Grab our RSS Feed

AND

GM CEO Rick Wagoner Dispels Bankruptcy Rumors and Talks Volt

July 10th, 2008 | Posted in: Battery, E-REV, Financial, Politics

Today GM CEO Rick Wagoner gave a speech at the Dallas Chamber of Commerce and took the opportunity to dispel some rumors himself.

He acknowledged a belief that the consumer shift from trucks and SUVs to cars is “by and large, permanent,” but he pointed out that despite the sagging U.S. auto market, GM’s global growth remains robust, in particularly in emerging markets like China and Russia.

Taking a specific jab a the famous documentary he said “the electric car is not dead at GM,” and went on to discuss the Volt telling us to expect “more than 300 additional miles” of driving range after the generator kicks in for a “composite fuel economy of over 100 miles per gallon.”

He also confirmed the Volt battery packs are performing well stating “we’ve run prototype packs through numerous tests since last fall… including some pretty severe ones… and the results to date are quite encouraging.”

He pointed out the need for government to provide consumer incentives and tax credits to help get the technology underway.

After the meeting in talking to reporters, he indicated that bankruptcy speculation was “inaccurate” and that GM had no plans to eliminate any other brands except Hummer. He said that GM has “no thoughts whatsoever” of bankruptcy and noted it would be better if “we had less speculation along lines that we think is quite inaccurate.” Wagoner said he felt that critics are overblowing the concerns and that he is “taking the tough but necessary actions to keep GM competitive over the long, long term.”

Source (GM) and (Reuters) and (Bloomberg)

Posted by: Lyle

176 Responses to “GM CEO Rick Wagoner Dispels Bankruptcy Rumors and Talks Volt”

Rashiid Amul Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 6:47 pm

This was necessary. He had to clear the air, so to speak.
No company wants others to believe they are on the verge of bankruptcy when they are not.

Nice to hear about the packs. We discuss this quite often here.

I still hate the fact the car will go about 300 miles on a tank of gas. I would really like to have the 640 miles put back. But I will just have to live with the way they built it. I commute 500 miles a week so I would have used the gas in a 12 gallon tank.

Government does need to help somewhat. It is my money after all, and I would like some of it back so I can purchase the Volt.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 6:50 pm

Rashiid #1

Yup, there’s been quite a bit of gloom and doom on this board alone, and that comes via cut and paste from the press.

(Quote)
kent beuchert Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 6:55 pm

Perhaps someone should clue in Wagoner that the Volt is going to get a lot more than 100 miles per gallon, composite or no
composite. GM has about the least ability to blow its own horn of any corporation on the planet. They simply don’t seem to understand the purpose of advertising.

(Quote)
Paul-R Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 7:01 pm

Yeah, the news media become like sharks when they smell blood from a company. They go into a FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) feeding frenzy, all eager to take a bite by repeating something/anything negative. Of course, the resulting FUD storm just adds to the problems, since it impacts consumer confidence. Two really good examples are Apple Computer (ten years ago) and GM (today).

Sure GM has problems (as Statik often points out) and they have made some bad decision in the past, but as a global company, I think they are pretty far from dead. As I’ve said before, it just takes a while to correct all the damage caused by 20 years of bad management. And public perception damage tops that list.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 7:02 pm

Kent #3,

Are you sure about that? I don’t think we know for sure how big the gas tank is going to be. So I don’t know if we can calculate that accurately.

Unless you are talking about not using gas at all. In which case, I would agree with you.

(Quote)
Paul-R Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 7:03 pm

Sorry, off topic but…

Here is a GREAT article on the historical trials and tribulations at Tesla:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/07/technology/copeland_tesla.fortune/index.htm

Not really Volt related, but still very interesting. GM and Lutz are also mentioned in the article.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 7:06 pm

Kent #3

“GM has about the least ability to blow its own horn of any corporation on the planet. They simply don’t seem to understand the purpose of advertising.”

*** *** ***

They’ve learned over the years. Promise less and deliver more is the way to do. Toyota learned the hard way recently with the advertising claims for the Tundra pickup. They were stung on that one.

BTW,,, the Tundra isn’t in the Silverado’s league.

(Quote)
canehdian Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 7:18 pm

“I still hate the fact the car will go about 300 miles on a tank of gas. I would really like to have the 640 miles put back. But I will just have to live with the way they built it. I commute 500 miles a week so I would have used the gas in a 12 gallon tank.”

What’s the diff? You’ll still get a week out of a tank. (not to mention using half as much gas)
(Assuming 5 days as in a workday commute)
40 miles electric x 5 days (plug in overnight) = 200 miles
300 from the gas = 500

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 7:32 pm

Can #8

“What’s the diff? You’ll still get a week out of a tank.”

*** *** ***

I feel the same way Rashiid does on this one. You’re right on a short daily commute, the difference is negligible. But for longer commutes where there is no daily recharge that range has all sorts of utility, not to mention marketing potential for GM.

(Quote)
DG Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 7:43 pm

Here we go with the range anxiety baffle again…calm down people that’s what Gen 2 & 3 Volts are for, geeez. Take a zanex and wait an extra year. I love how people think that this car is going to be perfect for every single person in the world right out the lot. What are the odds of many of even getting this car. Isn’t the list at 20,000 people and they are building how many in the first year 60,000 if I’m not mistaken and that included exports. Stop being negative and let them finish the car. I might settle for those Plug in Minis for now.

(Quote)
Jeff Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 7:47 pm

#8
I agree…340 miles is adequate.

Let’s see…what is the size of the tank?

300 miles at 50mpg (from a previous post) => 6 gallons. However, a “composite fuel economy of over 100 miles per gallon” is stated here. At 340 miles total, it would indicate a tank of 3-4 gallons which sounds smaller than previous discussions. The “composite” number must be after more than one charge of the battery like you suggest.

(Quote)
hung Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 7:49 pm

Red Ink RIck is a big joke.

This man is responsible for losing BILLIONS in the Fiat deal, yet is not held accountable. He was in charge when GM market share shrunk to teens and low twenties. He made the decision to go all in the GMT900’s.

There is no accountability at GM. When no one is held accountable, failure results.

Volt will be no exception.

Keep dreaming, guys.

(Quote)
RB Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 7:51 pm

The Volt as Wagoner describes it just sounds great.
The one little issue is finding one for sale

(Quote)
RB Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 7:53 pm

#10 DG — only 10,000 in the first year, they’ve said.

(Quote)
Jeff Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 7:55 pm

#1 & #9

You guys must have a strong bladder and enjoy sitting for hours…truck drivers? As a college student, I had a vehicle with a range of 500 miles (8+ hours of driving on the highway). It was a nice feature, but not essential.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 8:06 pm

Jeff #15

No Not a truck driver, but like many I enjoy going on vacation, and often have to travel for work. With the current oil situation poised to get worse, and not ruling out another embargo, I’d love fill up with 12 gallons either because I think fuel might be scarce, or not available at my destination. I’d also like to be able to fill up on E85, take my vacation and return w/o having used any Opec oil or having to refuel.

(Quote)
RB Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 8:07 pm

We need Mr Wagoner to give us some detail on how he gets to a number that is over 100 mpg. What miles and what gallons. It is not obvious.

(Quote)
hung Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 8:16 pm

BTW, Wagoner gets paid millions to run the company into the ground. He has bankruptcy proof pension.

He is firing workers and shrinking their paychecks.

And he has the nerve to talk about making “tough decisions”

He represents what is wrong with corporate America.

(Quote)
Michael D Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 8:24 pm

#17 Answer: The math is simple.

With an electric only range of 40 miles and an extended gas range of 300 miles, that is 340 miles on a tank. At 100 miles per gallon a range of 340 miles would require a 3.4 gal tank

340 miles
__________ = 3.4 gal

100 miles/gal

That would tell us that the VOLT will have approximately a 3.5 gallon tank.

Now as to whether that is actually what he meant, that is another question!

(Quote)
RB Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 8:35 pm

#19 Michael

The problem I have in getting 100 mpg the way you did is the logical continuation. That is, continuing with your example, one gets with the ICE on,
300 miles / 3.4 gallons = 88 mpg
Is that realistic?

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 8:37 pm

Hulk angry! Hulk smash! You knew I’d be here!

(This is a financial thread about GM bankruptcy talk…so I’m going to talk straight this time, no fancy talk, no hehe, no LOLs)

“Under any scenario we can imagine … our cash position will remain robust through this year” and the company has options for raising cash beyond that, Wagoner said at a lunch meeting of Dallas business leaders.”

Business speak translation: We aren’t filing for bankruptcy in the next little while, we still got several months to blow through our cash pile, then in 2009 we can start blowing our credit lines.

What did you really tell us? You said is you can stop the bankruptcy wolf for 12 to 18 months max.

The hard question: Mr. Wagoner, you have lost 50 billion dollars in the last 3 years. By your own admission your probably going to blow through 24 billion dollars and have to hit up more capital in less than a year, how do you expect at the end of this cycle to suddenly make money to continue to prop up GM?

What is your short term plan in 12-18 months to suddenly stave off losing 12-15 billion dollars a years when your cash dries up? How will you service your 200 billion dollar debt then?

Your auto market is shrinking, catastrophic loss of production and therefore revenue…and also ‘outside forces’ of a general collapse in the housing market, credit market and also the economy on the brink of a recession.

I have heard no plan…at all for the next year. I’ve seen GM shutter plants, sell off assets, have 4 day sales to sell off inventories at a loss to raise cash.

Where is the miracle turnaround coming from? Forget the Volt in mass, thats 2015. Forget the Cruze, you can’t push one out until the end of 2010 in NA (mid 2009 in Europe).

How will GM turn a 3 billion+ loss per quarter into a profit? And thats the $100,000 question. If you can’t answer that coherently, your only option is bailout or bankruptcy.

/have at it

(Quote)
RB Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 8:42 pm

Mr Wagoner, in his transcribed comments, gives first and greatest weight to th merits of hydrogen powered cars (though thereafter he says nice things about the Volt). Near the beginning Mr Wagoner says

“Electricity and hydrogen, as many of you know, are actually interchangeable…”

I quote this amazing statement in case any of you, like me, had never before realized it to be a fact, and maybe still are not too sure …

(Quote)
speedy Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 8:45 pm

The Cruze will be out in 2009.

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 8:51 pm

I think I agree with the other Jeff… sounds like gas tank is 6 gallons (at least). Michael, 300 miles on only 3.5 gallons would be 85 mpg when running on the range extender. While possible, I don’t think with even the Volt’s decent coefficient of drag, it’s not enough, and the vehicle weighs too much, to archive such an impressive fuel economy. If it did, they could reduce the battery size by at least 75% or more and with that reduced weight (of the batteries) get even better mpg, and have a super impressive gas miser w/out even plugging in.

What scares me though is that if Wagoner knows the range using just the range extender, then he knows the size of the gas tank, and hence how many mpg it gets using just the range extender…. yet GM hasn’t clued us in. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a 8 gallon tank netting an average of 37.5 mpg when using the range extender. Hope those of you who say they just don’t want to show their hand are right and it’s 6 gallons or even less that gives 300 miles (ie. 50mpg or more).

(Quote)
ElectRich Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 8:53 pm

1 Rashiid Amul, You will get your week per fill. You can charge the volt every night and get 200 miles of electric miles and 300 miles gas and you have 500 miles. I figure the only time I will ever use gas is on trips. My commute is 20 miles round trip. But about $28K is my Volt price limit. The first years may be out of my range.

(Quote)
RB Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 8:55 pm

I’d like a little larger vehicle, and since the Chairman says

“The Fuel Cell Equinox is a real family-sized car that meets all safety standards. It has a range of 150 to 200 miles, refuels in 5 to 8 minutes, and is a full-fledged electrically-driven ZEV… zero emissions vehicle. In January, we began delivering more than 100 of these vehicles to customers in the U.S. Together, they constitute the world’s largest fuel-cell test fleet.”

