Volt production has started, public sale moved forward to October

well, it should. the Volt still burns gas. we have a oil rig sunk in the Carribean leaking oil. funerals in West Virginia for coal miners along with funerals for oil refinery workers in WA less than 150 miles from my home.

burning a little bit of gas is simply not an acceptable answer any more especially when we have other options. granted it is not for everyone. but there is still a lot of need that can be filled by a 100 mile EV

 

Re: age of article is irrelevant

Please quantify these "large market share gains GM as made" between now and the period of time you were referring to. What I've shown is that they've continued to lose share, in the US, at least, partly because they shed a bunch of brands and the remainder didn't compensate completely for it. I'm open to be proven wrong on this.

I'm not comparing it to Chrysler. Forget the press. You think what the GAO says in their own report is wrong? "Equity value of company necessary to recoup investment" == $66.9 billion for GM is wrong? Doesn't it bother you that GM, even during high flying stock market days of the .com bubble never got that high?

 

Since we don't have a definition of what failure or success actually means, it most certainly will not be drawn to a conclusion. Lack of criteria is the problem. How many indicates what?

Look at Two-Mode. With its sales so low, it should be a spectacular failure... yet GM and supporters are still fighting that outcome.
.

 

When they cancel the project and stop building them on the grounds that "nobody wants to drive an EV" -- and all the while Nissan is selling every Leaf they can build -- we will have wide agreement that the Volt was a spectacular failure.

The Volt concept, if it had really done what was promised (40 miles electric range, 50 mpg in CS mode, $30K price) would have been a spectacular success if they had brought it out two years ago. But since this was a project designed to fail from the start, as a PR blitz to project a green image, they postponed it until they could postpone it no longer. Now it's merely an overpriced attempt to draw attention away from true EVs by underlining the range limitations of the Leaf, while at the same time setting a price high enough that very few will be sold.

GM does not want to sell the Volt. They just want to prevent people from buying electric cars.

 

Re: age of article is irrelevant

Yeah, yeah, more hype from Klutz.

You're the one slamming me of posting from "old articles". Yours is from Feb 12, 2010, citing "GM’s market share rose to 20.9 percent." Yet, GM pushes for buzz, but market share fizzles - BusinessWeek from April 1, 2010 (that I posted earlier) says:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0617790720100407 also says:

 

The market place has not changed significantly in the past two years.

No new EVs or PHEVs have hit the consumer market.

That will change at the end of this year with the Volt and Leaf's release.

Since they have slightly different target markets, I think there is roof for both to success, but there is a lot of overlap.

If the Volt was available right now - I think you'd have a lot of interested people. Count me in.

Now you're just letting your bias cloud your view again.

If the Volt fails - it is very likely that GM as a whole will fail. The future of the automobile industry will rely on electrification. Those who succeed in producing producing vehicles which can charge off the grid, will succeed in the long term.

I highly doubt that GM is planning their own demise.

 

Not sure if GM is beginning to 'roll' . . . or if the hit with the defibrulater gave enough of a pulse and life, simply to spin a bit of PR. I get it. Build a few volts for crash tests, and you can say, "see? ... we're in production". Technically not a lie. Claim, "HEY! we paid back ALL of the loan ... and EARLY no less!". Technically not a lie. However, if you go by the principal, "hint of impropriety" ... you don't say such things.

 

Yes it has! Two years ago there were no prospects for an EV from any major auto maker. Just several small, slow-speed or one-seat affairs. Plus promises from a few small start-ups that nobody knew if they could believe or not.

Now we know that there will be a roll-out of the Leaf in less than a year, with nation-wide distribution a year after that.

Two years ago I'd have bought a Volt. Now I would not dream of it.

This is just silly! GM will build the Volt (if at all) in very small numbers, at a very high price point, and will not build ANY OTHER similar car. Nothing bigger, nothing smaller. They are pricing it outside the mass market, and sizing it too small for most families and too small for many of the uses people have for a car.

