
Occasionally an opinion piece is written about the Volt that comes out negative. These are unconventional pieces as the vast majority of journalistic work paints the car in a positive light.
The Wall Street Journal has just published an article by editorial board member Holman Jenkins that was particularly harsh.
The author takes note of GMs financially difficult position and CEO Wagoner’s claim that consumer automotive shifts are not transient but likely permanent.
He writes:
GM’s leaders are not nuts, and yet to pour hundreds of millions into a race to launch an electric car, the Chevy Volt, guaranteed to lose money on every unit sold, begins to seem a peculiar strategy for a company in dire liquidity straits.
He writes “at best, the Volt will be an affluent family’s third car” and contends it wont be usable by city dwellers.
He goes on to attack GM’s claim that the ICE will get 50 mpg during battery charging as “hallucinatory” and makes the “guess” that “the car will be lucky to get 15 mpg under gasoline power.”
He perceives the Volt as having limited flexibility being a 4 passenger car, and derides its environmental benefit claiming use of electricity as a fuel is akin to “playing Three Card Monte with energy inputs.”
Finally Jenkins goes on to make his main point that GM, “justif(ies) the costs and risks of the Volt as a way of changing GM’s image in the minds of consumers and politicians.”, and that “the Volt is GM’s vehicle for making a bailout of GM politically acceptable.”
What do you think?
Source (Wall Street Journal)

