Chevy stops Volt production (temporarily ...)

Government Motors is no exception. The one thing that Government Motors does over the others: use the taxpayers bailout money.

DBCassidy

 

DB, you seem fixated on the bailout. I am curious if you just find it an easy way to attack GM or if the issue itself really does concern you.
If so, will you also commend both the government and GM if/when the debt is paid off in total? Perhaps even at a profit to the government?

 

Chrysler paid back their bailout loan early, Government Motors can do the same. I do not want the government "forgive" the loan, we taxpayers would be facing a $14.5 - $15 billion bailout. I really would like to see Government Motors meet their financial obligations.

-dbcassidy

 

Glad to hear it. I do believe they will, but we shall have to see. Regarding technical discussions on the Volt though, it really doesn't make a difference, does it?

 

Sadly, if the balance sheet shows red rather than black, all the technical innovations will not sae the corporation.

Bottom line is the bottom line, which always has eyes looking at it. They ARE in business to make a PROFIT and not for charity.

DBCassidy

 

Toyota has done what Government Motors seems unable to do: define the middle market. The Prius got the hybrid ball rolling when Government Motors was dismissing the Prius as a vehicle that wouldn't catch on. Talk about Government Motors having their rose tinted glasses on and seeing, but not believing the Prius growing and catching on with the market place.

One thing is for sure, Government Motors will never overtake the Prius in total overall U.S., or global yearly sales. Toyota is closing out competitors in this market segment. If, by slim chance, Government Motors were to ever pass Prius sales, none of us on this forum will be alive to see it.
Government Motors arrived too, too late to the hybrid market to gain a sizable hybrid market share.

A best, the Volt will always be a "niche" vehicle, never able to crack or gain inroads with the middle market (or main buyers' market - U.S.). Investors are watching closely how well the corporation is able to improve their financial stability. This improvement, make an investment more attractive, improving the bottom line, and increases the stock price.

Regarding comparing the Volt to the Cruze, well the Volt does share the same platform as the Cruze - not surprises there.

DBCassidy

 

Based on your qualification of interior space, middle market is compact and sub-compact cars.

The 2001 Prius, Corolla, and Echo interior volume was 89, 88, and 87 cubic feet respectively. The Corolla and Echo sold for thousands less. The Prius was closer in price to the Camry of the time. A car with 97 cu.ft. of cabin space.

Some Toyota trivia: the 2001 Corolla was still available with a 3 speed transmission, and the Camry was available in a CNG model.

 

What about a used geo metro? How did that compare?

 

Too bad Government Motors doesn't produce the Geo Metro today. I met a friend of my brother in Florida, who rebuilds old Geo Metros ( especially the convertible). He has a steady demand that keeps him in business.

DBCassidy

 

The Metro has 80cu.ft. of passenger space. So the Prius would have been noticably roomier. The Metro's trunk is slightly larger than the CNG Camry's.

I'm using fueleconomy.gov for these numbers.

 

I believe GM a
lready paid off the bailout loan so they could qualify for a different loan that's just the typicalsubsidy (Ford has the some kind of loan). What's left is the government shareholding. And I wouldn't have thought that you'd want a repeat of the Chrysler situation where the US government got screwed over when Fiat bought the shares at a low value.

 

currently USA is 25 billion down on their GM investment. I dont think US Government can be any more screwed.

 

With the FED printing a new $40B a month, you want to worry yourself over $25B?

 

Well I un-ignored you (because a post suggested, indirectly you being more reasonable). I see I was wrong. The statement about "government motors" just show your desperate enough to resort to name calling rather than using facts and logic. But since you toss out incorrect accusations I'll provide some facts to help you.


Prius did not define a "middle market".. at least it did not define any meaningful or accepted understanding of that term. Toyota does not say they defined it (nor can I even find statements where they claim it was aimed there.) You have not defined what you mean by middle market, John has not defined it, and until you do and show the Prius meets it and the Volt is not aimed to also go there, your both just being hypocritical.