Sounds good, refuels fast, and Lyle liked his. So maybe I can go down and pick up one of these, rather than having to wait for the Volt Around $30K, do you think?

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 9:14 pm

#23 Speedy

“The Cruze will be out in 2009.”

Not in North America. Mid 2010 at the earliest. Lordstown can tool up until at least June 2010.
(I put mid 2009 Euro in brackets).

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/07/09/chevy-cruze-to-be-built-in-lordstown/

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 9:21 pm

Re: RB, regarding Wagoner’s bigger emphasis on hydrogen fuel cells…. thanks for pointing out that I should read the full transcript and not just Lyle’s select excerpts.

this is why the press and independent bloggers beat up on GM “fairly” when GM spouts off this kind of crap. Hydrogen is a very energy inefficient way to store electrical energy. That means compared to using the electricity directly (such as to charge a plug-in or powering light rail), producing hydrogen has a much bigger environmental foot print. What Wagoner also fails to mention is that it’s much more energy efficient to produce hydrogen not by splitting water using electricity, but from natural gas (CH4) with CO2 (global warming) as a waste product. But even with natural gas it would be more efficient to either use it either directly in a easily modified internal combusition engine, or use it in a power plant to generate electricity to charge plug-in’s (that’s because once hydrogen is freed from any source it needs to be compressed or frozen, and then trucked since pipelines don’t work for the lightest of all elements, both which require energy, not to mention the fuel cell itself is not 100% efficient).

And let’s also not forget that hydrogen fuel cells are NOT emmision free, while battery EV’s are. While it may be only “water”, I’ve still yet to hear if all vehicles on the road today were hydrogen fuel cell powered, how much water combined are we talking about? And in what form (liquid or vapor)? Are we talking about roads always wet or icy (in winter)? Or maybe a fog (instead of smog) over downtown LA?

In any case, I have a better felling than a year ago that the public has wised up to the hydrogen hoax, and customers will demand plug-in battery EV’s like the Volt, and not the fuel-cell versions. So Yes to Volt, No to Hydrogen!

(Quote)
Bryce Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 9:23 pm

those fuel cell things are gunna be way more than a measly 30 or 40k. Those stupid things will cost more like what the EV1 woulda cost consumers when it was first put forward. (80k break even point for sale……which is why it was leased, so it would be more like 40k) Don’t wait for a fuel cell. Get your Volt and u will enjoy it through the near future. When/if fuel cell comes to fruition in 20 years, then u can get it.

(Quote)
Koz Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 9:33 pm

Blah, blah, blah…

Talk is cheap. If Mr. Wagoner really had something encouraging to say, don’t you think this would have been a good time to say it. Truth is, they are in a financial pickle. I don’t seem them going under so readily as Statik, but blowing sunshine isn’t exactly making me feel better about their prospects either. It’s seems very likely they will need some type of government assistance to get through this. Seems OK to me (just as long as the Feds don’t give away the house, unlikey), since they have made some long term decisions and post 2010 looks promising if they can get there. This is not solely because of the EREV drivetrain either, eventhough I think this is a big part of their long term promise.

(Quote)
Joe Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 9:37 pm

Rashiid Amul

This was necessary. He had to clear the air, so to speak.
No company wants others to believe they are on the verge of bankruptcy when they are not.

Nice to hear about the packs. We discuss this quite often here.

“I still hate the fact the car will go about 300 miles on a tank of gas. I would really like to have the 640 miles put back. But I will just have to live with the way they built it. I commute 500 miles a week so I would have used the gas in a 12 gallon tank.
Rashiid Amul@#1

Government does need to help somewhat. It is my money after all, and I would like some of it back so I can purchase the Volt.”
*********************************************************

I don’t understand what the big deal is having to stop after at about 350 miles of driving. Almost everybody stops before that amount of miles. Keeping the car light is important for GM, so why does the car have to go farther than any other car?

(Quote)
Morgan Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 9:42 pm

27 Statik:

You are likely right…however after reading the Barron’s article I think 2010 is a VERY important year for GM. The UAW deal goes into effect then and two very important things happen:

1) Labor costs go down from an average of $60’s and $70’s to $40’s or $50’s. (I can’t remember, I wanted to say its $70 down to high $40’s)

2) 40 some billion in long term debt commitment is erased.

Call me crazy but I think at those numbers and removal of that retirement and healthcare bogey GM might turn a profit on small cars and be able to price them at Toyota range.

You are much smarter than me on this so I will bow to what you think that does to them financially.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 9:48 pm

Statik #21

I’d love to hear YOUR ( ) solution??

(Quote)
Joe Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 9:57 pm

hung@18

“BTW, Wagoner gets paid millions to run the company into the ground. He has bankruptcy proof pension.

He is firing workers and shrinking their paychecks.

And he has the nerve to talk about making “tough decisions”

He represents what is wrong with corporate America.”

*****************************************************
Firing workers? Shrinking paychecks? Where do you get your news? The old workers at GM still makes the same wages. It is the new hire who makes less money. The wages of a new hire is mutually accepted before being hired.
Rarely does a worker ever get fired at GM. If a worker gets fired, he or she more than likely deserved it. Hung, get real.

(Quote)
Michael D Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 10:06 pm

#24 Jeff

The actual quote from the GM Site was:

“The Volt is the first demonstration of our new family of E-Flex propulsion systems.

When running off its battery… which customers can charge in a standard electrical outlet… the Volt operates as a traditional battery-electric vehicle, with a driving range of about 40 miles, which is less than the average daily commute for three-quarters of America.

And if the driver of a Volt needed to go beyond 40 miles, the engine would kick in to supply the electricity to recharge the battery, and keep the vehicle moving.

This would allow the vehicle to drive more than 300 additional miles, with a composite fuel economy of over 100 miles per gallon.”

So . . .

He DID say that after 40 miles, it would go another 300 miles with a composite of over 100mpg.

I don’t know if that is accurate, since we have all been told that the gas capacity would be 5-6 gal not 3.5gal

I don’t know if he REALLY belives that it will run on gas at 88mpg

I don’t know if I believe it will either! (but I hope so!)

Maybe he mis-spoke. Maybe it was mis-reported. Maybe it was just hype.

But, that is what was said! (at least according to the GM source)

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 10:15 pm

I don’t know what all the fuss is over the 100mpg. If he low-balled it he’ll have nothing to apologize for. It’s just too early to worry about stuff like that.

(Quote)
Michael D Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 10:21 pm

#31 Joe

In response to your question:

“I don’t understand what the big deal is having to stop after at about 350 miles of driving. Almost everybody stops before that amount of miles. Keeping the car light is important for GM, so why does the car have to go farther than any other car?”

Answer:

You are RIGHT that 350 miles is enough for almost everybody

. . . But,
If you are building a REVOLUTINOARY electric car, which uninformed people normally think of as having very LOW range . . . AND it gets 50 mpg on gas . . . Knowing that gas weighs 6lbs per gallon, the added weight (if a person actually FILLED the tank would be 18 lbs – the weight of a bowling ball) . . . Knowing that a Prius range is 500 miles . . . The MARKETING would be the reason that a company making a VOLT would do such a thing.

Personally, I will buy it either way!

(Quote)
Crying GM Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 11:23 pm

Rick is the guy will failed GM, he will also be the person to lead this company into Chapter 11 in 18 months, just wait and see! Chrysler is also doomed, maybe Ford will be the only one who can survive in 5 years! SAD DAY!

(Quote)
LandKurt Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 11:35 pm

The “composite fuel economy of over 100 miles per gallon” comment is indeed odd.

Maybe he is assuming the average driver will use the battery 50% of the time. That would lead to an MPG of twice the range extension rate. That doesn’t necessarily mean every trip would be 80 miles (half on battery only and half on gas). It could be that for every 10 trips of 20 miles on battery you put on one 280 mile trip with 240 using gas. One long cross country trip can balance out a lot of short commutes, after all.

Or he might be figuring the MPG equivalent of the electricity used in pure electric mode. How far can you go on $4 worth of electricity?

Assigning an MPG figure to plug ins is going to be difficult. Consumers just want a single MPG figure, but to compare plug ins properly you need to know miles per gallon, miles per kWh, and miles per charge.

(Quote)
Bryce Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 11:37 pm

all this doom……100 years later and they are all still their……..I don’t know about doom. hard times though, hard times.

(Quote)
canehdian Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 12:03 am

Composite may refer to the calculation I put up earlier
200 miles electric (no gas)
300 miles extension (gas)
500 miles in .. 5 gallons gives you 100mpg.
That would mean the range extender gives 300 miles for 5 gallons or 60mpg.
Still very nice, if that’s the case.

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 12:14 am

My Volvo has a range of a little over 400 miles per tank full (that’s about 22 mpg, and an 18 gallon tank).

GM is really blowing a great marketing claim…. 600+ miles per fill up! And if folks are worried about the extra weight of the gasoline, just don’t fill up except when you are going on long trips.

“Composite” MPG statements are meaningless w/out listing all the assumptions, and we don’t have that info. With the right contrived assumptions the Volt could get 250 MPG (composite). Actual real world with a plug-in going to depend on your average daily miles traveled, that you actually plug it in, city vs. highway, and how many MPG the vehicle gets when you’ve depleted the charge from plugging-in (which of course is going to differ here too between city and highway).

What really gets tricky is if you want to factor in the source of the electricity you used to charge it.

(Quote)
omegaman66 Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 12:27 am

“I will post a picture of the Mardi Gras rig with me and some speckled trout after I go fishing there next time I am off with some good weather.”

If forgot to take a picture of the Mardi Gras rig while I was out there last night but here is the picture of the the 50 trout we kept by fishing the oil rig. There were three other boats out there slaying the trout as well.

[link]http://www.thejump.net/copper/albums/userpics/10001/mardi-gras-rig-07-09-2008.jpg[/link]

(Quote)
Gary Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 12:50 am

Enough with the calulations! The 100 miles per gallon that Rick threw out there was simply a nice round number to indicate excellent gasoline fuel economy based on the battery’s use for the first portion of peoples’ trips.

(Quote)
Gary Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 12:51 am

As for 2007’s huge $39 billion loss that everybody is talking about, it’s caused more by a change in accounting rules rather than actual money lost in one year.

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/11/08/gms-39-billion-loss-further-explained/

It’s rare that I’ve seen news sources clarify this.

(Quote)
Bernie Torbik Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:31 am

Wagoner’s difficulty with the Volt’s fuel economy pales in comparison to his ability to acknowledge a simple fact: GM is already bankrupt in all but name only.

If he’d read the Balance Sheet published by his auditors, he’d know that it’s NA car business has no prospect of ever generating enough income to repay its long-term liabiliies. Add to that the subprime mortgage liabilities of the remaining 49% of GMAC that are still on GM’s books, and the dreary picture turns abysmal.

Wagoner would do Chevy and everyone on this site a great service by spinning Chevrolet off into a separate company – at least some of its products (Corvette, Malibu, Volt) are capable of meeting any competition. As for the rest, acknowledge what the market and investors have been saying for years and put it out of its misery.

(Quote)
Bernie Torbik Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:37 am

#45 Gary – The $39 billion loss occurred because of a write-down of the estimated value of GM’s tax losses, which it will never be able to use because it’s unlikely to ever be profitable before the carry-forware period expires.

Wagoner also bears signficant responsibility for this. He refused to negotiate a business deal with Renault-Nissan, which would have preserved the value of those losses. At the U.S. corporate tax rate of 35%, he easily blew $10 billion or more by causing the negotiations to fail.

(Quote)
Peteski Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 2:10 am

Wagoner has a higher annual salary than the top nine executives at Toyota -
COMBINED.

That said, they now have the Volt as the “see we tried to change but it was the housing market and oil prices – not our fault so PLEASE BAIL OUT” card car.

The more I see and the more I hear the more it points to the Volt never happening.

