Sales of the GM Volt.

[rwh11385]

Honda is joining the club next year as well: http://www.autoblog.com/2012/10/03/2...-drive-review/

First, let's discuss the different drives (not Modes, remember, even though it's oh-so-easy to call them that). First, know that the Accord is the first to use Honda's Earth Dreams two-motor hybrid system that employs a 2.0-liter iVTEC Atkinson cycle engine electrically coupled to a Continuously Variable Transmission. The engine does 10-percent better on fuel economy than Honda's last 2.0-liter and provides an overall power output of 196 horsepower and 226 lb-ft of torque.
EV Drive. Here, the only energy moving the car comes mostly from the battery. When starting with a full battery pack, the engine will not kick in under normal city driving until the pack is depleted, which should take 10-15 miles. When the driver requests "higher speeds or under high demand for acceleration," the gasoline engine will turn on "to provide additional power." This drive operation automatically comes on during deceleration. The official top speed in EV Drive is around 80 miles per hour and an electric A/C compressor and water heater allow the car to stay in EV mode longer.
Hybrid Drive: This is where the Accord PHEV does its best Chevrolet Volt impression. The battery is still used, when there's juice, but mostly, Hybrid Drive only gets the engine running in order to send electricity straight to the 124-kW electric traction motor. The engine does not turn the wheels directly.
Engine Drive: Now we're in standard internal combustion territory, because this is when the gasoline engine provides direct drive of the wheels. Battery? What battery?

Volvo too (maybe not in 'Merica though):

http://green.autoblog.com/2012/11/20/volvo-starts-production-of-v60-diesel-plug-in-hybrid-first-anyw/

Volvo's production and sales forecast is small scale, but it does seem to be moving the metal. Volvo initially announced a target of making 1,000 of the 2013 models, but high advance orders led the company to ramp up production levels. Production will increase to between 4,000 and 6,000 cars for the 2014 model year.

It's not clear when these V60s will be arriving in the US. Americans have become more interested in buying "clean diesel" vehicles, and the plug-in hybrid mileage benefits could add to the V60's market appeal. They're not cheap – reports said it would cost around the equivalent of $81,000 US –but they are expected to sell out in Europe. "The first year's 1,000-car batch was sold out even before the car reached the showrooms and the order books for next year's cars are already filling up,"

In joshh's opinion, Volvo must be a moronic car company, right? Selling diesel plug-ins for $81,000 and only targeting 1,000 a year to start.


The true question will be what amount of kwh and EV-only range will people demand. Everyone seemed to doubt 35-38 miles usefulness, although the data showed that covers most people's daily commutes. All of the competing PHEVs come up way short of the Volt's range, but even the 10 miles of the Prius and Honda might cover some people... Perhaps eventually make two versions? Low and high range? Less batteries = less weight and cost but then also have a 60 mile range one?




60 miles of EV-only range would satisfy 80% of daily commutes. 38 miles covers roughly 65%?

The competing 10-20 miles provide coverage 20-40% of daily commutes, respectfully.

Regardless of how Chevy decides to design its Gen II Volt (2015 model year), it will be releasing it while other makes are still bringing out their first gen PHEVs. It took a leap ahead in technology and for a change of pace GM has been ahead of the competition after being late adopters to tech. Still ironic that people burned them for being early adopters or trendsetters.

http://gm-volt.com/2012/08/27/volt-expected-to-get-new-platform-by-2015-model-year/

Volt likely to to get new platform by 2015 model year
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...ext-chevy-volt

For starters, I thought of the most obvious factors: The Volt needs to get lighter, less expensive and more energy efficient. (But then again, what doesn't?) That sentiment was echoed by Volt chief engineer Andrew Farah when I spoke with him at the January 2011 North American International Auto Show. "We're already looking at other portfolio opportunities," Farah told me (meaning other types and sizes of vehicles that might be good candidates for Voltec powertrains). "We're also looking into what Gen II might be. Among other things, we need serious cost reduction."

They were planning on leveraging from the beginning, which is just basic sense.

http://www.dailytech.com/GM+Hopes+to+Cut+Next+Generation+Volt+MSRP+by+7500/article20823.htm

GM Hopes to Cut Next Generation Volt MSRP by $7,500

[joshh]

What? Do you know how to type a complete thought? What about it goes without saying? What exactly is fail? Do you even know what you are trying to say?

And glad you have proven you determine success or failure based on ignorance.


What is your definition of terrible sales? What hard number for a car is failure? Should all car companies stop producing vehicles that sell less than 3K a month? Would you want the M5 to be killed off because it's a terrible failure?


