The point of stirring discussion here is both for closure and to leave a record with the hope of history not repeating, yet again. Awareness is key. Sadly, most people are entirely oblivious to GM's first attempt to seize the efficiency market following their EV1 debacle. Those who know something likely have a distorted history of what actually happened, simply from only hearing about or remembering highlights. It's the detail that really makes a difference. Influences along the way are easy to overlook and dates are commonly incorrect. Lacking such information, those same mistakes can be repeated... and were, as I witnessed firsthand and had to deal with some rather hostile responses when pointing out the pattern recognition. We saw that repetition with Volt. It was supposed to save GM from their sales disaster with Two-Mode, which ironically, actually had a plug-in prototype... the very solution they should have continued pursuing all along, something clearly needed from them now. Abandoning that technology for large guzzlers made no sense for an automaker who heavily favors SUV offerings. Nonetheless, that happened anyway. Since Volt is basically dead in every regard starting tomorrow, I posted an epitaph elsewhere yesterday, seeking feedback from that audience about what (if any) future the technology itself holds. That reflection of major past events started with the point when the sales struggle became undeniable: . Back in July 2013, the price of Volt was dropped by $4,000 to help clear out the 2013 model-year pile up inventory. In August 2013, pricing of both the 2013 & upcoming 2014 model-years were dropped by an additional $1,000. It was a strategy to stimulate the market. But having a new base-price of $34,000, it was still far too expensive to be competitive without subsidies against traditional vehicles. Back then, enthusiasts were confident the target of "nicely under $30,000" could be achieved prior to tax-credit expiration. Many of the meritless claims about sales challenges were difficult to address; so much so, some of it became mindless rhetoric. That's what contributed heavily to mistakes made with the second-generation design. Those enthusiasts became the voice of misleading design suggestion. Limited initial rollout of that next Volt and the reveal of Bolt prior to it were clues that something had seriously went wrong with the "Game Changer" plan GM had committed to. Sales remained a struggle and much greater investment was being made to traditional SUV offerings. As a result, enthusiasts turned a blind-eye to GM's fleet and directed focus entirely on the "EV Market" instead. Now, with only 1 day remaining (0 in states that don't allow sales on Sunday) of the generous $7,500 tax-credit, we see an abandonment of GM. There's simply nothing to draw attention anymore. Volt production has ended. There's no word whatsoever of an upcoming plug-in hybrid. And the price of Bolt simply isn't competitive with at $32,870 (the $36,620 MSRP minus $3,750 tax-credit). If GM compensates with a $3,750 price drop, how would that help? Sales will remain far below expectations for an ordinary profitable vehicle on the sales floor. This outcome was predicted. Concern in the form of "too little, too slowly" was expressed countless times, only to be returned with an everything will be fine. GM's own loyal customers were never interested and enthusiasts are moving on to other automakers.
for the game changer. they are the only company in the world that has seriously disrupted the fossil fuel personal transportation paradigm
You're missing the bigger picture. It's is the same problem GM enthusiasts had. Watching Tesla support aim in the same direction should be reason for pause, a warning to be taken seriously. That's why I do so much to share history. We don't what a repeat of the same mistakes, yet again. Volt was also a serious disruption. What it failed to do is the same thing there should be concern about with Tesla now. The influence didn't result in lasting change. Unless that disruption is permanent, people lose interest and move on. GM failed because the "know your audience" suggestion was dismissed. They didn't acknowledge the reality that DEALERS were their customer, not CONSUMERS. That fundamental misunderstanding doomed their cumbersome & confusing technology to challenges unlikely to be overcome. And sure enough, lack of stirring interest to stock & sell that inventory contributed significantly to Volt's death. In fact, this lesson is a big reason why Toyota is taking its time with the rollout of Prius Prime. Why push a technology with great potential in a market unwilling to accept change yet? Putting that kind of hope on dealers somewhat reluctant to even emphasize hybrid models of Camry, Corolla, and Rav4 simply isn't realistic. Waiting doesn't result in much penalty. Just look at the industry as a whole for that reality check... the bigger picture. In other words, disruption isn't a simple as it seems.
volt was never a serious disruption, and nothing even close to what tesla has done and is doing. the whole world is looking at tesla and wondering what direction to head in, while cow towing to the same old benefactors. but as tesla grows, it is becoming harder and harder to ignore. toyota hasn't disrupted anything despite the nice little hybrids they make.
Here is a rather on-point recent article. Well written and well thought out in my opinion. 10 lessons from the short life of the Chevy Volt, 2011-2019
that was well done. not sure about the volt being a caddy though, they can barely sell those. cut would have been interesting though. my personal belief is that gm is back to its glory days of monster cars. and the ev rhetoric is just that, like most other mfgs dealers are a problem
Again, the Velite 5 and 6 get no love. I don't see the Voltec system dying. BEVs aren't going to work for everyone. The question is whether the public will prefer a parallel or series hybrid over a power-split one in their PHEV. In the US, dealers are a big problem. Of the big non-Tesla EV companies, and the upcoming ones, none are American based, and can have company owned stores in their home countries. The public is also a problem. On a whole, they are too fickle in regards to car choices and fuel prices.
There it is, the pattern repeating. That dismissal of the past and looking forward with rose-colored glasses is exactly what I recognized back then... and now see again. The easy confirm is an assessment of the market requiring an assumption of mainstream reaction mimicking subsidized sales to early-adopters. Lack of any clear direction forward validates it. For Volt, it was the obsession with speed & power. We kept hearing over and over and over again how that technology was "vastly superior" even though there was an obvious dismissal of both other purchase priorities and business objectives. Enthusiasts turned a blind-eye and convinced GM to do the same. All you have to do is ask what the goals are. Lack of clarity is the first red flag. Efforts to evade is a dead giveaway. Seeing an effort to direct focus away from legacy automakers by vaguely claiming Tesla is responsible for changing something but not stating what or how is good reason to call for clarification. What specific expectations are you trying to set? What should the goals be?
not from me tesla is trying to electrify the world of personal transportation, renewable energy and beyond. so far, they're making a good job of it. it's a pretty clear goal, not sure how you are blinded to it. nothing from toyota or anyone else has so clearly disrupted rubber stamp thinking.
You mean indisputable. Whether the topic of economics is understood here at this time doesn't matter. I know my audience.
'the easy confirm is an assessment of the market requiring an assumption of mainstream reaction mimicking subsidized sales to early-adopters' earth to john: prime is subsidized. prime is being given away in the northeast. nobody wants them at msrp.
I tried to emphasize that a month ago and the drum still gets beaten of audience knowing. Not sure what else to say.