(Quote)
Hybrid Domination Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 2:33 am

I believe Toyota currently commands 80% of the Hybrid Market. That is complete domination! There is a HUGE demand for the mighty Prius (waiting lists of 6+ months). Once the new USA Toyota Prius plant cranks up, look for Toyota marketshare to increase. GM has a very steep hill to climb to compete with Toyota Empire. If you think 200,000 Volts can compete with a Prius that is selling MILLIONS you are dellusional my friends. Toyota will rule this space for quite some time. GM must recognize their weakness in this market and quit trying to chase Toyota’s Tail.

Webcam Alert: This is amazing – there are some lines now that have more than one thousand (1000) people waiting to buy that new iPhone 3G. Apple Mania is shaking the core of 22 countries today. It’s just a phone people, this is ridiculous.

(Quote)
57silver Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 3:41 am

The EPA “composite driving cycle” measures the amount of fuel consumed over a specified ’simulated’ test range. It consists of a specified number of stops, specified speeds for certain distances, etc. I have read at least some earlier cycles were of about 103 miles in total distance. A ‘composite mileage’ rating was assigned to vehicles based on the amount of fuel used during this exact cycle. That is one of the reasons the old testing methods will not give accurate results with hybrid electric vehicles. If you only drive the exact distance of 103 miles, over 40 of those miles will be battery powered plus some regenerative braking gains in stop and go driving. A different set of standards will be needed for vehicles such as the Volt that do not use any gasoline at all for part the driving. As suggested by others before on this site, probably the easest to understand method to use would be to assign an “AER” range based on how far the car could travel on a fully charged battery pack and another ‘gas mileage’ rating based on how much fuel is used while the ICE/generator is operating. Even those ratings would be difficult to determine. For instance, is the AER range for non-stop highway only driving, and at what driving speed? Driving the Volt at 75 mph will surely result in a shorter AER range than driving at 55 mph. Alternately, if the AER range is based on stop and go city driving, the regenerative braking would help extend the AER rating. How to rate the Volt and other hybrid electric vehicles is much more complicated than it seems at first glance.

(Quote)
dagwood55 Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 6:10 am

#45, Gary, This isn’t the result of a “change” to accounting rules, it’s a result of the expiration of some paper tax assets.

While you can look at this and say, “it’s all paper, GM didn’t *really* lose 30+ billion last year,” there’s a darker side to it.

Those “tax assets” they had on the books represented a way of inflating profits or shrinking losses in the year(s) they booked them.

In other words, GM has been sicker than they were letting on for a while. Last year, they had to admit it.

You might also consider that the books aren’t necessarily closed on 2007… GM has a bad habit of going back and “re-stating” earnings from past years and usually not in a good way.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 6:43 am

#50 57silver says: “How to rate the Volt and other hybrid electric vehicles is much more complicated than it seems at first glance.”
————————————————————————————-
I think a 103 mile EPA test would be OK for the Volt and other plug-ins. For this test, the Volt would get almost 100 MPG, so that would definately get people’s attention. The plug-in Prius would definately get a worse MPG figure than the Volt. If there’s one MPG number to judge all cars by, the 103 mile test would work.

The AER and it’s implications will be spelled out by sales and marketing. People will get it eventually. Don’t worry.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 7:00 am

#33 Grizzly

“Statik #21: I’d love to hear YOUR solution??”

There is only one solution at this point…Chapter 11.

The reason GM has no turnaround plan is because, part of the “surivival plan” in early 06 was to gain cash by offloading some assets/liabilities. Unfortunately this meant GMAC.

GM’s main driver of profit was not automobilies at all…but rather the financing of them. Now they don’t even have that crutch.

For 2003,2004 and 2005, GMAC contributed about 8.5 billion dollars in net income to GM as a whole, while over the same time the automobile operations netted a loss of 5.4 billion.

Chapter 11 is a more than reasonable solution, the new re-org’d company more than likely still produces the Volt. Honestly, I think Wagoner (and the rest of the board) know it is coming and have accepted it, but are putting ‘the brave face’ on.

Right now, they have no controls on them, they can blow all their cash on ‘future projects’ and ’streamlining’ payrolls in the manner they see fit…rather than just throwing away what it has left to pay 10 cents on the dollar to it’s debts. After they spend it all, then they can throw their hands up and say, “whoops, that didn’t work, economy is bad…but we have a ‘bold new plan’ to be profitable now”

It’s a good strategy actually, I’m not saying it isn’t. It’s probably what I would do in the same situation.

However, there has been real people getting hurt buying into the rhetoric @ $40, $30, $20 and yes, even today at $9.69. Not to mention the people/companies at the other end of that 150-200 billion in debt. That is why I am so terse when I see articles like this…I’ve seen alot of people (even on this forum) that have gone out and bought this stock on back of GM press junkets like this…only to lose.

GM actually wins when it goes bankrupt. But it puts the period on a monsterous loss for a far greater portion of people/companies who believed in it…and it will trigger massive writedowns, sudden loss of employment and pain across the country.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 7:01 am

The 640 mile range on a tank of gas sounds great.
Maybe it is because I constantly watch how far I go on a tank of gas.
The bigger the tank, the less often I need to fill up. If I could go a month before needing to stop at a gas station, then that is what I would want. I would complain less often about the gas prices.

When I am on a trip, I drive until I need gas. Then I stop and eat too.
I like to get where I am going and not spend all my time stopping.

I also drive a standard shift. Both things are a personal preference.
Not an anxiety. It’s just me. I want a bigger tank. However, please let me restate what I said in my first post at #1. I will live with the car anyway they build it.

As far as having a big bladder, that is not the case.
I just pee out the passenger side window while I am driving down the highway.

(Quote)
Jim in PA Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 7:01 am

In reality, your possible composite mpg for any given trip isn’t actually a single number; it is a curve that depends on how many miles you will drive. For example, at a travel distance under 40 miles (the battery distance), the mpg curve spikes up towards infinity since you haven’t used any gas. For every mile over 40, the curve slides downwards towards the right as more gas is used, until it levels off at the 50 mpg efficiency of the gas engine running in serial hybrid mode. Seems simple. But when I ran some hypothetical numbers, I got some surprising results. It looks like the gas engine in serial hybrid mode gets more than the espexted 50 mpg. IT looks like it gets upwards to 60 mpg or more. Here are my numbers, pulled out of my butt of course.

If you drive 100 miles (seems like a fair composite mpg distance), and get a composite of 100 mpg as GM says, AND the battery has a 40 mile range, that means the gas engine (when running in serial hybrid mode) must get 60 mpg (100 mpg = 1 gallon of gas used in 100 miles = 1 gallon of gas used in 60 miles after subtracting the 40 mile battery range).

(Quote)
LongCliff Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 7:05 am

Rick Says: GM has “no thoughts whatsoever” of bankruptcy and noted it would be better if “we had less speculation along lines that we think is quite inaccurate.”

Since GM is not considering going bankrupt, it will not happen? What arrogance! GM doesn’t get to choose whether or not to go Bankrupt. They go Bankrupt when they burn through all their cash reserves and are unable to raise any more capital. Bankruptcy talk is not “speculation”, it is simple math.

At GM’s current cash burn rate, they will not survive long enough to produce the volt. Their only hope is a government bail-out.

(Quote)
Gsned57 Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 7:06 am

One of the problems we heard they were having with the Volt is Gas getting stale. Maybe GM decided to go with a 3.5 gallon tank so people would fill up more often. Personally I think stating that a car can go 340 miles on a 3.5 gallon tank and have someone holding up a few milk gallon jugs is a whole lot more impressive then saying the car can go 600 miles on a tank. It’s a genius marketing ploy that helps with the stale gas issue.

(Quote)
BillR Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 7:13 am

I found a couple of things interesting here. First quote:

“The Volt is the first demonstration of our new family of E-Flex propulsion systems.”

This means other vehicles are planned for the E-Flex system, and this was alluded to by Bob Boniface in his recent interview (see forum post by Jason Hendler). Perhaps we will see a Cadillac Provoq or similar vehicles in addition to the Volt.

The other interesting quote, which has already got quite a few responses:

“And if the driver of a Volt needed to go beyond 40 miles, the engine would kick in to supply the electricity to recharge the battery, and keep the vehicle moving.

This would allow the vehicle to drive more than 300 additional miles, with a composite fuel economy of over 100 miles per gallon.”

Obviously, an outstanding achievement, if true. So let’s look at the possibilities. The EV-1 could go a steady 60 mph and use only 168 Wh per mile.

http://avt.inl.gov/pdf/fsev/eva/ev1_eva.pdf

The EV-1 and the Volt will probably have about the same weight. The EV-1 had a Cd of 0.19, while we know the Volt’s Cd is less than the Prissy at 0.26 (but likely more than 0.19). But in its favor, the Volt has more efficient Li-Ion batteries, a more efficient permanent magnet motor, and the next generation of power electronics. It is conceivable that the Volt could go a mile on 160 Wh of energy.

If so, and with the battery packs probably exceeding expectations, we could see a 20 kWh battery pack (in lieu of the 16 kWh minimum spec), and GM may choose to use 60% of the packs capacity (85% to 25% SOC). So 12 kWh divided by 0.160 equates to 75 miles AER.

Next, let’s assume GM tunes the ICE to operate at its best efficiency point, about 36%. Since one gallon of gasoline equals 36 kWh of energy, we can expect about 13 kWh delivered to the batteries. Again, at 160 Wh per mile, this equates to 81 mpg.

So in this scenario, the Volt goes 75 miles on electricity, then uses about 3.75 gallons of gasoline to go an additional 300 miles. The composite fuel consumption is 100 mpg!!

(Quote)
Dave B Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 7:20 am

Statik @ 53 writes:

“However, there has been real people getting hurt buying into the rhetoric @ $40, $30, $20 and yes, even today at $9.69. Not to mention the people/companies at the other end of that 150-200 billion in debt. That is why I am so terse when I see articles like this…I’ve seen alot of people (even on this forum) that have gone out and bought this stock on back of GM press junkets like this…only to lose.”

No doubt anyone who bought GM stock since the concept of the Volt has been pummeled. But isn’t that true for any equity in general???

(Quote)
Morgan Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 7:26 am

53 Statik:

What does the removal of a good chunk of the debt and a massive lowering of labor costs do to them though?

In the automotive business at GM’s level it truly does not take much to go from 3 billion in losses per quarter to 1 billion in profit per quarter.

What does that do to your thinking?

(If you have read my comments in the past I believe Chapter 11 would be a good thing for GM I just want your thoughts on what this would do to the bottom line picture for GM)

(Quote)
brandon Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 7:32 am

There is an easy solution for GM in the short term. If GM used the same political influence it used in the last 20 years that effectively got small fuel efficient diesel cars banned from the US (explain to me how a 60mpg diesel Corsa is dirtier than a Hummer H2), and convinced the government the only way out for them is to relax the overly restrictive emissions regulations so they could sell the same fuel efficient powerplants they sell in Europe over here, they would be fine. Just as examples here is what GM sells in the UK and the fuel economy in US gallons:

Vauxhall Vectra 50mpg (Epsilon Platform like Malibu/Aura)
Vauxhall Astra 57mpg (Delta Platform like G5/Astra/Cobalt)
Vauxhall Corsa 62mpg (Gamma Platform, no US equivalent)
Vauxhall Meriva 55mpg (small minivan)
Vauxhall Zafira 46mpg (midsized 7 passenger minivan like Mazda 5)
Vauxhall Antara 35mpg (SUV same as Saturn Vue)
*all listed in US MPG extra-urban rating (comparable to our highway mpg)

All of these vehicles GM makes in the UK and can’t come here because overly restrictive emissions regulations were pushed by the big 3 to keep small fuel efficient european diesels out. If GM used would push our goverment to relax the emissions standards for the next 5-10 years until EVs become a reality they could be making money selling us the fuel efficient vehicles we want and need right now!

On a second note, the upcoming 40mpg Chevy Cruze doesn’t look so special when europe is already getting a 57mpg car the same size.