I really think you should become educated in the meaning of words before you use them. Talking about when a car was designed when you claim the order of events was different from reality is NOT a red herring. It is directly relevant to the subject at hand, although you object because it doesn't support your twisted and incorrect view of the world, which is based on ignorance and bias.


The government didn't tell GM to build the Volt in exchange for them handing money hand over fist as you said, mostly because it was Bob Lutz's push and years before the recession, bankruptcy, and bailout. The concept was shown in January 2007, with lots of research and testing obviously completely before that. The lack of understanding or care for facts that leads your arguments to attempt to say that the bailout money directed the design of the Volt is incredibly stupid and demonstrates you are at a complete lack of credibility here.

Have they not redesigned most of their vehicles and improved their "bread and butter cars"? Is the Volt not a halo car and a technological platform for future vehicles? (Which is proving its value for that in leveraging the technology in other vehicles and legitimatizing their Eco models.)


So you first hate them for making an EV halo car and being the first to market in the US with a PHEV because it wasn't competitive, and as other makes have followed in their footsteps in the same cost range and they have leveraged the technology into a model that even you think is competitive, you are still complaining.

What? On what basis do you have to claim that the Volt technology is 'very expensive to use'?? Development and research costs are very different than manufacturing cost and service expense.

You know how I feel about the Volt but you ask me about a car that's supposedly worse than the Volt and you whine about my answer. The answer is the same as the Volt..Fail. Limited market. Maybe don't ask a question you already know the answer to in the future.

Ah yes comparing cars in completely different markets to one another...brilliant as usual. Maybe you can bring up the M1 again...

No you missed the point as usual. The design means nothing when it's clear it won't be profitable. Or when it was designed. Should I put that in bold for you? Many people would love to have the car...but they can't afford it.

Leveraged *some * of the technology into a much cheaper car. You love to ignore the fact GM did all it could to lower the cost of the Volt to make it as affordable as possible. They won't possible be able to take all the technology out of the Volt and transfer it into the Spark. And now you're trying to twist my words as usual to imply that I'm completely against anything GM does. Your desperation is hitting again.

[joshh]

Honda is joining the club next year as well: http://www.autoblog.com/2012/10/03/2...-drive-review/



Volvo too (maybe not in 'Merica though):

http://green.autoblog.com/2012/11/20/volvo-starts-production-of-v60-diesel-plug-in-hybrid-first-anyw/

In joshh's opinion, Volvo must be a moronic car company, right? Selling diesel plug-ins for $81,000 and only targeting 1,000 a year to start.


The true question will be what amount of kwh and EV-only range will people demand. Everyone seemed to doubt 35-38 miles usefulness, although the data showed that covers most people's daily commutes. All of the competing PHEVs come up way short of the Volt's range, but even the 10 miles of the Prius and Honda might cover some people... Perhaps eventually make two versions? Low and high range? Less batteries = less weight and cost but then also have a 60 mile range one?




60 miles of EV-only range would satisfy 80% of daily commutes. 38 miles covers roughly 65%?

The competing 10-20 miles provide coverage 20-40% of daily commutes, respectfully.

Regardless of how Chevy decides to design its Gen II Volt (2015 model year), it will be releasing it while other makes are still bringing out their first gen PHEVs. It took a leap ahead in technology and for a change of pace GM has been ahead of the competition after being late adopters to tech. Still ironic that people burned them for being early adopters or trendsetters.

http://gm-volt.com/2012/08/27/volt-expected-to-get-new-platform-by-2015-model-year/

Volt likely to to get new platform by 2015 model year
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...ext-chevy-volt

They were planning on leveraging from the beginning, which is just basic sense.

http://www.dailytech.com/GM+Hopes+to+Cut+Next+Generation+Volt+MSRP+by+7500/article20823.htm

GM Hopes to Cut Next Generation Volt MSRP by $7,500

Volvo's target market is willing to pay more than GM's.

Your GM link for their $7500.00 cost savings is from the beginning of 2011...

[rwh11385]

You know how I feel about the Volt but you ask me about a car that's supposedly worse than the Volt and you whine about my answer. The answer is the same as the Volt..Fail. Limited market. Maybe don't ask a question you already know the answer to in the future.

You make a solid point. Everybody is already aware of your close-minded and ignorant opinions on everything, and regardless of facts or logic, you will always repeat the same stupid comments.

I don't think the Fusion Energi is 'worse'. I've been looking forward to it, for legitimizing the segment and also looks much better than the average modern Ford product. The fact is that it will cost more than the Volt with less range and therefore it is hard to argue that the Volt is overpriced compared to it. But instead of educating yourself on something, you make judgments based on ignorance.

