GM offers to buy back VOLT !

Only a couple glaring typos in the WSJ article, too.

 

If GM buys back a Volt at full price, and I take the money and go buy a new Volt, do I get a $15,000 tax credit?

 

"To summarize, the Volt and the plug-in Prius cost about the same, but with the Volt, you're getting what in our opinion is a substantially better car. It's got more battery life, it's faster, it's more powerful, it's better looking, and it's much more fun to drive."

The above quote is entertaining because I think the highlighted portion might be the only thing green car buyers care the most about. And the battery life, if true, might be negated by its much more expensive replacement cost.

Yo, green car buyers, do you actually care that your plug-in is faster, more powerful, more 'fun to drive' and apparently better looking? (while not being able to put four 6ft adults in it)

Rooting for the wrong team am I? Nah, it is what it is.

 

"The Volt isn't just about how many cars we sell," said Alan Batey, vice president of Chevrolet Sales. "This car is revolutionary."

Really? Are they planning to use this drive train in other models? Isn't the Cruze Plug-in already going to have a very different drive train?

VP of sales saying Volt isn't about how many they sell. Wow. As they've downgraded from 25k to 10k and will miss that.

Hate to say it, but I wager one more year, maybe two, and it's gone.

 

ummmmm...didn't they take back the EV1's too?

 

You may already know, EV1's were only leased. The Volt offers are to display confidence.

Several years ago Yamaha Motor offered to buy back all R6 motorcycles when it was proven the 'Redline' was closer to about 16k RPMs, not the 17k or so displayed on the gage.

 

Be nice. I credit GM for trying. Nobody ever gets everything right the first time.

 

Ok, they'll buy back. The question is how much will they offer.

 

If they bounce back with a 2nd gen improved Volt, that will be good.

 

But no one is going to buy a car if they hear you are buying some of them back.

 

Are you kidding? What about their banko. They did THAT right the 1st time. It sailed right thru - leaving the Fed's, the superfund, you, and I holding the bag.

But THIS was part of the article that blew me away:

Geez - that over 4 monts languishing on the lots.

 

Why not spin it differently?

While GM is offering to buy back the Volt, the choice of that headline is unfortunate.

I have quite a lot of friends who are simply NOT into hybrid, electric or alternative automobiles. It's hard enough to convince them The Prius, is real, tangible and viable as an automotive choice.

So I hate to see headlines like this. GM buys back VOLT...vehicle fires...is all they are going to see.

If you read both statements, while it's true GM is making the offer...the point of the whole action is GM's confidence in both the vehicles safety, and owners satisfaction.

But that won't be what most people focus on...or even get to the point of understanding. It will simply be the headline, which will ring as a endorsement to what the uninitiated want to believe. Electric cars aren't ready for the mainstream.

This is unfortunate. Infact, while it's "nice" GM is making that offer to their early VOLT adopters? I'm not sure it was the wisest thing to do, if only to avoid this type of headline.

Because I don't know how many people are going to read the entire article, and learn about GM's confidence in the product and owners satisfaction in The Volt.

I maybe naive, and surely all information is not in place. But in the case of the post crash test fires? In my opinion it doesn't sound to me like so much a case of a dangerous product or product failure, as it is a failure of applying proper protocal in dealing with a damaged vehicle that happens to have a battery pack.

I mean if you did a crash test with any standard ICE vehicle, and say the gas tank starting leaking? You'd take measures after the crash test, to ensure the vehicle was "safe" to store...wouldn't you?

If the NHSTA simply crashed tested VOLT's potentially damaging their battery packs and THEN just rolled them away? Where these damaged batteries may of overheated or became sources of ignition? Then I think perhaps what is needed is two fold. Perhaps GM does have to look at making the battery pack more resistant to damage in a crash situation...BUT more importantly maybe their needs to be industry wide standards applied to how vehicles with Lithium Ion Batteries are handled AFTER a crash that has compromised the battery casing. Maybe just rolling them into the junk yard, isn't the way they should be handled. But I see this more as a failure of the Post Crash Test handling of the vehicles, than of the vehicles themselves.

 

I was a young child when GM (I didn't realize it was them until much later; for many years I blamed Mayor Yorty) bought the electric trolly car system, dismantled it, and replaced it with diesel busses that ran at intervals of an hour or two, so that you needed a car if you didn't want to spend 3 or 4 hours of your day waiting for public transit.

GM's history since then has been one of screwing the public at every opportunity. They fought against installing seat belts, for crying out loud!!! They crushed the EV1 as soon as they won their lawsuit against CARB.

GM had the technology to build an EV in the 1990's. They could have built an REEV at any time. What did they do? They waited until Nissan brought out the Leaf and it was no longer possible to hide electric cars from the public. But they priced the Volt outside of normal folks' ability to pay. And it would not surprise me at all if the offer to buy back the Volt is an intentional ploy to push public opinion against EVs.

 

In reality, GM announced the Volt as a committed product and showed off the production design almost a year before anyone knew that Nissan was going to do the LEAF.

do not know about the rest of your history although it sounds loosely right.

 

They announced it, and then dragged their feet as long as they possibly could, reducing the range and raising the price along the way. I don't believe the Volt ever would have seen the light of day if the Leaf had not come along and forced their hand.

 

Actually this is not GM's first try, they had the EV1 and they called them all back and literally buried them.

Have you driven a Volt? I have, my company bought one, you know to show we are 'green'. It has some nice GM style, with some nice GM style trickery, The windows are very short (like a chopped hot rod from the 1950s), but GM has this large black plastic bezel underneath the windows and it fools the eyes into making the window area look 'normal' in height. Same thing with the bottom of the Volt, GM has a rather large flat black area, again to 'fool' the eyes into believing this is a 'slender' car.

Then the interior - the center stack is a complete disaster, it is an exercise of how not to design.

First - the HVAC and some audio controls are side by side scattered together.
Second - the parking brake is located on the center stack, looks like a power window switch and is on the passenger side of the center stack.
Third - the 'buttons' are just raised bumps that 'sense' your touch.
Fourth - some of the 'information' is displayed in the housing in front of steering wheel and some is displayed on the center stack. the displays are very colorful and almost cartoon-like in look.

Instead of using tried and true buttons, switches and locations for said items, GM wanted to make the Volt appear to be totally new, and in their defense not have the automotive press accuse them of raiding the parts bin. In comparison Toyota uses an old-style foot activated parking brake on the Prius, why? Because it works great, everyone knows the location and they didn't have to spend time (and cost) to develop a new one.

You cannot just sit in a Volt, start it and take off without taking a course to acquaint you with simple basic controls.

The one my company bought was $43,000 and has a plastic steering wheel rim and no backup camera.

To date GM has not even sold 7 thousand and that was before the battery issue came up.

I think GM deliberately built the Volt they way they did so it would fail and they could say - We tried again, but apparently people don't want an electric car.

 

Also, we should mention that the Gen II Prius was one of the best selling cars of 2007. Toyota sold 181,221 in that year. I can see why they would want to create a car to leap-frog that kind of success.

 

As the saying goes, you get to choose your opinions but not the facts. Your version of the Volt development history is mostly wrong. There was confusion around the price which came in higher than many expected. The same is true of the Toyota PiP.

Date: January 6, 2007
GM announces Volt concept

The specifications announced closely match the final product 4 years later although gas mileage is a bit lower with 1.4L 4 cylinder in place of 1.0L 3 cylinder range extending engine. Estimated range of up to 40 miles with 16 kWh battery.

Detroit Auto Show: Full Specifications on the Chevy Volt

October 22, 2007
GM says 40 mile battery range estimate based on EPA city test cycle

That cycle is known as UDDS and is similar to the test cycle used to generate the European NEDC electric range estimate. The official EPA range estimate of 35 miles comes in a bit lower than 40. The European range estimate for the Volt is 51.6 miles which is way past 40 miles. Nissan talked a lot about a 100 mile city range but has an official EPA estimate of 73.

Under What Conditions is the Chevy Volt’s Quoted 40 Mile Electric Range Modelled?

Date: November 11, 2007
Bob Lutz: GM to start Volt production in November 2010

Actual start of Volt production was November 2010....

Lutz: Chevy Volt Production to Begin November 2010

Date: August 2, 2009
Nissan introduces new LEAF electric car

Nissan announces it will produce a new electric car two years after GM commits to producing the Chevrolet Volt.

NISSAN | NISSAN UNVEILS "LEAF" - THE WORLD'S FIRST ELECTRIC CAR DESIGNED FOR AFFORDABILITY AND REAL-WORLD REQUIREMENTS