(Quote)
Scottie Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 7:42 am

BILL R #58

“Next, let’s assume GM tunes the ICE to operate at its best efficiency point, about 36%. Since one gallon of gasoline equals 36 kWh of energy, we can expect about 13 kWh delivered to the batteries. Again, at 160 Wh per mile, this equates to 81 mpg.”

Question.. so if the above were true, why not make a much smaller battery say one that will only propel the volt 1-2 miles. Use this battery to store extra “juice” when needed for acceleration and to store brake re-gen. Then have the ICE run at its 36% efficient all the time. You are still getting “81 mpg” and the battery pack would have to be considerably cheaper?

(Quote)
RB Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 7:49 am

57silver @ #50 — Thank you for this explanation of the “official” composite driving cycle. It makes sense that Mr Wagoner was referring to Volt performance on such a cycle, as that is the kind of number he probably learns in management meetings. I see that 100 mpg could be the correct value on such a cycle. That is, if the first 50 miles is all electric, and 50 miles more assisted by the ICE takes 1 gallon, one gets 100 mpg without stretching anything too much. We had assumed that the whole fuel tank would be used up; however, Mr Wagoner did not say that. Further, on a test cycle of 105 miles it may be advantageous to have a smaller fuel tank so that there is less weight.

We may not have every detail straight, but you have given us the right way to think about it.

(Quote)
Darius Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 7:57 am

Brandon,

1 mile = 1.609344 kilometers
1 US gallon = 3.78541178 liters

So it means if you have 50 MPG it equals to 4,7 l/100 km.
We don’t have such gasoline car in Europe. And 50 MPG is not a limit. It depends on your daily commute distance.

(Quote)
RB Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 8:00 am

#62 Scottie — Indeed, the design you propose may be better overall. The down side is that what people want (meaning people on this blog at least) is the largest possible all-electric range, so that one never goes to the gas station (or almost never). A smaller battery would be a negative from that perspective.

(Quote)
Chris Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 8:18 am

New article/speech from Troy Clark, president of GM north america

http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewmediaspeechdetail.do?domain=588&docid=46353

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 8:24 am

Gsned57 @ 57, says, “Personally I think stating that a car can go 340 miles on a 3.5 gallon tank and have someone holding up a few milk gallon jugs is a whole lot more impressive then saying the car can go 600 miles on a tank.”

Yup, I agree. I think this does sound better and drives a very good point home. I still want to go farther, but I will live with whatever they sell me.

(Quote)
brandon Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 8:31 am

#64 Darius

Those numbers I posted are the extra-urban cycle fuel economy ratings right from Vauxhall UKs website for each of those vehicles. The website has each car rated in L/100km and I converted them to US mpg. I know you don’t have such gasoline cars in europe, these numbers are for the diesel cars you have. GM needs to offer these diesel engines in the US as a short term solution until EVs can become mainstream!

(Quote)
Van Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 8:36 am

Just a couple of points, first many folks would like a larger gas tank so that the extended range would be well over 400 miles. The reason given for not providing an eight gallon or larger tank, weight savings, does not seem to have merit. I stop at rest stops, not gas stations for bladder drainage, where I can walk and enjoy the vista. So the first point is no want actually wants a small tank, but many say it does not matter to them, while many others do want a larger gas tank. So either put a larger tank into the base product or make it an option. Pretty simple really.

Second point, “composite” mileage. A composite calculation can yield any number you want. Lets say I drive 50 miles, 40 all electric, and 10 at 50 MPG. So I use .2 gallons of fuel. My “composite” mileage is 250 MPG for the 50 mile trip. Lets say I drive 80 miles, and use .8 gallons of fuel. My “composite” mileage is 100 MPG for the 80 mile trip. A “composite” is a meaningless number.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 8:37 am

#60 Morgan

“53 Statik:

What does the removal of a good chunk of the debt and a massive lowering of labor costs do to them though? In the automotive business at GM’s level it truly does not take much to go from 3 billion in losses per quarter to 1 billion in profit per quarter.
What does that do to your thinking?”

Qood question.

And I think this was a plausible solution for GM when it got all of this ’streamline’ the ship business started in 2005. The problem now is even thought the infrastructure is smaller, and GM’s small car architecture with Delta2 is sound (meaning the direct cost to produce is less that the retail price), the overall picture across it’s brands as become desperate because of the wall (and now nosedive) the economy has hit.

Long story short. GM’s revenue is going to drop some 30 percent likely this year, it will surely drop another 20% with the continuing economy and just the sheer fact GM is cutting production.

It’s falling revenue stream and any potential profit is prohibiting it from being able to service it’s debt.

IE) 2006 208 billion (ACT)
2007 181 billion (ACT)
2008 150 billion(?)
2009 130 billion(?)

In other words it will have to pick up profitability 4 billion dollars per quarter to go from a 3billion loss to 1 billion profit. OR 16 billion a year improvement..which is darn tuff on 130 billion.

(Quote)
BillR Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 8:37 am

#62 Scottie

There are a couple of problems with the small battery scenario that you describe.

First, there would be very little regen capability, so as you descended down a long hill, you would fill the battery pack to capacity and thus lose any additional energy that could have been captured.

Secondly, and probably most important, is the fact that to achieve the 36% efficiency with the ICE, it must be operated at its best operating point. With the Volt’s large battery pack, this constant load, high efficiency operation charges the batteries, while the batteries provide the needed power surge to accelerate, climb hills, power the AC, etc. Therefore, the battery pack provides the load swings, while the ICE provides an average load to replenish the batteries.

Without the large battery pack, the ICE would be required to provide these load swings. This means it can not operate at a constant speed, constant load, but must change speed and load to meet the vehicle’s demands. This causes the ICE to operate at loads other than optimum.

Also, since the power to cruise at 60 mph may be only 12 kW, but the power to climb a 5% grade at the same speed would be a nominal 40 kW, the ICE needs to be oversized to provide power when needed, and thus operated at a low part-load efficiency during normal cruise.

So, with the Volt we have an electric drive scenario, where the drive mechanism is totally electric, and the ICE’s function is to generate electric power in the most efficient manner possible.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 9:01 am

I would just like to say ‘for the record,’ Wagoner alway quotes mysterious other cash:

“Under any scenario we can imagine … our cash position will remain robust through this year” and the company has options for raising cash beyond that, Wagoner said.

Yeah we all know about the 20-24 billion and another 7 billion in credit lines…but what about this ‘other’ money. Why doesn’t he say just exactly where this money is likely to come from. Because he doesn’t want to…and the union, at this point would freak.

It’s VEBA. (voluntary employees’ beneficiary association)

GM funded it in a deal with the UAW (up to about 14 billion dollars). In order to keep it’s union member’s employed it will be forced to ‘loan’ GM back this money at a unrealistic rate…that will not of course be paid back.

Get ready to start paying for those drugs GM employees.

(Quote)
Tom M Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 9:15 am

Rashiid #1

It is not only GM that is having a tough time, but you won’t hear that from the drive by media. The San Antonio Express News, yesterday had a head line of : Toyota to shut down their brand new truck plant for three months because of the huge inventory. But, you won’t see this in the national news. This plant only builds trucks and the Tundra is not selling either.
God Bless America,

Tom

(Quote)
Aspherical Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 9:25 am

I hope that their plan to avoid declaring bankruptcy does not rely on selling Hummer. Good luck finding a buyer!

(Quote)
Joy Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 9:31 am

Reading this thread brings up something I’ve been noticing on TV just recently – some auto manufacturers are starting to advertise “miles per tank” vs. MPG. At first I thought this was meaningless info they were putting out there to distract customers from the more useful MPG figures. Now, reading how important the tank size is to some of you all, maybe they have something there…..

(Quote)
Tom M Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 9:32 am

Rashiid,

Today’s headline: “BRACING FOR SHUTDOWN” Toyota’s 3-month Closing / IMPACT.

It has been said Toyota will not produce their trucks at the out of state plant and that all trucks will be made here in San Antonio.
when production resumes.

Tom

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 9:46 am

#73 Tom M. I heard that Toyota is no longer making the Tundra on NPR this morning. I also heard at the same time that Prius will be built here.

(Quote)
Joe Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 9:50 am

to Statik from Joe

“I would just like to say ‘for the record,’ Wagoner alway quotes mysterious other cash:

“Under any scenario we can imagine … our cash position will remain robust through this year” and the company has options for raising cash beyond that, Wagoner said.

Yeah we all know about the 20-24 billion and another 7 billion in credit lines…but what about this ‘other’ money. Why doesn’t he say just exactly where this money is likely to come from. Because he doesn’t want to…and the union, at this point would freak.

It’s VEBA. (voluntary employees’ beneficiary association)

GM funded it in a deal with the UAW (up to about 14 billion dollars). In order to keep it’s union member’s employed it will be forced to ‘loan’ GM back this money at a unrealistic rate…that will not of course be paid back.

Get ready to start paying for those drugs GM employees.”

*********************************************

I don’t think Dick Wagoner has to answer any of those questions to you or anyone except the board. He is doing a great job and there’s no denying it. I am offended on the dumb remark about “GM having to start paying for those drugs GM employees.”
Sometime I wonder why I blog on this site because some bloggers, like yourself, are awfully dumb.

(Quote)
mitch Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 9:51 am

#72 Statik

Other money can come from many sources, not borrowing from the union VEBA.

Everyone says Ford is doing good for cash, but remember it mortgages it North American assets to do so…

there is your “other money”

GM has 24B in cash, 7B in credit (31Btotal) @1b/month as some are saying, tha is enough for 2.5 years or Jan 2011. Select areas can be mortgaged to raise capital.

I do not think that they are that badly off. HTe negative financial reviews are to drive the stk $ down so investment firms can buy, then change the tune and give better reviews, so they make $$.

#49

“Millions” of Priuses? took 10 years to get to 1 million .agreed to market domination comment. and yes 200,000 volts will make a difference, it took Toyota almost 5 years to sell that many Priuses, if GM is building that many in 3-4 years,then the growth rate is greater than that of Prius, also the offering of an all electric or extended range electric that gets alsomst 2x the mieage will SERIOUSLY dent the market share..Prius is popular becuase it is best in class, and that class is becoming seriously in demand.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 9:53 am

#77 Rashiid

” I heard that Toyota is no longer making the Tundra on NPR this morning. I also heard at the same time that Prius will be built here.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINN1048671120080710?rpc=44

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 10:04 am

#79 Mitch

GM has 24B in cash, 7B in credit (31Btotal) @1b/month as some are saying, tha is enough for 2.5 years or Jan 2011.

I know it looks that way doing the math like that, but their are market triggers along the way. As cash twindles, credit markets tighting, borrowing cost increases. Once GM goes under 10 billion in cash, margins are called in and once suppliers/lendors do not believe GM will pay for the goods they require, they will not be extended credit. Instantly the 70 billion they own in short term liabilities are unfundable because of lack of access to further goods needed to service this debt…it’s a catch 22.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 10:11 am

#79 Mitch…part 2

“I do not think that they are that badly off. HTe negative financial reviews are to drive the stk $ down so investment firms can buy, then change the tune and give better reviews, so they make $$.”

This is just not the case.

Of the 566 million shares outstanding, 120 million of them are currently shorted…or 21 percent. This is a monsterous number and growing, and 95% of this is institutional holdings.

Shares short May 10th, 2008: 105.25 million
Shares short Jun 10th, 2008: 120.18 million
(Toyota has 1.6 million of 1.57 billion shares currently shorted to give a comparison).

The financial market is saying clearly it is going under, there is no plot to drive the price low and then buy it up in this case.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 10:18 am

Statik #53

“There is only one solution at this point…Chapter 11.”

*** *** ***

So is it your opinion that bankruptcy is better sooner than later when in fact it may very well not be necessary? With 24B in cash and other sources including preferred stock and JB’s it’s just way too early, and as has been mentioned things change quickly in this industry. There is also quite a bit of inventory to liquidate. Ch 11 may look advantageous from a balance sheet perspective, but what it can do to consumer confidence WRT your products and going concern are not pretty.