Ah yes comparing cars in completely different markets to one another...brilliant as usual. Maybe you can bring up the M1 again...

Why does the market matter if we are talking about investing in drivetrain technology and sufficient sales to cover it? Explain to me your 'logic' that it is fine for BMW to spend a lot on engine technology for a halo vehicle but is stupid when GM does the same thing?

No you missed the point as usual. The design means nothing when it's clear it won't be profitable. Or when it was designed. Should I put that in bold for you? Many people would love to have the car...but they can't afford it.

NO, you have forgotten your own point you attempted to make, that the Volt was designed based on what the government dictated in the bailout, although you poor understanding of facts and the truth make it challenging for you to see this was incorrect.

What cost is affordable enough for you for a halo car? If you are going to be making judgments you should be capable of providing your limits or target values, instead of simply avoiding the question, repeatedly.

Leveraged *some * of the technology into a much cheaper car. You love to ignore the fact GM did all it could to lower the cost of the Volt to make it as affordable as possible.

Really? On what basis are you claiming that the GenI Volt is as good as they can get? That they can't make it more affordable? Do you have any facts to back your statement, or just more ignorance?

"The mission was to engineer and get the Volt ready for production as fast as we could," Bereisa says, "which meant employing as many off-the-shelf parts as possible. When you use available components, you're probably carrying a little more cost and mass than you need, since every component had to do something else, probably in a larger vehicle. So I think literally thousands of dollars can come out of that car. And by the time they get to Gen II, it'll be a very cost-effective proposition."

That includes the battery, Bereisa says. "I think we'll see that down to maybe $200 per kilowatt-hour in two to three years, even without major innovations. And I foresee at least twice the energy density in five to seven years." If he's right, that would mean half the weight and maybe half the cost to carry the same amount of onboard energy.

The next Volt will probably have aero drag, rolling resistance and accessory load improvements, too. While overall vehicle efficiency is much less critical to an EREV like the Volt than to a battery-only car like the Nissan Leaf, it significantly affects both electric range and gasoline fuel economy.

The Volt's fuel economy has room to improve, Bereisa says. "When we modeled the Volt's engine, theoretically we could have gotten to the high 40s or even low 50s in mpg in gasoline mode. But we would have had to run the engine continuously at 3500 to 3800 rpm and just switch it on and off." But that didn't work, he says—it was too noisy. "We had to drop the engine rpm down, and that got us to 37 to 38 mpg. But I think a lot of gasoline fuel economy still can be gained without major expenditures in tooling or engineering."

GM could also choose to redo the four-cylinder gas engine for the next Volt. For the international market, the automaker could take that same basic engine to Brazil and run it on pure alcohol while the rest of the vehicle stays the same, or it could swap in a small, direct-injected diesel and run it on biodiesel for Europe. Here in the U.S., one near-term improvement Bereisa says GM should be working on is certifying the Volt for E85 fuel. "Volt drivers are averaging over 1000 miles before refueling; then they're adding back about eight gallons of gasoline. That works out to 125 mpg. But if you really want to reduce petroleum consumption, E85 in the Voltec architecture would do a phenomenal job," he says. GM, though, says there are no current plans to make the Volt engine E85-capable, since that would add some cost and the availability of E85 fuel is still slim in most areas.

The electric side of the Voltec system is due for an upgrade as well, Bereisa says. The Volt has two electric motors onboard: A 149-hp motor powers the car, but when the battery is depleted, the engine spins a 74-hp generator to supply additional electrical energy. To power a larger, heavier car, Bereisa suggests spinning both. "Because you can run the generator as a second motor, and pick the time and conditions under which it becomes a motor, you can cover a lot of vehicle sizes and masses," he says.

So how do I see Volt and Voltec evolving in the next several years? Voltec technology will proliferate to a variety of GM vehicles, including larger cars and crossovers, but those new vehicles are several years down the road.

Now that the Volt is a proven concept, GM will fine-tune it into a great car. Expect a slightly smaller but much lighter, more fuel-efficient and more affordable Volt that runs 35 to 60 miles on battery power, achieves mid-40s mpg on gas and sells in the low- to mid-$30,000 range.

I guess the chief engineer for the Volt has a different opinion than you on the ability to draw out more costs from it... I wonder whose words ought to carry more weight?

They won't possible be able to take all the technology out of the Volt and transfer it into the Spark. And now you're trying to twist my words as usual to imply that I'm completely against anything GM does. Your desperation is hitting again.

