GM denies report of Chevy Volts rolling away with $49,000 loss on each

[jimmy5]

But the camaro didn't fail to sell, they planned, priced them accordingly and reached out to a large market, and sold them left and right as a result.

[Hopper]

Originally Posted by jimmy5

Well then the obvious answer should have been not to develop a $40,000+ economy car.
During all of this no one in their right mind should have realistically thought that this car would sell enough at the price they marked it at to turn a profit. I realize the government forced this since they are majority shareholders. But it's a clear example of good thought, terrible execution.

Do you remember the price of VCRs when they came out? Plasma TVs? Using your logic, nothing innovative would ever be developed. Yes, early adopters pay a lot for technology. There are two main buyers for the Volt right now. The tech savvy early adopters and the save the planet crowd. There's also more than a few who are willing to pay a premium to drive in the HOV lanes in CA. All three groups are willing to pay a premium now. Is it high volume, no. GM knows that. However, early adopters subsidize the development of technology so eventually the price comes down over time for the rest of us. The same thing that happened with VCRs and flat screen TVs will happen with the Volt as the technology is used in other vehicle platforms.

As for those comparing the technology of the Volt and the Prius...the Volt is to Prius as iPhone4s is to the basic flip phone from 10 years ago that you can still buy today. Both phones had their moment in the sun as the newest and best and both still perform the same basic function. They place phone calls. However, the iPhone does a lot more. If you would like to buy a flip phone, it will still do the job and definitely cost a lot less than the iPhone. However, if everything else the iPhone does is important to you, you will pay more for it. It all depends on the consumer. Despite the fact that they perform the same basic function and are roughly the same size, the buyer for a $20k Corolla is not the same as the buyer for a $40k plus Volt. That's Marketing 101.

Yes, the laws of economics still apply. Lower prices bring higher volume, but lower prices don't necessarily bring lower costs. The Volt is priced commensurate with it's technology at a price GM thinks can generate the volume it needs to support the business case to build it as well as turn a profit on each one. Although I'm sure GM would like to sell Volt in high volume, I'm also sure GM never banked on it. They have a car called the Cruze that already does that job very well. If a person is only looking for commodity transportation, the Volt is not the car for them as there are many choices that perform the same basic function at a lower price. However, comparing the Volt to those cars right now is truly apples and oranges.

As for your comment on the government "forcing this" as a shareholder, the Volt was in development as a product program well before the government intervened to save GM. It was always a technological exercise, not a political one...

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

That is why we have car enthusiasts. We all have an enthusiasm for an automotive product. I like GM products, but I can respect your Mustang as a competing product in my segment. These Volt guys aren't in our segment, but I can respect the pride they have in driving something different, just like my Firebird is different from roads and lots filled with family sedans. This sort of pride keeps car companies going.

I understand what you are saying, and that we all have pride in our respective cars. And for the record, I'm not a fanboy of any particular brand, I'm just a fan of cars in general and take each on a case by case basis. If Ford or Chrysler, or anyone had built the Volt instead of GM, my opinion of the car itself wouldn't be any different.

However, what I was trying to point out is that there is a difference between merely having pride in one's car or a car company and having a sense of personal superiority about oneself based on what one chooses to drive.

I've had several conversations over the years with hybrid owners who clearly feel that driving a hybrid makes them a better person than me to the extent that I'm not worthy to be in the same conversation with them, but they tolerate it because they feel my simple mind needed to be lectured. Sure, Camaro, Mustang, and Challenger guys poke fun at each other, and often think their cars are better, but very rarely do I get a sense that any of them think they themselves are better than me as a person in conversations.

A great example of this was the youtube video a while back (I think it was actually posted here on C5) of the woman who got out of her hybrid and went crazy on a guy sitting in a heavy-duty diesel truck over how bad the truck was for the environment. Muscle car guys may have pride in their cars, but I bet none of them would ever take time out of their day to walk up to a stranger and harass them about their Volt, or Prius, or Leaf, or whatever. That is the difference.

[Lou_Dorchen]

Originally Posted by Hopper

Do you remember the price of VCRs when they came out? Plasma TVs? Using your logic, nothing innovative would ever be developed. Yes, early adopters pay a lot for technology.

Americans have always loved TV and new electronics, etc that make life better and easier. We buy them in large numbers and thus there is profit in those markets. Those who improve existing technology and invent new gadgets know this. On the flip side, Americans have never embraced electric cars. There has never been profit in that market.

[Hopper]

Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen

Americans have always loved TV and new electronics, etc that make life better and easier. We buy them in large numbers and thus there is profit in those markets. Those who improve existing technology and invent new gadgets know this. On the flip side, Americans have never embraced electric cars. There has never been profit in that market.