One thing I find in all walks of life is that there are no shortage of arm-chair quarterbacks, and I’m not just talking football! Easy it is to call anything from the perspective of your cable box, whether it’s the CNBC ticker or the last 3rd down conversion.

(Quote)
Morgan Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 10:24 am

82 Statik:

I am new to investing so please please correct me if I am wrong since it helps me out:

with that much short interest isn’t the WORST thing that could happen to those institutional shorts is for GM to declare bankruptcy before they buy to cover?

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 10:43 am

A less than 40 mile AER battery can hold enough capacity to allow the ICE to run at it’s most efficient speed, the problem is that the smaller battery has less ability to provide the extra “uphill” power-spike; inherently. You need a lot of lithium to get those surges. High AER is almost a side-benefit of this engineering requirement (though functionally, it turns out to be more useful than the requirement).

What you really need for a non-plug-in serial hybrid (at less than 6 – 8 miles AER that’s functionally what you’re talking about), is an ultracapacitor. No, we wouldn’t need to wait for EESTOR’s Fantasy and Science Fiction to come true, if they only halve the cost and double the capacity it could help bring this about.

No proven or likely ultracapacitor capacity can provide a high AER, but what power it does store is available: all of it, maybe more than you really wanted, at any instant. You can get your 40kw for a few seconds easily from a capacity of under 5kwh, unlike a battery.

Other benefits of producing such a car: same genset as Volt, same propulsion motors as Volt, spread over a wider range of vehicles for lower overall cost. Less space utilized inside, hopefully less expensive than giant lithium batteries, and unlimited service life.

Of course, the ultracapacitor you would need is less developed than the battery at this point, so we’d be talking 8 – 10 years in the future; but it does answer the critic who asks “what if Oil prices drop” (not that they will).

===

We could be breathing far too much into “composite 100mpg.” Perhaps

“NEW Composite’s

In his mouth, for –

PRESS APPEAL!”

(Quote)
canehdian Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 10:44 am

“Reading this thread brings up something I’ve been noticing on TV just recently – some auto manufacturers are starting to advertise “miles per tank” vs. MPG. At first I thought this was meaningless info they were putting out there to distract customers from the more useful MPG figures. Now, reading how important the tank size is to some of you all, maybe they have something there…..”

That’s a low trick there..
Hey! We can get over 1000 miles per tank*! Can your current car do that?
Come, check out the Hummer!

*with standard 400 gallon tank.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:02 am

#83 Grizzly

“Statik #53: There is only one solution at this point…Chapter 11.”

If you read my post through, I actually say that Capter 11 is not the solution right now…that if I was GM they should blow through all their cash and lines to make themselves as strong as they possibly can be coming out of chaper 11…so we kind of agree it’s not a’right now’ thing…but in my opinion it is ‘a thing that is inevitable”

Here is the rest of my post, quoted below to illustrate what I mean:

“Right now, they have no controls on them, they can blow all their cash on ‘future projects’ and ’streamlining’ payrolls in the manner they see fit…rather than just throwing away what it has left to pay 10 cents on the dollar to it’s debts. After they spend it all, then they can throw their hands up and say, “whoops, that didn’t work, economy is bad…but we have a ‘bold new plan’ to be profitable now”

It’s a good strategy actually, I’m not saying it isn’t. It’s probably what I would do in the same situation. “

(Quote)
jp Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:05 am

maybe Smart Car will buy Hummer and release a whole new line called Stupid

(Quote)
noel park Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:23 am

#21 Statik:

Alas too true, I fear.

#88 jp:

Thanks. After reading through these comments I desperately needed a laugh.

All:

At this point, I couldn’t care less how big the gas tank is. Just get the !@#$% car to the marketplace before it’s too late.

(Quote)
Crows Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:25 am

Rashiid Amul Wrote :

“This was necessary. He had to clear the air, so to speak.
No company wants others to believe they are on the verge of bankruptcy when they are not.

Nice to hear about the packs. We discuss this quite often here.

I still hate the fact the car will go about 300 miles on a tank of gas. I would really like to have the 640 miles put back. But I will just have to live with the way they built it. I commute 500 miles a week so I would have used the gas in a 12 gallon tank.

Government does need to help somewhat. It is my money after all, and I would like some of it back so I can purchase the Volt.”
____________________________________________________

Sorry Homie I have to disagree the Govt. should not have to help.They didnt help out in the past and they shouldn’t have to help out now after all that is taxpayers money!!

I cant help but notice how WALMART another greedy company tries to stick their hands into the tax payers pockets every chance they get and I could name the horror stories there…

GM as well as others have made billions upon billions of dollars and they sure as hell dont need any freebees from good old uncle sam to maintain their wealth…

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:25 am

Joe #78 says, “Sometime I wonder why I blog on this site because some bloggers, like yourself, are awfully dumb.”

Joe, I realize that you are mostly speaking of Statik, however your comment also points to others.
I want to thank you for your special recognition of myself.
I am clearly the dumbest one here and totally out of my element.
It is people like you that I learn the finer things in life from.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:30 am

Crows @ 90 wrote, “Sorry Homie I have to disagree the Govt. should not have to help.They didnt help out in the past and they shouldn’t have to help out now after all that is taxpayers money!!

I cant help but notice how WALMART another greedy company tries to stick their hands into the tax payers pockets every chance they get and I could name the horror stories there…

GM as well as others have made billions upon billions of dollars and they sure as hell dont need any freebees from good old uncle sam to maintain their wealth…”

——–

I wasn’t referring to Walmart or any other company. I was referring to getting MY money back from the government so that I can purchase the Volt. Feel free to give the government more of your money. I prefer to keep mine.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:30 am

#84 Morgan

“#82 Statik: I am new to investing so please please correct me if I am wrong since it helps me out: With that much short interest isn’t the WORST thing that could happen to those institutional shorts is for GM to declare bankruptcy before they buy to cover?”

No, it’s actaully the best thing. Ok, here it comes…time to put the rest of the board to sleep. (with some paraphrasing)

When a company files for bankruptcy, the stock generally dives immediately, but still trades for pennies a share during the bankruptcy process (which in GM’s case would likely be 1-2 years).

You can buy to cover at any time during the process. The stock will get kicked off the major exchanges and end up on the pink sheets. but you can still buy it there – just be sure to use a limit order. Or you can wait until the process is over and if the stock is canceled and worthless, you will not have to buy it back at all and will get to keep all the cash you received when you sold it short.

(Quote)
Morgan Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:36 am

93 Statik:

Thanks! I had thought most of that was the answer but I have never really seen or read what happens to shorts when a company files bankruptcy.

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:47 am

I’ll believe it when I see it, but I just can’t imagine GM putting in only a 3.4 gallon gas tank.

The original tank they announced was going to be 12 gallons (that may actually have been a dual interconnected tanks design as I remember dual tanks being mentioned somewhere?) to extend the range (above the 40 BEV range) another 600 miles (total of 640 miles). That’s 50 miles/gallon.

The reasons (plural) mentioned by GM for reducing the fuel capacity was “weight” and “volume” (space it takes up). The latter is the more likely reason as the dry weight of the tank is not enough to be meaningful. With the battery pack running down the middle of the length of the vehicle, I can see where it may be difficult to find a place to put a 12 gallon tank (and having dual tanks to get 12 gallons adds complexity and cost).

So I stand by my belief that the tank size is 6 gallons, and hopefully not more (if the genset range is 300 miles as Rick said, that would make it less than 50mpg). But it sure would be nice if GM would just come out and give the tank size….

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:51 am

#54 Rashiid

“I just pee out the passenger side window while I am driving down the highway.”

And I thought I was the only one who did that!!!!!

(Quote)
DonC Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:54 am

Morgan@#32

I’m thinking that GM’s (and Ford’s and Chrysler’s) major issue is the pensions. Isn’t that the elephant in the room? Even if current labor costs go down won’t the exisiting commitments for pensions still be the giant sucking sound that represents the drag on profitability?

On a completely different note: going short means you have unlimited downside; going long means you have unlimited upside. It’s not an even game, which is why so few have been successful at going short. It’s very risky.

What shorts normally do after placing their bets is to come on boards like this one and talk the stock down, you know, like Statik does …… (only kidding only kidding).

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 12:04 pm

@Rashid
500 miles a week? Holy cow, how many times do you get gas NOW? I’m really curious.

Re all the bankrupcy speculation – I can only imagine the effect on sales of cars from any company that has just declared bankrupcy (how IS that spelled, anyway). The Volt could be the best thing since sliced bread, but who is going to buy it from a company who, joe sixpack thinks is “broke”? (present company excluded, of course).

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 12:07 pm

#78 Joe

“I don’t think Dick Wagoner has to answer any of those questions to you or anyone except the board. He is doing a great job and there’s no denying it. I am offended on the dumb remark about “GM having to start paying for those drugs GM employees.”
Sometime I wonder why I blog on this site because some bloggers, like yourself, are awfully dumb.”

——————–

I wonder as well. Calling out people as dumb is clearly not a sign of intelligence. Having the presence to calmly argue facts however is. So kindly present some facts against my opinions or sources and I’d be happy to banter with you.

I’m not sure what this means either, “GM having to start paying for those drugs GM employees” That isn’t even a sentence…and I have no clue what your getting at. You put it in quotation marks, which means you supposed to be quoting me, but you changed the whole meaning and also made it illegible at the same time.

“He (Wagoner) is doing a great job and there’s no denying it”
Whys that? Illustrate some points to me about how he has strengthened the company since he took the job. Just saying stuff doesn’t make it right.

Side note:
Is this the same Joe that says he works for GM and thinks “GM holds over 500 billion dollars of assets”? The Joe that was disputing his CC charges because his T-Shirt was slow? The Joe that said, “GM’s shares are worth 10 times of the current market share price. GM’s shares are way undervalued”? But gave no reason as to why. The Joe that said, “Many financial experts will tell you GM’s share are worth about 10 time more than the current price.”-yet named not one.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Tagamet #98. I buy gas twice a week. Since I have slowed down my speed considerably, I get 440 miles from a 14.5 gallon tank on my 166,000 mile 2002 Hyundai Elantra. It currently costs me $12.50 a day to go back and forth to work.

I thought of moving closer to work, but I work on Connecticut’s Gold Coast. I can buy a smaller house, on less land, for three times more than I paid for mine. Moving isn’t an option for me.

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 12:15 pm

“The Volt could be the best thing since sliced bread, but who is going to buy it from a company who, joe sixpack thinks is “broke”? (present company excluded, of course).”

Present company. That ought to be good for, what? 30K+ units?

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 12:15 pm

#94 Morgan

“93 Statik:Thanks! I had thought most of that was the answer but I have never really seen or read what happens to shorts when a company files bankruptcy.”

No problem, I am always happy to talk ‘business,’ it’s what I really love to do.

#97 DonC

“What shorts normally do after placing their bets is to come on boards like this one and talk the stock down, you know, like Statik does …… (only kidding only kidding).”

Hehe, I know you are kidding. I would like to officially disclose again, I have no position in GM…or any other stock at the moment. (You can believe that, I said it on the internets, lol).

Honestly, everyone should formulate their own opinions on a investment on their own (the last place to look is the web for opinions), then find a unbiased third party professional and get his/her opinion to see if you are missing anything….then enter the market.

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Statik, I actually once owned a stock that the company went bankrupt… can’t remember the name, too long ago (I think it was a company that either made or sold paint). The shares actually stopped trading completely for 6 months or so… I wanted to sell, even at pennies a share, just so I could write off the loss on my taxes, but couldn’t Eventually trading did start back up again, at least briefly, so I could sell. Otherwise I would have had to wait long enough to declare them worthless to close the position.

To those thinking about shorting GM (or any other stock)…. keep in mind that unlike buying a stock long where your downside risk is limited (to what you paid for the stock)… when you short a stock your downside risk is essentially unlimited…. if you short the stock when it’s at $10, and instead of going down, that the stock actually goes up, let’s say to $21, you’ve now lost $11/share, it goes to $25 you’ve lost $25, etc. And worse than that… if a company whose stock is heavily shorted actually surprises the analysts to the positive, it can create a “short squeeze” where the stock price is driven up by all the short sellers trying to close out their positions.