No, but they will for the ELR. Don't forget the Ampera either! And can add some electrification to the Cruze and the Equinox as well.

No, I'm pointing out that you criticize regardless of results - because you are simply interested in confirming what you assumed in the first place rather than learning and being informed like people who want to have an educated discussion on a subject.

Volvo's target market is willing to pay more than GM's.

Your GM link for their $7500.00 cost savings is from the beginning of 2011...

Case in point... when GM makes a car that BMW and Audi drivers trade in towards, critics try to say that having drivers with high incomes choosing their car is a bad thing. However, making as many cars as the Volt sells in a couple months and selling for twice as much money is a "target market willing to pay more". No hating on low production or low sales comparatively, because... double standard.

Yes, and did they magically decide to not aim for $7500 cost savings from their $41,000 MSRP? They've taken $1000 off of it, as the PM article said about incremental changes, but with better optimization of parts and not just off-the-shelf stuff for a proof of concept production model, there's room for improvement. If nothing else, seeing the majority of other automakers chase the Volt (and not be able to outdo its range in a PHEV nor dramatically make cheaper ones) underlines that it was a good strategic move. Of course, simple-minded people who don't understand the auto industry nor technology might not understand that.

[joshh]

So after all the complaints about the Volt's price, Ford's offerings (of less capable PHEVs) will sandwich the Volt above and beyond based on a smaller and larger vehicle. (~$30K for Prius Plug-in and C-Max, $32Kish for Volt, $35Kish for Fusion) Prius PHEV has ~10 miles on a full charge, C-Max ~20, and Volt 38.

You make a solid point. Everyone already know your close-minded and ignorant opinions on everything and regardless of facts or logic, you will always repeat the same stupid comments.

I don't think the Fusion Energi is 'worse'. I've been looking forward to it, for legitimizing the segment and also looks much better than the average modern Ford product. The fact is that it will cost more than the Volt with less range and therefore it is hard to argue that the Volt is overpriced compared to it. But instead of educating yourself on something, you make judgments based on ignorance.


Why does the market matter if we are talking about investing in drivetrain technology and sufficient sales to cover it? Explain to me your 'logic' that it is fine for BMW to spend a lot on engine technology for a halo vehicle but is stupid when GM does the same thing?


NO, you have forgotten your own point you attempted to make, that the Volt was designed based on what the government dictated in the bailout, although you poor understanding of facts and the truth make it challenging for you to see this was incorrect.

What cost is affordable enough for you for a halo car? If you are going to be making judgments you should be capable of providing your limits or target values, instead of simply avoiding the question, repeatedly.


Really? On what basis are you claiming that the GenI Volt is as good as they can get? That they can't make it more affordable? Do you have any facts to back your statement, or just more ignorance?



I guess the chief engineer for the Volt has a different opinion than you on the ability to draw out more costs from it... I wonder whose words ought to carry more weight?


No, but they will for the ELR. And can add some electrification to the Cruze and the Equinox as well.

No, I'm pointing out that you criticize regardless of results - because you are simply interested in confirming what you assumed in the first place rather than learning and being informed like people who want to have an educated discussion on a subject.

Playing up for the crowd again I see.
So the Ford is less capable and more expensive but not "worse". I think you've worked yourself into a corner here.


You're asking why someone with a higher money flow would be more willing to purchase a vehicle from a car manufacturer known to sell cars with a higher sticker price. That's ridiculous. People that have more money will typically buy a more expensive car. Why people that make more money typically buy Volvos, BMWs, Mercedes, etc. Actors and acteresses were buying the prius because it was new technology. If Volvo makes that technology the people with money will go for the Volvo over the Prius or the Volt. You should give this one up right now.


Your question is framed around the fact that you fail to understand that GM made a very expensive car *knowingly*. Yet you continue to claim I'm avoiding your question. GM should never have made the Volt in the first place and used that idea to make a car that would have been competitive right away at a lower cost instead of it being a drain on the company. Like the Volt is now.

And I'm pointing out your link is two years old that GM is/was going to make the Volt $7500.00 cheaper. That it's a car that needs the government to give Americans money and very good leasing deals to get them off the lots. Also they should have made a car that hit the affordable market with less expensive technology considering the bad economy.

[joshh]

[

Case in point... when GM makes a car that BMW and Audi drivers trade in towards, critics try to say that having drivers with high incomes choosing their car is a bad thing. However, making as many cars as the Volt sells in a couple months and selling for twice as much money is a "target market willing to pay more". No hating on low production or low sales comparatively, because... double standard.