Such a niche car cannot make or break a car company! If it succeeds it will be a microscopic part of GM's total sales, and if it fails it will not affect GM's sales figures, of which it would be such a tiny part.

With or without the Volt, GM will go bankrupt again, because nothing has changed in GM's management. And when it does, chances are the government will bail it out again, allegedly to save jobs, but actually because of GM's power to bribe elected officials. Same as now.

 

I am curious why you say this.
I don't think anyone thinks they are planning to fail. It is their lack of planning that will lead to their failure.
As for not believing they will allow their own lack of planning to lead to their own failure, they already did that once

 

A couple of points. First of all the taxpayers own 60% of GM right now. That means there is probably heavy government oversight in their management--to make sure the company goes in a green direction. Secondly, since the taxpayers have a big stake in the company's future success, maybe they should be encouraged to consider their cars. It's a good argument to buy GM or Chrysler that should appear in their advertising. Iaccoca was very successful years ago in TV ads along this line resurrecting Chrysler after government bailout.

 

True. The question with the Volt (besides "Will it ever actually be released?", where the answer changed from "probably not" to "probably") is not "Will GM screw it up", but rather "HOW will GM screw it up?"

Now we know: Goofy drivetrain, non-engine-chargeable battery, high price. And that's before it's even released! C'mon, GM! Make it lease only! That worked so well in the past!

 

Don't give them any ideas, they would love to lease it only, and maybe the high price will have them market it that way, to get the monthly payments down to a reasonable level, like the Leaf. Then if they have problems or it doesn't work out too well, EV1, need I say more?

It's so obvious they are not serious about the Volt, even the most loyal GM fanboys must be disheartended by now.

 

Sombody evidently never heard of AIG, and rules modified by the Feds that let it happen.

 

You're joking, right? Please tell me you're joking! The government is so terrified of being called "socialist" that it's taking a complete hands-off approach. The government has the right to name the entire board of directors. If I suddenly found myself owning 60% of a failing company, I would exercise my votes and replace the board of directors with people who were not self-serving criminals more concerned with their salaries and golden parachutes than with the company. You'd do the same! But the government has allowed the same criminals to keep running GM, and has not taken any part in deciding the direction the company should take.

Michael Moore pointed out that now that the government owns a controling stake in GM, we could turn GM into a company producing sustainable-energy infrastructure.

GM is the same crap criminal company it always was.

When I lived in Fargo, I owned a dozen shares of Target because, based in Minneapolis, I viewed it as a "local" company. I figured that for every $100 I spent there, I got a millionth of a penny in dividends.

No, the bailout is a pretty lousy reason to buy a car from a failing company. The personal return to you from buying a GM car is probably about a penny. But the poor quality is going to cost you hundreds, if not thousands of dollars compared to a well-made car.

 

I am so ready for this car! C'mon Chevy. And in terms of a cost - why are we willing to put $45k into an SUV that can't go off road that is filled with leather and yet only gets 10mpg, when I can place roughly that much on a car that will never use gas again. But I am a rare breed that looks at amount saved versus amount spent. Plus, I've sat in those high-end SUVs and let me tell you - my Prius can hold more stuff than those SUVs.

 

Chances are it will sometimes run the gas engine even if you never exceed the EV range, since the engine will need to run occasionally to remain lubricated and ready. After all, if you are NEVER going to exceed the EV range, why buy a car with an engine at all??? Why not spend $15,000 less and get a pure EV with more than double the EV range?

 

ok, I know malorn disappeared over 1/2 year ago ... but maybe wiki is in conspiracy with the Toyota evil empire. Their stats show Toyota being larger than even post banko GM:
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry]Automotive industry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Bah, malorn promised me he'd sell me a Volt too. what should I expect. But I noted the OP posted October ... and that got missed into December. Well, at least after all these years, GM finally has a decent (albeit too expensive) hybrid car.