I’ve never been brave enough myself to sell a stock short. One year though I was thinking about “shorting against the box” for tax purposes, only to find out that loophole was closed in ‘97.

(Quote)
Kent Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Rashiid & N. Riley-

Please check for motorcyclists in your rearview mirror before peeing out the window!! The bug’s on my faceshield and bird droppings are bad enough!

As for the 3.4 gallon tank, that is awfully tiny. I have a 5.4 gallon tank on my motorcycle so I know it doesn’t weigh a lot nor does it take up much space . How bad is the situation when 2-3 gallons make a difference?

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Rashid,
Thanks for the info. You’re in a tough spot now, but at least we have the Volt to look forward to (ducks and covers).
Be well,
Tag

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 12:28 pm

argh, the “click to edit” overlay sucks so I can’t fix my typo…

I obviously meant you lose $15/share if a stock you shorted at $10 goes to $25.

(Quote)
RB Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 12:41 pm

#83 Grizzly

The GM accountants were no doubt dispassionate in putting down the numbers. When on the balance sheet they put down short term liabilities at $10B more than short term assets, it reflects their objective counting up of (what is expected to come in during the next year) minus (what will be required to go out during the next year). Remember these are numbers put together by GM management and then reviewed by the auditor, not some invention of some outside group. The balance sheet also shows the total of all assets to be billions less than the total of all liabilities, as of now.

GM may not have filed yet, but bankruptcy is where they are headed. Sometimes miracles occur (e.g. govmt bailout, gas price falls to $1 a gallon), but it will take a big one, and there is no sign of it yet.

Bankruptcy is bad for it hurts a lot of innocent people, but it is not all bad, in that sometimes a smaller but much stronger company emerges.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 12:44 pm

#66 Chris

“New article/speech from Troy Clark, president of GM north america”

Thanks for the link. It was a long read and I did read most of it.

My comment on the speech material is off the subject of this post and I ask you to bear with me a moment.

I may want to apologize to the automakers like GM if they in fact do produce vehicles that use a fuel cell to generate electricity to propel the vehicle. If that can prove to be beneficial to areas of the world where electricity is not in easy access or is very costly, then that concept may be ok. I still believe for the majority of us we see no sense in using electricity to create hydrogen then turn around and use the created hydrogen to create electricity to propel the vehicle. It just makes more sense to use the electricity directly and skip the hydrogen generation and all of its problems. Maybe I am right and maybe the automakers, big oil and the government is right. Time will tell.

Or maybe I don’t understand fuel cell technology and usage well enough. This certainly could be the case.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 12:51 pm

#69 Van

I don’t think weight has anything to do with GM’s decision to reduce the size of the fuel tank. I think it has to do with the size of the battery and the placement of the fuel tank. I think they just ran out of room in areas where they could “safely” place the fuel tank to avoid fuel loss when the auto is struck in the side or the in the rear. Now, this is only my thinking. GM might have reasons different from mine.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 12:57 pm

#77 Rashiid,

The Toyota Prius will be built in Blue Springs, Mississippi starting in 2010. That plant was being constructed to build the Highlander. The plant is now in the dirt moving process, I think. So, they caught it at a time they could make the switch very easy. It is a good decision for my fellow Mississippians.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Rashiid@#64

Originally I liked the idea of a 600 mile range. Then I started to think about how I would actually drive a Volt and became concerned. Here’s why:

My understanding is that gas goes sour after a few months to a year or so depending on storage conditions. The time starts from when the gas is refined, not put in your tank.

I don’t drive more than 40 miles a day. In fact I don’t have to drive more than a couple of hundred miles a week. My wife, who commutes a longer distance, also doesn’t drive more than 40 miles a day. So neither one of us would normally use any gas in the Volt, and since we’d probably take a larger car on a longer trip, I’m thinking we might never need to fill the tank.

This sounds great but then you have the problem of the gas going sour and ruining the ICE. Consequently I’d have to monitor the car and make sure I was burning the gas off. And I’d rather have a smaller rather than a larger tank when I did this.

Your driving habits might be different. But for a lot of people a larger tank might pose some maintenance issues.

What do you think? Am I overly concerned about the gas?

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:02 pm

103 Jeff M

You make a EXCELLENT point. I don’t know if a ’short squeeze’ would come into play here, but your risk is indeed large on a upside swing. You really should have a firm grasp on the market, have stop losses in place, etc.

If you really want to play the downside while capping your potential loss, while also controlling alot more shares that your outlay, I would suggest buying a ‘put option’ Where basically you select a strike price, say $10.00 and a timeframe, say Jan 2009 or a leaps to 2010.

If the share does indeed drop you make money (in theory).

You do pay a premium for this. Moreseo the more volitile the equity is, so GM specifically may stil not be the proper play. Regardless you loss is capped at your initial investment.

(If you are into butterfly options then some volitile GM swings would make it a better route probably, and less likely to me a net loser in the long run…but I digress).

Linky to options on GM (Jan 09 expirations)
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/op?s=GM&m=2009-01

For example, a $10,00 put, costs $3.30 at the moment, although its ‘real value’ with the shares at $9.70 is only .30 cents…a $3 premium! It’s cousin, the call, is at $10.00 is $2.40, which is actually under water but still fetching a $2.80 premium! These are crazy premiums for a expiry in 5 months. And a sign of extreme sentimental anxiety.

I myself would not play either side of this fence, a speculators playground this is. A butterfly? Maybe.

/excitement

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

I’m here for the Volt. How does all this talk about GM’s financial situation affect the Volt? Is there a consensus that GM won’t survive to produce the Volt? Under Chapter 11, we’ll still see Volts, right? Under what scenario will we not see the Volt? Is the Volt going the EV-1 route (too impractical as a retail product) to be a success, or will it succeed?

From all I’ve heard, the Volt prototype’s performance is encouraging and the technology seems to allow for production.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

#91 Rashiid

Some people just have no class. It takes a complete a*****e to call you dumb.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:08 pm

N Rilery@#108

I think the big problem with hydrogen even in areas without access to electricity is that it has a vey low energy per its volume so it’s very expensive to transport and store. It’s just too expensive to economically transport.

A few years back I read about some company that was trying to store the hydrogen in a solid, like a brick. That would be a total game changer for hydrogen. You could buy a few bricks at Costco and stick them in your trunk.

But it obviously hasn’t happened and I haven’t read anything about them in years.

(Quote)
omegaman66 Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:09 pm

N Riley you are correct. Size of the tank was determined by space availabilty as Lyle wrote long ago. Having the split tank was a needless headache that GM didn’t want to deal with… so they didn’t deal with the headache by simply dumping the split fuel tank.

(Quote)
omegaman66 Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:13 pm

113 ThombDbhomb
The question is not will you see the volt but will you see GM go bankrupt! The volt will go on either as a chevy, a chevy emerging after bankruptcy or by whoever would buy it as a result of the bankruptcy.

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Perhaps what we need to gain cred for batts vs hydrogen is a catchy slogan. How about:

electrons beat protons?

Too geeky? Maybe we should go for the jugular:

Hydrogen for cars? Oh, the humanity!

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:20 pm

#111 DonC

I am no expert when it comes to gasoline going bad. I think it depends on where you live. I live in the Deep South (Mississippi). I routinely leave gas in my riding and walking lawn mowers and start them up each spring with no trouble. I don’t think there will be any real problem for most of us. If you think you have a problem with gas going stale, just take your wife on a Sunday afternoon drive and use up some of the gas. When you get back, top off the tank. Do that every few months. You will be ok.

I also heard of a company trying to create hydrogen pellets. Storage and transportation are big problems with hydrogen in liquid form. Plus, the structure is so small, it tends to go through the storage tank unless you use a very expensive storage medium. Maybe Nasaman could enlighten you on hydrogen problems, etc.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:28 pm

DonC #111. You situation is clearly different than mine. Since you and your wife don’t drive more the 40 miles a day, I would be happy with the smaller tank. Having a bigger tank that is half empty also doesn’t hurt. Some people would only need a gallon or two.

As far as gas going bad, I can tell you my personal experience.
I park the garden tractor in the shed in October and don’t take it out again until May. I don’t use a gas preservative. The tractor starts up fine in the month of May with the old gas. Same goes for the snowblower. So I don’t really know from personal experience, when the gas goes bad or if it actually does.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:28 pm

#114 N Riley

Seeing as how Rashiid called himself dumb in his comment #91, it seems like piling on when you said, “It takes a complete ass-hole to call [Rashiid] dumb.”

I know you guys respect each other.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:29 pm

I assume we will have around a 6 gallon fuel tank when the Volt appears. When they decided to drop the dual tank for a single tank, I think they just dropped the second tank and left the other tank the same 6 gallon size, more or less. The dual tank idea was a “no go” idea for me anyway. How do you fill-up a dual tank without two filler pipes/caps? I did not like that idea, at all.

(Quote)
DaveP Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Here’s my Odd Thought for this topic.

I was talking with a friend about what, if any, brands GM could conceivably get rid of. Ok, GM’s now only talking about Hummer, but they were previously hinting at more. If so, what else? My European friend suggested, “Saab.”

I had to admit I hadn’t thought of that and was probably not a bad idea, given their limited marketing appeal, and something GM had likely thought of.

I poked around and all I could find was this (from 2005):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6811980/
where they talked about actually killing the brand.

And then… Nothing. Haven’t heard anything more about it from GM. And the Swedes are very, very concerned about their Saab car plants…

Could the Swedish government be one possible source of some mysterious cash for GM if(when?) things get to that?

I mean, we all talk about the possiblity of a US govt bailout, but there’s a LOT of governments involved where GM makes cars. We could be discussing governmentS (plural) bailout here at some point.

(Quote)
BillR Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:31 pm

#66 Chris

Thank you for the article from Troy Clarke, and I did read the entire speech.

Again, another key quote,

“And if the driver of a Volt needs to go beyond 40 miles, the engine kicks in to supply the electricity to recharge the battery and keep the vehicle moving. This allows the vehicle to drive as much as 400 additional miles, while getting significantly better fuel economy than any other car on the market today.”

So, what is significantly better fuel economy than any other car on the market today? 50 mpg? 60 mpg? Stay tuned, this is getting interesting.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:32 pm

#121 ThombDbhomb

Naturally I excluded Rashiid in that statement. No way is he dumb or an ass-hole (at least not on this site). Sorry Rashiid, but I don’t know how you are off this site. But, I would be willing to bet you are ok.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:36 pm

#117 omegaman66

I guess my point is; I want an E-REV or BEV and I’m not necessarily loyal to GM. So, as long as the Volt is on track, GM’s financial situation doesn’t interest me. This being a Volt-centric blog, maybe all the financial talk is tangential and off our primary topic.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:37 pm

# 125 N Riley
I knew what you meant. I was trying to have a little fun.

I respect both of you, despite your crazy ideas.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:37 pm

#121 ThombDbhomb

“I know you guys respect each other.”

We do respect each other, Rashiid and I. But we both respect all you others as well. We have a really good group here that I am proud to a part of. We have our occasionally naysayers and such, but over all it is very good to spend time on this site. Thanks, once again, to you, Lyle.

And let me say once again: Go GM and Go, Go, Go Volt.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:40 pm

N. Riley #125. lol. I guess that depends on who you ask. I guess I could be a little of both. Maybe we all can.

Thanks for sticking up for me. I’m not offended by Joe. He sounds like a very supportive GM worker bee. .

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:42 pm

#126 ThombDbhomb

“I guess my point is; I want an E-REV or BEV and I’m not necessarily loyal to GM. So, as long as the Volt is on track, GM’s financial situation doesn’t interest me. This being a Volt-centric blog, maybe all the financial talk is tangential and off our primary topic.”

