is completely based on history. You think that 2012 is the same as 1986?

Some things have changed in 26 years, even if you might not have cognitive flexibility to realize it.

One GIANT change is Detriot's ability to increase dramatically its labor hours per vehicle, which drops labor costs obviously. This was done by adopting modern practices, such as the flexible manufacturing systems you ignorantly made fun of.



This is still 5 years old: http://www.autoobserver.com/2007/05/...by-a-hair.html

The gap in 2007 is a scant five labor hours, roughly, from No. 6 Ford to No. 1 Toyota. Harbour said that amounts to no more than a $250 to $300 per vehicle cost disadvantage to the domestics.

That'€™s in stark contrast to 2002 when the gap from No. 1 then Nissan to No. 6 Chrysler was a difference of more than 11 labor hours and a cost disadvantage to the domestics compared with the Japanese manufacturers of $800 to 900 a vehicle, Harbour said.

"General Motors essentially caught Toyota in vehicle assembly productivity," Harbour said. "Considering that they will be building vehicles in 2007 with dramatically fewer hourly employees in the U.S., GM, Ford and Chrysler likely will reduce their hours per vehicle significantly."

At the same time, however, Harbour noted the labor hours do not take into account the domestics’ higher incentive costs and legacy costs in terms of pensions and health care for retirees. Added to that is the domestics’ slow response to shift to vehicles that consumers want to buy and pay nearly full price for without incentives or discounts.

These factors create the high cost disadvantage of the domestics versus their Japanese counterparts more than any difference on the factory floor, which is negligible. Harbour agrees with Detroit automakers that say their cost disadvantage is about $1,500 a vehicle.

^See, how hard is it to find a value for that disadvantage, even if it is outdated?

And they've worked to make cars that people want and cut incentives.

And Detroit is working to eliminate that whole pension liability - in a pretty savvy way.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/retirement/story/2012-07-11/pension-lump-sum-payout-or-monthly-check/56155910/1

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/06/14/gm-may-suggest-pension-buyouts-to-uaw/

And the white collars are a greater labor cost it seems:

http://www.workforce.com/article/20111130/NEWS01/111139998/detroit-3-salaried-labor-costs-to-overtake-uaw-hourly-costs-researcher-says

For the first time in modern history, overall salaried labor costs next year at the Detroit 3 are expected to exceed those of all UAW-represented factory workers, says Sean McAlinden, chief economist for the Center for Automotive Research, or CAR.

The center estimates that the Detroit 3's 66,000 salaried U.S. employees next year, earning on average at least $122,500 in cash compensation, will bring in slightly more total income than the carmakers' estimated 115,000 hourly workers earning about $69,000 each, McAlinden says.

Until 2009, hourly employment vastly exceeded salaried employment at the Detroit 3, said McAlinden, speaking on the sidelines of a CAR conference Nov. 29 on automotive labor in suburban Detroit. But plant closings and hourly attrition now has salaried employment accounting for about 37 percent of total U.S. employment at the Detroit 3, he said.

McAlinden said a recent pledge by General Motors Co. CEO Dan Akerson to cut vehicle platforms by half and consolidate advertising with fewer agencies recognized that salaried labor costs are mounting.

"It's really about where are we getting kicked on labor costs," McAlinden said.

An analysis by the center found that the new Detroit 3 contracts with the UAW, completed this autumn, will raise the cost of hourly labor less than 1 percent annually over the contracts' four years.

At GM, that means UAW labor costs will add just $85 per North American vehicle built over the four years to $1,702 from $1,617, McAlinden said. The additional cost in four years to Ford is $96 per vehicle to $1,756 from $1,660. At Chrysler, the cost per vehicle rises to $1,293 from $1,127 today.

There's their numbers, but can't find Toyota's.

[Vedubin01]

^^^ on a side note, how the hell do you hold a job and are able to make long in depth posts like that?

[rwh11385]

^^^ on a side note, how the hell do you hold a job and are able to make long in depth posts like that?

Probably because I'm not at work right now. Why do you post on the job?

[BraveUlysses]

Even if you could find all the accurate numbers GM would just deny everything anyways...lol. Like their losses on the Volt so far.

No, because I'm not particularly fond of GM in general. I tried helping you make a less terrible argument but you try to turn it into a way to attack me over a position I don't hold.

[rwh11385]

Would have posted this earlier, but still recovering some the flu or something that has had me out of commission the majority of the past few days.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2012/09/14/more-evidence-that-gm-is-not-going-bankrupt/

General Motors got some good news Friday: its first investment grade credit rating since going bankrupt in 2009.

DBRS, Canada’s largest credit rating agency, upgraded GM to BBB (low) from BB (high), citing its robust financial profile due to a strong balance sheet, with low debt, and solid earnings performance over the past two and a half years. DBRS also upgraded Ford Motor to BBB (low), putting both U.S. automakers into investment grade territory.

Here’s what DBRS thinks of GM:

“While DBRS recognizes that the Company is currently facing significant headwinds in certain regions, notably Europe, this is expected to be largely offset by ongoing solid performance across other end markets.” It added: “The Company’s progress in its core North American market has been impressive amid industry conditions that, while improving, remain below historical norms. The strong results of GM’s North American operations (GMNA) incorporate higher volumes and firmer pricing that are not only a function of moderately improving industry conditions, but also reflect GM’s success in introducing new vehicle models, most of which have been well received in the marketplace and are attaining higher pricing and segment share vis-à-vis their predecessors.”

DBRS said new products such as the Chevrolet Malibu and Spark should significantly enhance GM’s profile across the small and medium car segments. Next year, the Company is planning several further product launches, including models derived from its next-generation pick-up and SUV platform, which should further bolster the segment’s already-solid profit margins.

[...]

Overall, however, GM’s financial profile is strong, with $27 billion in net cash, and strong cash flow. While GM initially benefited by dumping many of its obligations in bankruptcy, DBRS said, “GM has proved successful in upholding its balance sheet (and even strengthening it considerably further).”

As much as joshh assumes GM will go back to its old ways, it's finding success in their Confidence pricing within Chevy and selling better cars at higher transaction prices.

[rwh11385]

And Prius Plug-in vs. Ampera:

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/toyota/prius/59978/toyota-prius-plug-vs-vauxhall-ampera

Verdict

Toyota claims that, after an extensive trial period, it found most city journeys are less than 12 miles long. Yet even driving that short distance in these two cars is enough to convince you which one is better.

Although the Prius Plug-in is over £2,000 cheaper than the entry-level Ampera, and has a more practical interior, overall it trails in this test. It just doesn’t do enough to justify the premium over the normal Prius.

The extended electric range offered by the new battery technology means it’s smoother and more efficient in town, but once the petrol engine hums into life, the Plug-in drives like any other Prius. While the Ampera can be driven like an EV at all times – with strong, near-silent, virtually instant performance – when the Toyota’s battery runs flat it feels just like a normal Prius, which means it lacks the refinement and comfort you expect in a car costing nearly £28,000.

Toyota sees this kind of hybrid as a stop-gap until battery range improves, but by choosing to sit in the middle, the Plug-in offers many of the drawbacks of a range-extender with little – if any – of the benefits. On that basis it finishes a distant second here.

Company car buyers who do high mileages will be better off in a diesel, but for urban commuters who occasionally stray further afield, the Vauxhall is a compelling alternative and claims a deserved win.

It's really challenging to notice the gas generator being on in the Volt, it sounds like a fan whirring instead of an engine.