I won't disagree with you. Americans have never embraced electric cars in the past. Largely because of their limitations....the long time to charge and low range combined with anxiety over that range. GM learned that with the EV1. Nissan is learning that the hard way with the Leaf. The Volt eliminates range anxiety and mitigates the time to charge by running a gasoline generator to produce electricity to power the drive motor when the electric range in the battery is exhausted. The only problems are communicating how it works (very hard to do in a 30 second TV commercial) and the high price point for early adopters. Like most new innovations, it takes time for it to take. Time to communicate the technology so people understand it and put it on their shopping lists and time for the price to come down to the masses. Both will happen and it's already starting. The Volt is gaining sales traction every month.

I would also contend that many early Volt owners do actually think it makes their life better. I spoke to one owner who has a $350/month lease. She also figures she saves $180/mo on gas which, by her math, equates to $170/mo net which is less than she was paying for her Camry. Sure, she is paying for the electricity to charge, so it is more than $170 in reality but she is thrilled. Saving money while driving a piece of rolling high technology is pretty cool for her.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by jimmy5

Well then the obvious answer should have been not to develop a $40,000+ economy car.
During all of this no one in their right mind should have realistically thought that this car would sell enough at the price they marked it at to turn a profit. I realize the government forced this since they are majority shareholders. But it's a clear example of good thought, terrible execution.

A lot wrong here.

But suffice it to say the Volt was not forced by the government. Simply check the date the Volt was introduced at the auto show. Well before the bankruptcy.

[Lou_Dorchen]

Originally Posted by Hopper

I won't disagree with you. Americans have never embraced electric cars in the past. Largely because of their limitations....the long time to charge and low range combined with anxiety over that range. GM learned that with the EV1. Nissan is learning that the hard way with the Leaf. The Volt eliminates range anxiety and mitigates the time to charge by running a gasoline generator to produce electricity to power the drive motor when the electric range in the battery is exhausted. The only problems are communicating how it works (very hard to do in a 30 second TV commercial) and the high price point for early adopters. Like most new innovations, it takes time for it to take. Time to communicate the technology so people understand it and put it on their shopping lists and time for the price to come down to the masses. Both will happen and it's already starting. The Volt is gaining sales traction every month.

I would also contend that many early Volt owners do actually think it makes their life better. I spoke to one owner who has a $350/month lease. She also figures she saves $180/mo on gas which, by her math, equates to $170/mo net which is less than she was paying for her Camry. Sure, she is paying for the electricity to charge, so it is more than $170 in reality but she is thrilled. Saving money while driving a piece of rolling high technology is pretty cool for her.

Just because the technology is sound does not guarantee profit. BetaMax was superior technology compared to VHS, but BetaMax went bankrupt while VHS made billions. Again, Americans have NEVER bought electric cars in volumes to create profit for them. As to sales, how many Volts are being bought by private individuals as opposed to fleet sales for companies like GE?

And trying to not get political, but the price to charge a Volt will skyrocket if certain policies are not changed. Our President is on record saying he aims to bankrupt coal plants. Where do you think the majority of electricity comes from? Yup, coal plants. So if he succeeeds in this, the Law of Supply and Demand will kick in and Volt owners will be paying alot more to charge their cars.

[A-little-perspective]

http://wot.motortrend.com/we-hear-ar...31&188,shopper

Well this is certainly a re-volting development.

[motorhead]

I think this is a great idea. Maybe if we buy cars from the company that we own then the stock will go up and will make our money back. Cool.

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by A-little-perspective

http://wot.motortrend.com/we-hear-ar...31&188,shopper

Well this is certainly a re-volting development.

I don't want to get too political, so I won't go deep here. I'll simply point out that for those upset over that aspect of this car, that isn't gonna help its case.

[Number 3]

I must be missing something.

The military has been exploring ideas for propulsion using something other than gas/diesel for some time. So the military decides to put a high tech propulsion system in their fleets for evaluation and this is bad? I guess I'm not getting the concern.

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by Number 3

The military has been exploring ideas for propulsion using something other than gas/diesel for some time.

Yeah, for things like tanks, ships, aircraft, etc...you know, actual military vehicles. Somehow, I doubt the cars the armchair brass drive back and forth between their houses in Arlington and the Pentagon will have much of any affect on the ability to perform military operations.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

Yeah, for things like tanks, ships, aircraft, etc...you know, actual military vehicles. Somehow, I doubt the cars the armchair brass drive back and forth between their houses in Arlington and the Pentagon will have much of any affect on the ability to perform military operations.

If you think about it, the military is looking at jeeps etc. as well. So just like GM, Ford and others, you have to put the vehicles to test. On base is just one way to get exposure and experience on EV and advanced propulsion.

It's also why most of the CTF vehicles ended up in the hands of the electric companies.

[Renegade]

Originally Posted by Number 3

If you think about it, the military is looking at jeeps etc. as well. So just like GM, Ford and others, you have to put the vehicles to test. On base is just one way to get exposure and experience on EV and advanced propulsion.

It's also why most of the CTF vehicles ended up in the hands of the electric companies.

True if you don't put em' to the test you won't know the outcome or demands.