That's not a double standard. It just proves you don't understand how Audi, Volvo, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche etc can stay in business.
People that have money that buy the Volt buy it for the technology just like they did with the Prius. It makes them feel good. But guess what. When an auto manufacturer makes an electric car that cost 100k+ they buy that as well. Is that a double standard as well?

[rwh11385]

That's not a double standard. It just proves you don't understand how Audi, Volvo, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche etc can stay in business.
People that have money that buy the Volt buy it for the technology just like they did with the Prius. It makes them feel good. But guess what. When an auto manufacturer makes an electric car that cost 100k+ they buy that as well. Is that a double standard as well?

And what did the Prius do after the early adopters?

You don't understand the auto industry and it's hilarious that you tell other people that they don't. Irony at its finest.

You attest that 3K a month is failure, yet it's fine when BMW does it because it's a different market. How come tooling costs don't matter for one manufacturer but does another? If anything, you are again missing the point that the platform for the Volt is the same as the Cruze, one of GM's top selling cars so unit costs for the vehicle outside of the drivetrain is low.

Who would have ever guessed that rich people would buy a Chevy for its technology? Or when the Hummer H2 was the archetype for GM that the new icon would be an electric car that people criticize as being for the greenies? Bob Lutz pulled a paradigm shift he wanted to, and you fail to appreciate that. Probably because you are too busy trying to defend your stupid and ignorant arguments to consider it.

Playing up for the crowd again I see.
So the Ford is less capable and more expensive but not "worse". I think you've worked yourself into a corner here.

Not really, if you actually understand what I am talking about. A Corvette has zero plug-in capability, but does that mean it is worse than a Volt. I also posted information that describes that the daily commutes distribution and the Fusion can deliver some people their daily driving amount all-electric. It's a balance between weight, cost, and then the range people need. However, the car isn't bad from what I've seen, although it has less battery capacity. For some, it might be enough, although it is not as capable in the PHEV manner in which the Volt is the leader thus far in its market. Even the Karma has 32 miles range, for a $100K sticker price. But one metric doesn't determine a better or worse car as they have different qualities and features.

Maybe if you knew more about cars and was less simple, you'd understand.

You're asking why someone with a higher money flow would be more willing to purchase a vehicle from a car manufacturer known to sell cars with a higher sticker price. That's ridiculous. People that have more money will typically buy a more expensive car. Why people that make more money typically buy Volvos, BMWs, Mercedes, etc. Actors and acteresses were buying the prius because it was new technology. If Volvo makes that technology the people with money will go for the Volvo over the Prius or the Volt. You should give this one up right now.

So people's incomes determine what car they must buy? Not their features, quality, or performance? Interesting argument there.

Who buys Prius now? Just actors and actresses? Oh wait.

Your question is framed around the fact that you fail to understand that GM made a very expensive car *knowingly*. Yet you continue to claim I'm avoiding your question. GM should never have made the Volt in the first place and used that idea to make a car that would have been competitive right away at a lower cost instead of it being a drain on the company. Like the Volt is now.

What? Again, everyone knows that the batteries add expense to the car, but considering that the point was to prove they could make a capable PHEV which could greatly reduce the fuel use while not being limited to an EV's range, they reached their goal. But your use of the word "overpriced" fails to account for the other important consideration, value. The Volt provides the ability to drive without gasoline for much of its driver's intended use and is much more capable than other series hybrids in which it beat to market.

You are completely ignorant of the auto industry yet you think you are capable of judging what is a bad idea and determining if they should have made the car in the first place. Lutz's original idea was to make [another] electric car but the strategy was to get past the typical American concern about range, especially as the battery capability was not there to provide practical EVs yet. They proved that extended range EVs could be sought and initiated the market segment and being chased by nearly every automaker now. Yet you don't think it was an intelligent move?

If they would have made a pure BEV to start, they would have been criticized for making something no one wanted and that most Americans don't trust to suit their needs. The PHEV proved that they don't have to be limited by an EV's range and you have seen how the Leaf's sales have done! How stupid must you be to think that it would have been a better move for GM to make another electric car like the Leaf instead of their strategy with the Volt!

Tesla spent a ton of Musk's money to provide a proof of concept EV that used a bunch of laptop batteries strapped together to make it possible, mostly because the automotive EV battery industry wasn't what it was back when the Roadster was made. Why should GM base all of their car's ability on an infant industry instead of proving flexibility that can utilize the existing fuel network as well as new technology? Musk is building a network of superchargers to enable open range of his Model S, but GM couldn't rely on the wealth of paypal's founder to construct infrastructure so they went with a series hybrid instead which was a genius move and decision on Lutz's part.