I do somewhat agree with your statement. But, GM is at the center of the Volt development. You can’t really separate one from the other. I would like more juicy posts about the Volt, but we have about used up most of the subject matter. More is coming with the 100th year celebration and the unveiling of the production Volt. That will create a lot of posts, I am sure.

(Quote)
BillR Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Statik,

I’m not a financial wizard, and I don’t keep a close watch on GM’s monetary status, but that doesn’t worry me.

As we are seeing in this era of high energy price volatility, if GM has a production ready vehicle that can get 40 miles or more AER, and achieve more than 50 mpg with the ICE in operation (100 mpg composite?), they will have no funding issues.

Banks, vulture capital firms, governments trying to meet the Kyoto Protocol, and many more will be there to provide cash, incentives, tax credits, and the like.

Where GM is today is not as important as where its business plan will take it tomorrow.

Just my $.02 (slightly less in Canada).

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:43 pm

ThombDbhomb #127 says, “I respect both of you, despite your crazy ideas.”

Hey, who are you calling crazy? Have you been talking to my wife again? I told her not to tell anyone.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:47 pm

#126 ThombDbhomb

“I guess my point is; I want an E-REV or BEV and I’m not necessarily loyal to GM. So, as long as the Volt is on track, GM’s financial situation doesn’t interest me. This being a Volt-centric blog, maybe all the financial talk is tangential and off our primary topic.”

ThombDbhomb, did you notice at the top that is particular topic is
Posted in: Battery, E-REV, Financial, Politics?

So financial postings do pertain to this topic.

Well guys, time to go home and burn 1.44 gallons of gas doing it.

(Quote)
Paul-R Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Scottie,

Regarding a Volt with a smaller capacity battery…

Another reason (in addition to those provided above) against the smaller battery is that it will be cycled more often, and thus wear out sooner. For example, 40 miles in the Volt is projected to use half its battery cycle. With a tiny battery, 40 miles of stop&go would probably use several cycles. After some total number of cycles, the batteries will begin to wear out. if that happens to a relatively young (less than 10 year old) vehicle, it won’t look good for GM.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 2:07 pm

#114 N Riley

“Some people just have no class. It takes a complete a*****e to call you dumb.”

Hey, he was calling me dumb! I’m offended that I am not included in Joe’s list of dumb people!

#133 Rashiid

You go burn that gas brother!

Rashiid said: “ThombDbhomb, did you notice at the top that is particular topic is posted in: Battery, E-REV, Financial, Politics? So financial postings do pertain to this topic.”

That was a big mistake, eh? These financial threads open up a big ‘ole can of worms’

Lively though.
We could have been talking about new ‘power wedgies’ that oscillate to give the Volt .001 more drag co-efficent in the wind tunnel.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 2:07 pm

#133 Rashiid Amul

Yes, I am aware that this partiuclar topic is related to finances. I just wanted to point out our primary reason for this blog; the Volt. If there are topics that don’t affect the Volt that much, I don’t know why we would spend a lot of time on them.

I guess we have to talk about something. I’m not trying to censor anyone. I’m just thought it would be helpful to point out where we might be spinning our wheels.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 2:15 pm

#136 ThombDbhomb

I’m sure a new thread is just about to make it’s way down the chimney.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 2:29 pm

#137 Statik

Well, it couldn’t come at a better time. Getting kinda boring talking financial stuff, anyway.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 2:33 pm

#138 N Riley

“Well, it couldn’t come at a better time. Getting kinda boring talking financial stuff, anyway”

There is a limit to how many times you can go back and forth over the same thing isn’t there? Well, good to get it out of our system for awhile.

/maybe the next thread will introduce the ‘Volt cheerleaders that will be touring around the nation with the protoype’

(Quote)
Morgan Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 2:45 pm

139 Statik:

“/maybe the next thread will introduce the ‘Volt cheerleaders that will be touring around the nation with the protoype’”

I thought that was you in a skirt with a dour expression on your face

(Quote)
DonC Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Brandon@#61

Interesting idea. I think there may be a few issues:

1. The operations are different groups so I’m thinking there would be some organizational issues.

2. Can these diesel engines meet the tighter requirements in states like NY and CA? I know some diesels this year can meet these standards but I’m not sure this is generally true. If not then that would be a problem because changing the standard at this point would be enormously difficult and definitely time-consuming. GM had/has some clout at the federal level but not at the state level, and these changes would have to be done at the state level.

3. Do the European plants have excess capacity? If they’re running at capacity they would not want to divert production.

4. How long does it take a car to be certified under US crash standards, etc? This may not be quick.

A couple of other points:

With respect to the Cruze, keep in mind that going from 40 to 50 mpg offers minimal advantages. If you drove 1000 miles a month the difference would be 5 gallons. It’s totally unlike going from 10 to 20 mpg where the savings are huge.

Are you sure you can translate the mpg between Europe and the US? I know that for Japan and the US the results are completely different for the same car. I don’t think the UK and US standards are the same either. For example in Japan the Prius is rated at the equivalent of 98 mpg. In the UK it’s rated at 54.7 mpg. And in the US it’s rated at 46 mpg. Different tests of different driving conditions give you different results.

(Quote)
Ryan Plut Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 2:52 pm

#131 BillR
“Just my $.02 (slightly less in Canada).”

Don’t you mean slightly more in Canada?

(Quote)
Ernie V Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 3:36 pm

“I still hate the fact the car will go about 300 miles on a tank of gas. I would really like to have the 640 miles put back. “.

————————- ——————————————————

that’s no problem . just buy 2 volts !

(Quote)
Joe Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 3:40 pm

to Statik@#72

Didn’t you write the last line at location #72 and I quote “Get ready to start paying for those drugs GM employees.” If you did, can you explain what you meant and why would you deny it on line #99? The first quotation mark is a typographical error on my part but you should surly recognize your quotation, “Get ready to start paying for those drugs GM employees.”
My apologies to those who write constructive intelligent discussions.

(Quote)
Screw GM! Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 4:23 pm

First, a little background. We are thoroughly a GM Family. 2000 1 ton GMC Savanna, 2002 Suburban, 1988 Chevy Nova, 1994 Geo Prism. We own a 1994 Toyota Previa was our only

All of you guys who have a 2002 Suburban (Truck) that have the recalled rusting abs sensors take note. The fix they did in 2005 did not fix the #&#%#% engineering screwup. They put the same piece of &##* as a fix. Guess what, the same little sucker(abs) is going to rust again, but you are going to fix it this time (same defect as the recall). They did not fix the root cause of the problem. The abs kicks in when on dry smooth pavement- takes 10 feet to stop instead of 3. The same piece of crap- 3 sets of rotors later, and now new abs sensors. They did me one big frickin’ favor. I just closed that GM Card, and they can keep this quasi-made in the USA piece of crap.

Yes, I was on the waiting list for a volt. Hell no, I am not buying another product of theirs. Put a fork in them (GM) you are shutting down plants and Toyota is building em. Get used to it!

And by the way, this same Suburban costing 35K had the radio go bad with under 300 miles. What did the company with the bowtie say… put a rebuilt one in it. Oh, you don’t want a rebuilt radio in your brand new SUV?? You need to write the better business bureau for arbitration- I still have the letter. Ya know that rebuilt radio that they put in to fix this brand new $35K vehicle was replaced 2 more times before I got to 1,000 miles.

Don’t give me the union rant. If you bought shit like this you’d be pissed too.

Waiting for the plug-in Prius…

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 4:38 pm

#145 Screw GM!

I feel for you. I know it is tough to put up with crap like that. I have not had anywhere near that experience with GM vehicles, but who knows. I wish you luck with whatever you purchase. You deserve some satisfaction and I hope you get it. Good luck and best wishes.

(Quote)
JEC Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 4:42 pm

145 Screw GM!

Wow! i guess your name really describes how you feel.

I hear you, but don’t think that other car manuf. don’t produce similiar crap. Toyota Camry, the flagship, is running into is own quality issues.

I would agree a rebuilt radio would light me off too, especially when the car is practically brand new.

I do not want GM to go under. This will impact more than just the GM employee. We are talking loss’s that will ripple through the US economy, and we don’t need more bad news. I also strongly believe the Govt should not be bailing out GM, or any company. Look at the airline industry, they run into financial ruin, declare bankruptcy, re-invent themselves (of course after all stock owners take a bath…), and start all over again. This just leads to poor companies making poor decisions.

I hope for the best for GM, but if your sellin’ short you can probably relax…

(Quote)
JEC Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 4:51 pm

144 Joe

Statik may be ignoring you, and I don’t want to speak for him, but my interpretation is that GM is going to start making deeper cuts. Part of the way to make more money is to pay your workers less, or be a little sneakier, and cut their benefits. I am not a GM employee, but I am guessing that GM’s health care coverage maybe pays all or large percentage of their drug bills.

As the big boys at the top know, if you cut benefits people will complain and whine, but if you cut pay, they will leave. GM will be looking for every possible means to cut back and the bennies are usually low hanging fruit.

Again, I am not speaking for Statik, just making my own interpretation.

Also, I have been waiting for you (Joe) to reply to some of Statik’s request for facts. So far you have been silent. Like sergeant Friday would say “The facts mam, only the facts”

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 4:53 pm

RB #107

“GM may not have filed yet, but bankruptcy is where they are headed. Sometimes miracles occur (e.g. govmt bailout, gas price falls to $1 a gallon), but it will take a big one, and there is no sign of it yet.”

*** *** ***

I think it’s a bit early to make that call. You are correct about the current assets/liabilities, but w/o knowing the composition of the A/P and other B/S items it’s difficult to armchair.

For starters the B/S shows no current preferred stock issued. Depending on the law, GM may be able to raise cash by issuing convertible preferred. Additionally it’s also possible that a combination of suspension of development projects (like Trucks/Suvs) for which the operational savings have not yet materialized and a rescheduling of a good number of A/P may buy time.

All I’m saying is that GM has options available to them that don’t appear on the B/S. I’ve said it many times going back, that things would get worse before they get better. I think GM has known that for quite some time.

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 4:54 pm

DonC
Personally, I think hydrogen as an energy vehicle makes NO sense, but thre is a lot of research going on about solid storage. A free weekday newsletter that talks about it all the time is at http://www.technologyreview.com/ They cover several topics including nanotech, energy, biotech, etc.
Be well,
Tag

(Quote)
noel park Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 4:59 pm

Let’s see if I have this right:

Cruze 2010

Beat 2012 (maybe)

Volt 200,000 units thruough 2015

Enough cash to last through 2008

Statik said something yesterday about something going on the we don’t know about. I sure hope so.

(Quote)
BillR Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 5:23 pm

#142 Ryan Plut

I haven’t kept up with recent exchange rates, but I thought that my $.02 American would be worth less than $.02 in Canada.

(Quote)
fred Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 5:40 pm

Ohhh!
The Electric Mini Cooper by BMW!
Electric motor in each wheel!
Hurry up GM!
By the way, have you all heard that CANADA is importing the most oil to us now in the usa. ( will be capitals after the retard leaves office)

(Quote)
RB Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 5:52 pm

#149 Grizzly

I agree with you about the possibility of GM staying out of bankruptcy from the view that there is always a possibility that something that has not happened yet will not happen. I hope that avoiding bankruptcy proves to be the case, in part because I’d like to get a Volt before too long. While the Volt is likely to be produced even after a chapter 11, there’s bound to be delay and reorganization, so I am hoping that GM can just keep going. The question is, who is going to lend/give this company $15-25 billion to make it to 2010, whether for preferred stock, loans or some other way?

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 5:58 pm

Since this thread is filed under politics:

Fred # 153. Says, “By the way, have you all heard that CANADA is importing the most oil to us now in the usa. ( will be capitals after the retard leaves office)”
==================

Now don’t you think that is really quite rude no matter how accurate?
You could have used something like “intelligence challenged”, “speech challenged”. Or perhaps a sign that says, “Disabled: Butt and brain reversed”. “Rocks falling area” or “Harmful for environment”.
Retard is just mean.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 5:58 pm

Tagamet@#150

Thanks for the cite. Neat site. I’ve got it bookmarked.