With respect to GM not being able to keep up with the Prius sales,
Year to date, GM has sold 1,757,470 vehichles in the US. Toyota Motor Corp. has only sold 1,399,513 (see this link). Of the TMC sales, only 164408 were Prius, so GM is not just outselling the Prius, they are outselling the Prius by more than an order of magnitude ( 10x). So once again you are not only wrong, you are not even close to reality.

Hybrids did grow in to a meaningful market segment, just like the SUV and minivans. But that market is currently small. Furthermore, the Prius was not the first hybrid sold in the US, nor first hybrid developed. Yes the prius is the largest selling hybrid, but after a decade, it still sells less the GM's malibu and well less than their Silverado. ​

​

With respect to GM not being able to gain a share in hybrid market, the fact is that GM is overall the second highest selling hybrid manufacturer (behind toyota). Yes TMC has a significant lead and majority share, but GMs share of the hybrid market is similar to the prius's share of TMC's overall sales and nearly 3x the share that hybrids are of overall vehicles. One can decide different thresholds for what is a "sizable share", but either GM has a sizable share of the hybrid market, or hybrids are not a sizable market to begin with and the Prius is not a sizable share of the car market. ​

​

​

​

​

​

 

Not cubic space alone. Legroom was actually a little bigger than the Taurus it had just replaced. Both legroom & hiproom was clearly bigger than Echo. And my girlfriend of the time had a Corolla, which again was small in legroom. Headroom was less in that and the Taurus as well.

The target market was the Camry/Corolla buyers of the time.

Also, note that Echo came afterward. It was a scaled back version of Prius with a detuned engine attached to a traditional transmission. That served as a clever way to take advantage of economies-of-scale cost reduction to push Prius into profit-achieving without affecting price.

 

GM's choice to place all it's eggs in one basket with Volt continues to be a problem. There is no hybrid equivalent to help it advance design quickly, bring production costs down, and assist with reliability reputation building.

Remember, supporters of Prius were stressing the advantage of the power-split approach way back, since the very beginning. We pointed out how plug augmentation later would allow the same system to deliver much higher efficiency simply through the use of more battery power... which is precisely what ended up happening.

From another perspective, Volt reverts back to tradition vehicle efficiency after depletion. Prius doesn't. Prius remains a high-efficiency vehicle even when depleted. That means a model without a plug is very realistic... which is quite obvious now, but was highly debated ages ago.

The one-size-fits-all promotion is another problem. Look at Camry. That hybrid system offers much more power. Consider the size of Prius v. Think what would happen if those two vehicles got merged. Think what would happen with a plug were added. Think about the all-wheel drive that the Highlander & Estima hybrids already offer. The potential is very easy to see.

With Volt, what's going to happen?

This topic of production temporarily being halted should have stirred that type of discussion; instead, we get spinning about history & purpose.

That's clearly not a good sign.

 

Why do some Prius owners feel threatened by the Volt? I could understand a Toyota shareholder or employee having a concern, but a consumer should be happy that the hybrid drive train approach has been further validated by another manufacturer and that they have more choices to choose a vehicle that better fits their application. As a US consumer, the added choice of a US manufactured vehicle should be especially appealing.

 

I'm sorry John, this is non-sensical. How do you mean 'all it's eggs in one basket'? What do you mean by 'no hybrid equivalent'?

And that was a great step forward. And it is no longer sufficient. Especially not for 60% of the population that lives in areas where a BEV running on the local grid is cleaner than a Prius (using 2009 power grid data).

My Volt uses less foreign oil, helps cut down on the trade deficit, is cleaner than my Prius was (due to buying wind energy and my own solar) and gives me a much more pleasant drive.

Toyota could be beating the Volt on all these fronts, they are moving almost timidly though. Currently the only front they are winning on is the CO2 front for 40% of the US population (based on 2009 data).

 

That should be obvious. There isn't a model of Volt available without a plug.

What is the "it" you refer to? Adding battery power increases both range & power of the system. That's the next step.

 

Studying hybrid history reveals the answer.

The most pronounced example of unintended consequences is what happened with Two-Mode. The thoughts of validation turned into quite the opposite of an outcome.