The fact that you don't understand all of this makes you completely incapable of arguing anything but your biased ignorant opinion about something you have no idea about.

And I'm pointing out your link is two years old that GM is/was going to make the Volt $7500.00 cheaper. That it's a car that needs the government to give Americans money and very good leasing deals to get them off the lots. Also they should have made a car that hit the affordable market with less expensive technology considering the bad economy.

Does the link being two years old change the realities of GM is looking to take more cost out of the Volt? That it knows where and how to do it and will optimize it better - when it is simply not a proof of concept vehicle?

WHEN WAS THE CAR DESIGNED? 2006 and earlier, debuted January 2007.

Considering the bad economy? They should have predicted the financial crisis and build a car in 2006 to suit gas prices being cut in half because of it, people losing jobs because of Wall Street's selling of mortgage-backed securities? They should have continued basing their strategy on cheap, crappy cars instead of being front runners in technology which people sought instead of dated tech which people found in 90s GMs?

Your stupid argument is that they should have spent money on a cheap EV without any attention to range anxiety in a time when everyone saw the economy growing, because... they should have known the economy in 2009 was going to be bad.

[joshh]

And what did the Prius do after the early adopters?

You don't understand the auto industry and it's hilarious that you tell other people that they don't. Irony at its finest.

You attest that 3K a month is failure, yet it's fine when BMW does it because it's a different market. How come tooling costs don't matter for one manufacturer but does another? If anything, you are again missing the point that the platform for the Volt is the same as the Cruze, one of GM's top selling cars so unit costs for the vehicle outside of the drivetrain is low.

Who would have ever guessed that rich people would buy a Chevy for its technology? Or when the Hummer H2 was the archetype for GM that the new icon would be an electric car that people criticize as being for the greenies? Bob Lutz pulled a paradigm shift he wanted to, and you fail to appreciate that. Probably because you are too busy trying to defend your stupid and ignorant arguments to consider it.


Not really, if you actually understand what I am talking about. A Corvette has zero plug-in capability, but does that mean it is worse than a Volt. I also posted information that describes that the daily commutes distribution and the Fusion can deliver some people their daily driving amount all-electric. It's a balance between weight, cost, and then the range people need. However, the car isn't bad from what I've seen, although it has less battery capacity. For some, it might be enough, although it is not as capable in the PHEV manner in which the Volt is the leader thus far in its market. Even the Karma has 32 miles range, for a $100K sticker price. But one metric doesn't determine a better or worse car as they have different qualities and features.

Maybe if you knew more about cars and was less simple, you'd understand.


So people's incomes determine what car they must buy? Not their features, quality, or performance? Interesting argument there.

Who buys Prius now? Just actors and actresses? Oh wait.


What? Again, everyone knows that the batteries add expense to the car, but considering that the point was to prove they could make a capable PHEV which could greatly reduce the fuel use while not being limited to an EV's range, they reached their goal. But your use of the word "overpriced" fails to account for the other important consideration, value. The Volt provides the ability to drive without gasoline for much of its driver's intended use and is much more capable than other series hybrids in which it beat to market.

You are completely ignorant of the auto industry yet you think you are capable of judging what is a bad idea and determining if they should have made the car in the first place. Lutz's original idea was to make [another] electric car but the strategy was to get past the typical American concern about range, especially as the battery capability was not there to provide practical EVs yet. They proved that extended range EVs could be sought and initiated the market segment and being chased by nearly every automaker now. Yet you don't think it was an intelligent move?

If they would have made a pure BEV to start, they would have been criticized for making something no one wanted and that most Americans don't trust to suit their needs. The PHEV proved that they don't have to be limited by an EV's range and you have seen how the Leaf's sales have done! How stupid must you be to think that it would have been a better move for GM to make another electric car like the Leaf instead of their strategy with the Volt!

Tesla spent a ton of Musk's money to provide a proof of concept EV that used a bunch of laptop batteries strapped together to make it possible, mostly because the automotive EV battery industry wasn't what it was back when the Roadster was made. Why should GM base all of their car's ability on an infant industry instead of proving flexibility that can utilize the existing fuel network as well as new technology? Musk is building a network of superchargers to enable open range of his Model S, but GM couldn't rely on the wealth of paypal's founder to construct infrastructure so they went with a series hybrid instead which was a genius move and decision on Lutz's part.

The fact that you don't understand all of this makes you completely incapable of arguing anything but your biased ignorant opinion about something you have no idea about.


Does the link being two years old change the realities of GM is looking to take more cost out of the Volt? That it knows where and how to do it and will optimize it better - when it is simply not a proof of concept vehicle?

WHEN WAS THE CAR DESIGNED? 2006 and earlier, debuted January 2007.

Considering the bad economy? They should have predicted the financial crisis and build a car in 2006 to suit gas prices being cut in half because of it, people losing jobs because of Wall Street's selling of mortgage-backed securities? They should have continued basing their strategy on cheap, crappy cars instead of being front runners in technology which people sought instead of dated tech which people found in 90s GMs?

Your stupid argument is that they should have spent money on a cheap EV without any attention to range anxiety in a time when everyone saw the economy growing, because... they should have known the economy in 2009 was going to be bad.

Oh good so you can admit the Volt is a very expensive technology even though it shares a chassis with another car and that GM worked very hard to get the cost of the Volt as low as possible...lol. That's a start.
BMW sold 1.6 million units (far fewer than GM, Toyota, Honda, Ford etc) in 2011. Could that mean they make more profit per car. Profit of 11%. Your comparison of the upper end cars vs the Volt is a poor model to go by and that's why. Thus showing your ignorance the auto industry.

What's the cost of the Prius? What was the cost of the Prius? Rhetorical, the Prius had a rough time because it had no market but it was far cheaper than the Volt. It's challenge was less it's cost than it's market. The Volt has a market but GM priced it out of it's market and the sales prove it.

Oh there you go again modifying my argument as if I was arguing for GM to make a full EV car...lol. Actually the word I used was competitive. I didn't say EV. That would mean they redesign the Volt into a smaller car and redesign the technology so it's cheaper to compete closer to Hybrids yet they can say it's "better" than a Hybrid.

Nice try there. The Volt concept car debuted in 2007. The production model debuted in Sept 2008. Very different cars. A full year after the crash had started. But GM knew they were getting a bailout by this time. It wasn't till June 2009 that the first Volts rolled off the line.

[nando]

uh.. Joshh, remind us, when did Lehman Brothers collapse? was that 2007, or 2008?

you seem to remember things however you want to despite what the facts are.

[tjts1]

Joshh is unencumbered by facts and proud of it. Stop trying to bring him down to reality.

[rwh11385]

Oh good so you can admit the Volt is a very expensive technology even though it shares a chassis with another car and that GM worked very hard to get the cost of the Volt as low as possible...lol. That's a start.

When did I say that the batteries weren't expensive? Your argument was about overpriced, which has to take into account value. The costly batteries (and the amount) provide an ability that no other car could provide (combination of EV-only then gasoline generator range extender). A high-tech V8 costs more than a basic low-tech 4 cylinder, but is it necessarily 'overpriced' if it provides greater value and performance?

You keep saying that tooling costs are great and the Volt is expensive to make, but outside of the battery costs and research and development, what great expense does GM face for making the model that aren't shared by the Cruze? A large fixed costs for the drivetrain that has been leveraged and will be leveraged more to make a half million electricified vehicles in the coming future, and slight costs for cosmetic differences between the Volt, Ampera, and ELR. The chassis is the Cruze's with the Voltec system.

BMW sold 1.6 million units (far fewer than GM, Toyota, Honda, Ford etc) in 2011. Could that mean they make more profit per car. Profit of 11%. Your comparison of the upper end cars vs the Volt is a poor model to go by and that's why. Thus showing your ignorance the auto industry.

What's why? Profit margin? That is based on price and cost. Your argument was that sales of 3K a month for a car model is utter failure, because of tooling expenses. So the only reason that BMW isn't a failure is that they overprice their cars? Which is what you are saying GM is doing and why they are stupid.

What's your experience in the auto industry?

What's the cost of the Prius? What was the cost of the Prius? Rhetorical, the Prius had a rough time because it had no market but it was far cheaper than the Volt. It's challenge was less it's cost than it's market. The Volt has a market but GM priced it out of it's market and the sales prove it.

The Volt was the PHEV market. It is priced in the middle of that market. The Prius was more costly than alternatives without hybrid technology and was sold at a loss by Toyota - its price was cheaper but not reflective of its cost. Once the market was proven for hyrbids, it grew and the Prius was at the heart of it. Likewise, GM is poised to capture the lion's share of the market it created. It is the technology leader in the market and ahead of the competition.

Oh there you go again modifying my argument as if I was arguing for GM to make a full EV car...lol. Actually the word I used was competitive. I didn't say EV. That would mean they redesign the Volt into a smaller car and redesign the technology so it's cheaper to compete closer to Hybrids yet they can say it's "better" than a Hybrid.

Maybe you should go back to what you said in response to the Spark EV:

This is what they should have done from the start.

Nice try there. The Volt concept car debuted in 2007. The production model debuted in Sept 2008. Very different cars. A full year after the crash had started. But GM knew they were getting a bailout by this time. It wasn't till June 2009 that the first Volts rolled off the line.

What? You are arguing that the crash started and was aware of before Sept 2007?

And GM knew they were getting a bailout in 2007 or 2008? Even long before they knew they were going to go bankrupt two years later after the financial crisis that was apparently known although it had not happened yet?

Although the body changed, did the strategy or theory behind the drivetrain (the primary expense) change?

The pure insanity that you spew in order to rationalize your ignorant biased opinions is impressive, although also sad.

[rwh11385]

uh.. Joshh, remind us, when did Lehman Brothers collapse? was that 2007, or 2008?

you seem to remember things however you want to despite what the facts are.

He bends reality to suit his ignorance.

[tjts1]

After making the upfront invest in the Volt its easy for GM to bring a cheap EV to market. I'm guessing they're going to have no trouble selling these $25,000 cars. As usual California gets it first.

As we mentioned yesterday when the Spark EV was unveiled, the five-passenger pure-electric is fitted with a 20-plus kilowatt-hour battery pack driving the front wheels. Thanks to its 110 kW (130 horsepower) electric motor generating a whopping 400 pound-feet of torque, it scoots to 60 mph in less than eight seconds. Even better, Chevy is promising it will offer "among the best EV battery range in its segment" and the capability to accept SAE Combo DC Fast Charging (this means it is able to reach 80-percent battery charge in just 20 minutes).

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/11/28/2...rk-ev-la-2012/

[rwh11385]

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121129/AUTO0103/211290403/1121/AUTO/Consumer-Reports-Chevrolet-Volt-again-earns-top-spot-consumer-satisfaction

Consumer Reports: Chevrolet Volt again earns top spot in consumer satisfaction

Scores are based on the percentage of respondents who answered "definitely yes" to the following question: "Considering all factors (price, performance, reliability, comfort, enjoyment, etc.), would you get this car if you had it to do all over again?"

General Motors' plug-in hybrid electric Chevrolet Volt topped Consumer Reports list for consumer satisfaction for the second straight year.

In addition to the Volt, other fuel-efficient models that scored among the best were the Toyota Camry Hybrid, Prius, Prius C and Nissan Leaf.

The Chevrolet Corvette, Porsche 911, the V8 Dodge Challenger and Ford Mustang topped the sporty car category while the Audi A7, Lexus GS and Audi A6 led among luxury cars.

On the other end of the spectrum, the redesigned subcompact Nissan Versa Sedan came in with the lowest score in the survey, with fewer than half of its owners saying they would definitely buy it again.

Apparently GM wasn't stupid like joshh claims to make a car which its target audience would enjoy instead of a cheap shitty POS like the Versa. In order for early adopters to buy and enjoy a car, it has to be able to convince the people who could afford a ton of other options that it is worth it. As indicated by a second year of solid satisfaction, it has done well in this department. It's about making cars that people want to buy (and buy again) - shitty cars like the Cavaliar or Versa can't win loyalty by just low prices, it's about value. Volt owners see the benefits and value in the car, more than just a price tag people focus on without considering how it is differentiated from competition.

[joshh]

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...r-satisfaction
Consumer Reports: Chevrolet Volt again earns top spot in consumer satisfaction







Apparently GM wasn't stupid like joshh claims to make a car which its target audience would enjoy instead of a cheap shitty POS like the Versa. In order for early adopters to buy and enjoy a car, it has to be able to convince the people who could afford a ton of other options that it is worth it. As indicated by a second year of solid satisfaction, it has done well in this department. It's about making cars that people want to buy (and buy again) - shitty cars like the Cavaliar or Versa can't win loyalty by just low prices, it's about value. Volt owners see the benefits and value in the car, more than just a price tag people focus on without considering how it is differentiated from competition.

Enjoyment and "would buy againsts" don't justify poor sales numbers.
Of course you do realize it's the most expensive car in the "fuel efficient cars" category. So of course it's going to to liked more because it's a better car. And the few who bought it can afford to have purchased it...being that it's more expensive than the other cars in it's category. But that doesn't change the fact it's over priced in it's market and will continue to have bad sales numbers despite your poor justifications trying to liken it to BMW type brands in sales numbers (even though you know the luxury brands make more profit per car, thus their lower sales numbers)...lol.