I agree about hydrogen, at least in the short run. You never know what might turn up.

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 6:05 pm

Quite welcome for the site. The daily newsletter is free and saves trips to the website.
Be well,
Tag

(Quote)
noel park Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 6:15 pm

#155 Rashiid Amul:

Actually quite generous and restrained, IHMO. Alas, insulting however to poor innocent developmentally disabled people.

Most of the names which come to my mind would probably send me to instant “moderation”, and rightfully so.

At the moment I am leaning toward “puppet”.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 6:19 pm

Noel #158.

If he is a “puppet” who is pulling the strings?
The Sharpshooter?

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 6:28 pm

RB #154

“I agree with you about the possibility of GM staying out of bankruptcy from the view that there is always a possibility that something that has not happened yet will not happen”

*** *** ***

RB,

One thing about a balance sheet is that it is nothing more than assets, liabilities and equity at a snapshot in time. Unless I’m mistaken the latest b/s we have for GM is from 31 Mar of this year, which shoudl be last quarter’s. And from the figures you gave me it appears we’re working off the same sheet.
Since this is a consolidated sheet, we cannot yet determine some of the cost cutting measures like suspension of truck and SUV development have had, as they won’t be reflected on this sheet. I’m guessing that this will take a bite (how big???) out of the A/P further reducing operating margins. This should affect not only next quarter but succeeding quarters. Let’s just guess this shaves another $10B off op expenses. That alone will bring current assets and liabilities square. Add additional cost cutting and efficiencies and additional sourcing, and suddenly you’ve got a different picture. Not exactly rosy, but again not as bad as the current b/s looks.

I’m not saying that GM is in an enviable position. Far from it, and for all I know they could be Ch11 tomorrow. What I’m saying is that we need to be cautious, and not allow the ruthless media to call something that might not happen.

(Quote)
RB Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 6:39 pm

Grizzly #160

You make some good points. If you think that $10B is being cut out of expenses (trucks or otherwise without taking a similar amount out of income, then I agree the picture could be markedly more positive than the last b/s shows. Also, the financial picture outside of the US is an ongoing plus. And, so far as I know the auditors have not issued a going-concern (Wells) notice, which they will surely do if they think a bankruptcy is close at hand, as they have all kinds of inside information. So perhaps I have been too pessimistic — I hope so.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 6:40 pm

Noel Park #158

“At the moment I am leaning toward “puppet”.”

*** *** ***

I’m leaning toward entrepreneur, I happen to know he owns more than one internet.

(Quote)
Larry Parylla Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 6:43 pm

one gallon of gas = 6.5 pounds, a 4 gallon = 26 pounds, that is not too bad but every extra gallon means more weight and less MPG. If range is important I am sure there will be aftermarket companies that will sell gas tanks to extend the range. If you go on a long trip put a spare 5 gallon tank in the trunk

(Quote)
noel park Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 6:51 pm

#159 Rashiid Amul:

Yup, by remote control from the undisclosed secure location.

Did you ever hear the great Bob Marley song “Mr. Brown”? There is one line in the song that always stays with me:

“Mr. Brown is controlled by remote.”

#162 Grizzly:

Yeah, check back in about 8 years. I’ll bet that the $108 million raked in by Bill and Hillary will look like chump change. Of course it will all probably be hidden in Grand Cayman or somewhere, so we’ll probably never know.

(Quote)
canehdian Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 6:53 pm

“By the way, have you all heard that CANADA is importing the most oil to us now in the usa.”

Yup, its been that way for years, why do you think our gas is always much more expensive than the states? Our country has to give them ALL* our oil because of stupid agreements. If we actually kept it in our country, we might have actually kept the price of gas down below $1/L for many years to come.

*OK, Its probably not all, but very close.

“I haven’t kept up with recent exchange rates, but I thought that my $.02 American would be worth less than $.02 in Canada.”
Its 0.99 Us for 1CDN, just checked it. AKA $0.0202 CDN for your 2 cents :p
Its been more or less at par for 2-3 months.. sometimes it shifts a little your way, sometimes a little our way.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 7:41 pm

#144 Joe

“Didn’t you write the last line at location #72 and I quote “Get ready to start paying for those drugs GM employees.” If you did, can you explain what you meant and why would you deny it on line #99? The first quotation mark is a typographical error on my part but you should surly recognize your quotation, “Get ready to start paying for those drugs GM employees.” My apologies to those who write constructive intelligent discussions.

I was going to say nothing JEC, lol. But I’ll have a last kick at the can.

I didn’t deny anything…you misquoted me. I said GM employess will have to pay for their drugs…you said something about “GM having to start paying for those drugs GM employees” which made no sense.

I denied nothing. Even now, I’m not sure what you are claiming I denied. I denied your misquote of me? I stand by my post.

My whole post was that GM would pressure the union until they were allowed to raid VEBA…and therefore when that happened, GM would put to risk the employee’s voluntary benefits, such as drug plan compensations. I have not changed this position.

Why not stop with the random put-downs and insults and really read what others posts, even if you don’t agree with them. Then form well-rounded, educated retorts. Do some due diligence and dig up sources, post links, and present a logical reason why you believe your opinion is more valid.

Case in point: Notice how you have come at me unprovoked, head on, even slandered me, yet I maintain a even demeanor? You will find a level head will get you alot further ahead in life…and others who read your posts, even if they don’t agree with your conclusions will appreciate your composure and you will gain their respect.

Anyway, I hope you can truly take that to heart, regardless of the happenings on this thread. I will not continue on this vein.

See you on the next thread!

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 7:59 pm

Retard or not he is still the President of the United States of America. Just think of what he replaced and what he saved us from.

Thank you very much…..

(Quote)
RB Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 8:22 pm

#66 Chris — Thank you for the link to the Clarke (President GM NA) speech at Brookings. I was amazed, reading it through how similar it was to Mr Wagoner’s comments, and how many phrases were exactly the same as used by Mr. Wagoner, e.g. “electricty and hydrogen are actually interchangable” The one notable small change was that in Clarke’s speech the Volt could go “400 additional miles” once the ICE came on, while with Wagoner it was only 300.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 8:30 pm

#167 N Riley

I agree that the word “retard” is derogatory and uncivilized. Imagine your reaction when insensitive types snicker at your Downs Syndrome child and toss out “retard.” Rashiid provided much better options.

About your other point, let’s not get too partisan here. I doubt “what he replaced and what he saved us from” could have lived up to the right-wing hype. He certainly didn’t live up to the right-wing hype. Don’t believe the hype. And please, don’t propogate the hype. We need reason.

(Quote)
NZDavid Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 12:38 am

I think a say 20 – 30 billion loan to GM will be chump change compared to the following drain on the US taxpayers.

Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae have about 50% of the US loan market so allowing market forces to rule, is not an option. On Friday shares in both plummeted. This, I suspect, is the unknown news statik was wondering about yesterday. Folks, this is huge, the ripples will be world wide.; I have, on the basis of this, advised one of my wind farm customers to place their NZD200 million project on hold, as the increased funding costs will make the project inviable at present.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/business/11ripple.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

From the WSJ:
Fannie and Freddie are among the largest financial companies in the world. Their liabilities – mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) and other debt – add up to some $5 trillion. To put that in perspective, consider that total U.S. federal debt is about $9.5 trillion, compared to a total U.S. GDP of $14 trillion. About $5.3 trillion of that debt is held by the public (in the form of Treasury bonds and the like), while $4.2 trillion is intragovernment debt such as Social Security IOUs. This is the liability side of America’s federal balance sheet, and its condition influences how much the government can borrow and at what rates.

The liabilities of Fan and Fred are currently not on this U.S. balance sheet. But one danger is a run on the debt of either company, putting pressure on the Treasury and Federal Reserve to publicly guarantee that debt to prevent a systemic financial collapse. In an instant, what has long been an implicit taxpayer guarantee for both companies would be made explicit – committing American taxpayers to honoring as much as $5 trillion in new liabilities. U.S. debt held by the public would more than double, and the national balance sheet would look very ugly.

If the Government misshandles this, think crashing dollar & 1930,s type depression.

As Al Jolson used to say “Wait you ain’t seen nothing yet”.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 11:55 am

#167 N Riley:

I really appreciated your kind words the other day on another thread.

Even so, I guess no one agrees on everything all the time. My wife comes to mind.

On this issue, I respectfully agree to disagree.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 11:59 am

#167 N Riley:

BTW, as I said long ago, one of the amazing things about GM-Volt.com is that people who may strongly disagree on other issues – Republicans vs. Democrats, “greenie weenies” (me, for example) vs. the opposite and so on and so on – find common ground here.

Volt Or Bust!

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 7:22 pm

N. Riley. I have to echo Noel Park @ 171.

I’m really sorry though to disagree.
Oddly, I am a Republican who really misses the “other guy”.
I am a Republican, just a right wing Republican. I don’t let the party
BS speak for me when I vote. I choose who I think will best serve the country and my family. So when I vote, I don’t really look at party, but the person. I suppose I should be registered as an Independent, because that is really how I think.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Oops. Just reread #173.

I meant to say I am NOT a right wing Republican.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Noel Park and Rashiid Amul

Just got around to reading your responses to my #167 about the retard.

I am not overly pleased with our President as I was not with Clinton and Gore. I am a registered Democrat, but find it very difficult to vote for any of them. I am beginning to find it increasingly difficult to vote for any Republican also. I am conservative, more towards the middle on most matters and somewhat to the right when it comes to national defense matters and border security.

I did not like it when people make insulting remarks about any President, whether I like him or not. I was hoping we could get to a better attitude in Washington, but the game of politics and one-upmanship is preventing that. No one is really looking out for the American people anymore.

I suspect we three would be in agreement many times more than not on a wide range of topics. I just reacted to one too many instances of people referring to the President as a retard or as dumb, which he is neither.

(Quote)
rcflyer Says:
July 21st, 2008 at 9:12 pm

Regarding Jackson’s post July 11th, 2008 at 10:43 am about needing ultracapacitors with small pack sizes:

“No proven or likely ultracapacitor capacity can provide a high AER, but what power it does store is available: all of it, maybe more than you really wanted, at any instant. You can get your 40kw for a few seconds easily from a capacity of under 5kwh, unlike a battery.”

If they use A123s as it appears they might, a 5KWH pack can deliver 40KW no sweat. As a matter of fact, a 5KWH pack using the ANR26650M1 cells could for a few seconds deliver 200KW with no harm to the cells. A123s have very low internal resistance and thus very high power density. Google the Killacycle for details. I use them myself on my RC plane, pulling 80A from an 8 cell series pack during vertical climbouts and they barely get warm with no cooling (10 minute total discharge time).

(Quote)

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud? November 20, 2009
This is how open minded liberals operate. "And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best... […]
BigCityCat
Is the Volt Engine Direct Injected? November 20, 2009
I recently read that the Cruze's engine will be DI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Cruze#Chevrolet_Cruze Obviously the Cruze's engine will... […]
omnimoeish
First Reports of the Chevy Volt's Charge-Sustaining (Generator) Mode Operation November 20, 2009
The first two journalists' reports of what it's like to drive the Chevy Volt while in generator mode operation have been published. 1) New York... […]
admin
Florida giving $5000 rebate to convert Prius to plug-in November 20, 2009
- Probably Hymotion - $10,400 standard price - $5000 state rebate - $1000 additional federal incentives - $4,400 final cost. Hurry because their... […]
Texas
New York Times CSM story November 20, 2009
Link to the New York Times story of November 19, 2009 about a test ride of the Volt in charge sustaining... […]
srschrier
New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009
November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]
srschrier
New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009
From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]
srschrier

GM CEO Rick Wagoner Dispels Bankruptcy Rumors and Talks Volt

176 Responses to “GM CEO Rick Wagoner Dispels Bankruptcy Rumors and Talks Volt”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts