Grab our RSS Feed

AND

Study: Cost of Chevy Volt Limits its Value to Drivers

February 26th, 2009 | Posted in: Efficiency

In a case of kick em while they’re down, Bloomberg has just published an article about an upcoming report out of Carnegie Mellon University.

The study suggests that a rechargeable auto with the Volt’s target range of 40 miles is “not cost effective in any scenario.”

According to Jeremy Michalek the engineering professor who led the study, “Forty miles might be a sweet spot for making sure a lot of people get to work without using gasoline, but you’re doing it at a cost that will never be repaid in fuel savings.” It is pointed out that the Volt’s battery is likely to cost $16,000 at current prices, and the car close to $40,000.

The study claims to show that a car with a lighter cheaper battery and a 7 to 10 mile range or even a conventional hybrid might show the best mix of price, faster charge times, and efficiency.

Toyota’s Bill Reinert says of the future plug-in Prius with 50 mpg hybrid efficiency and 10 mile driving range, “We believe that if you have a smaller battery charged more frequently, you can run on electricity more of the time, then your carbon emissions are going to be lower overall.”

Of course it is GM’s intention to have the Volt lead the way to economies of scale for lithium-ion battery production and spur the future of electric cars. While the price will be high for early adopters, getting the car out there will lead to cheaper future generations that are more cost effective. And the value of driving without gasoline is for some, priceless.

In case you were wondering, by the way, the photo above is an official one of the Holden Volt, set to appear in Australia in 2011.

Source (Bloomberg)

Posted by: Lyle

156 Responses to “Study: Cost of Chevy Volt Limits its Value to Drivers”

john1701a Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 7:32 pm

A secondary configuration of Volt with a smaller battery-pack is pretty much inevitable.

GM will be able to sell more by offering variations anyway. Higher volume production of the vehicle itself would help to reduce cost. So, that would be a win for them and consumers.

And of course, the greater impact to reducing dependency on oil would be to get as many on the road as possible. Additional range is a bonus, not a necessity.

(Quote)
Cab Driver Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 7:36 pm

If what you take into consideration is just the initial purchase cost and the per year operating cost, then the Volt won’t reach break even for a very long time.

If you are concerned about dependence on foriegn oil or about greenhouse gases, the Volt may be the right choice.

It depends on your priorities.

(Quote)
Cab Driver Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 7:41 pm

#1 john1701a: A secondary configuration of Volt with a smaller battery-pack is pretty much inevitable.
====

You need to keep in mind that a smaller pack will likely have lower power output as well as less energy storage. It may not preserve adequate acceleration or regenerative braking energy recapture.

(Quote)
ziv Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 7:47 pm

Brilliantly missing the point entirely, Carnegie Mellon ignores evidence that the battery pack will be substantially below the $16,000 figure they posit, so it should be no surprise to realize that they don’t realize that the early adopters will finance the economies of scale that will allow the second and third generation of 40 mile AER PHEVs to enjoy a substantial reduction in the very price that Carnegie Mellon believes to be ruinous.
But perhaps I am wrong, since the second expert is from Toyota, and they have always been an honest broker in this debate!

Realistically, though, the Volt is a crap shoot, and it could crap out in an abysmal way, or it could change how the world’s economy works with the US slowly weaning itself from the $700 Billion we spend on foreign oil most years. Odd how $700 Billion used to sound ruinous and now it is, almost, mundane.

(Quote)
pj Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 7:51 pm

Toyota’s claim is obviously nonsense. “We believe that if you have a smaller battery charged more frequently, you can run on electricity more of the time, then your carbon emissions are going to be lower overall.”

What kind of idiocy is that? Who cares what they “believe”? Where are the facts? Do the Japanese really think all American’s are morons?

This is a true indication that the Japanese are nervous about the Chevy Volt.

(Quote)
Zach Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 7:51 pm

Replace the Volt with the Ampera, but use the Volt’s rims on the Ampera! It would dominate the market in terms of styling!!!

NO MORE VOLT!!!!!

(Quote)
bintoo Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 7:54 pm

Bloomberg
“The Volt will have a small onboard gasoline engine to replenish the lithium-ion battery while driving.” FALSE!!

as we are all well aware of, this is a false statement, implying that gasoline is used to charge the battery while driving when in fact the ICE-gen will actually propel the electric motors with only a tiny amount of idle, deceleration waste ICE energy going into the battery once it’s at its “customer depletion point”.

(Quote)
Mike Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 7:54 pm

I think it’s Jeremy Michalek not Millinak

“And the value of driving without gasoline is for some, priceless.”

I agree with that!

(Quote)
noel park Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 7:55 pm

#2 Cab Driver:

Right.

I don’t believe that a Prius vs. a Corolla, an Insight vs. a Fit, or a hybrid Camry vs. a conventional one would stand up to the same type of analysis either.

But, if we don’t all step up to do our bit to deal with the issues which Cab Driver so correctly points out, the future of our nation, and the quality of life of our children and grand children, is going to hang in the balance.

While it may not pencil out for the individual owner, it is the externalized costs of our addiction to oil which are never counted, and which are so devastating to our economy. Bloggers here have discussed this over and over. The overwhelming military costs to keep the oil flowing, the billions of dollars of health costs caused by air pollution, and the disastrous impacts of the huge negative balance of payments, are but a few.

If all of these could be factored into the equation, the Volt would suddenly start to look like a bargain, IMHO. If the costs were “internalized” into the price of gas and diesel, the whole equation would change. Bloggers here have variously suggested that the cost of gas, with all of the “externalized” costs “internalized” would be from $10 to $400 per gallon. You tell me.

Not to mention the pure pleasure of driving to work every day thumbing one’s nose at OPEC.

(Quote)
Dave B Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 7:55 pm

Cab Driver @ 2,

I agree completely…this guy sure doesn’t speak for me when I want to stick it to OPEC who has been sticking it to me all my life. I’ll pay extra and ensure I plug-in just to avoid the pump. The braniacs at Carnegie Mellon University aren’t so bright.

(Quote)
chevonly Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 7:55 pm

The same argument can be made concerning the hybrids that are on the market today. Early adopters of any new technology no matter what it is pay the initial price premium until mass production and costs come down to the level that joe six pack can afford, if the U.S. survives and GM survives the Volt should carve a niche for itself, of course first in California and later in other areas of the country. Im sure Toyota will be one of the first customers to buy the Volt so they can steal as much technology as they can get away with.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 8:02 pm

That does it! I will not buy a Ferrari. Why pay a premium for all that horsepower and handling? A Honda Fit will get me to the grocery store just as well.

Dollars and sense don’t always go hand-in-hand.

(Quote)
statik Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 8:02 pm

I don’t think it is ‘news’ say that the Volt is not a fiscally smart purchase by any stretch. The math is never going to add up here.

And the $40,000 price tag (if thats is what it ends up being) is pretty tough to swallow for a 40 mile electric Cruze with a iPod dash. (even at 30K, still pretty steep)

I’ve seen the Volt a couple times in the flesh now, and it doesn’t look any better than the Cruze…actually I find the Volt’s homogenized/aerodynamic form less appealing (especially the interior)

Cruze interior (for reference):
http://image.automobilemag.com/f/car-news/first-2011-chevrolet-cruze-interior-photos/10687760+cr1+re0+ar1/chevrolet-cruze-interior.jpg
——————
Now, take all that…and throw gas on the fire with the economy going from ‘clipping along nicely’ when the Volt debuted in January 2007 to ‘run for the hills, the world is ending…OMG lets buy gold bars’ and you have a scenerio where half the population has decided to not buy a new car at all…let along a $40,000 one. The business case long term is pretty bleak. (…but I still want one, lol)

However, much like the Camaro’s introduction. I’m sure GM will sell the first 10,000-20,000 copies to the ‘fanatics’ like it was nothing. How does copy 20,001 sell? 50,000? 100,000? That is another story…this question will be even harder to answer positively if all the auto companies aren’t lyiing and we end up having a dozen ‘electric’ vehicles all hitting the market in ln late 2010, 2011.
————————-
All this is a problem for what? 2012, 2013? I’m not going to sweat it too much. In the grand scheme of things, what is it to GM to lose a billion bucks on this project if it ends up selling like a Saturn Sky or Pontiac G8? They lose that every 12 days now, lol.

/friggin’ Bob Lutz

(Quote)
Jeff Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 8:03 pm

Yeah…who would ever produce an impractical vehicle? The Volt must be a niche vehicle.

On average, the most practical vehicle is a “well used” (but maintained) sedan with an excellent reliability record. For the long road trips…just rent a vehicle for more peace of mind and your “new car fix”.

But most drivers do not buy the most practical vehicle…it is deemed boring. They must find something that it is impractical about the family vehicle.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 8:04 pm

“We believe that if you have a smaller battery charged more frequently, you can run on electricity more of the time, then your carbon emissions are going to be lower overall.”

Charge a small battery a lot or charge a large battery a little – what’s the diff? Either way, you replace the energy you used.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 8:04 pm

It is no surprise here (and has been said for a very long time now) that we are not buying the Volt because of price. We are buying it for all the other reasons. Of course it is not cost effective. I wish it were, but for me, that is not the point.

(Quote)
old man Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 8:05 pm

I think carnegie mellon missed an over riding fact. We americans and probably most of the rest of the world were and still are pi$$ed at the oil producers, sellers and especially the oil speculators. I do not care if I ever break even regarding cost of car verses cost of fuel. I do not intend to sit by and let them get me again.

(Quote)
Joe Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 8:15 pm

I would not believe a word coming from Bloomberg. They hate GM and can never say anything positive them. Take it for what it’s worth.

(Quote)
statik Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 8:16 pm

As was mentioned by others, the Volt will be sold because it is a statement car. It says, I hate oil…or I am environmentally friendly…or I have something my neighbour doesn’t (which I like to call Eco-smugness), etc.

It doesn’t go through the same mainstream, analytical process of, “which car best fits my transportation needs”. The Volt is a ‘I want’ purchase, not a ‘I need’ one.

(Quote)
Arch Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 8:23 pm

I wonder what this technology could do for hybrids.

http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/17inch-battery/?cid=CDM-US-DM-C0008909-139541&Email_PageName=C0008909-139541-p3&Email_OID=462002&cp=139541&sr=em

Take Care
Arch

(Quote)
noel park Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 8:31 pm

#19 statik:

As are the Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Cadillac, Lexus, Infiniti, Porsche, Ferrari (thanks ThombDbohmb), Rolls Royce, Bently, Maserati, Lincoln, and even the new up-market Hyundai, whatever that’s called, LOL.

A very large percentage of car purchases, the majority IMHO, are “I want”, not “I need”. As someone said here months ago, if all car purchases went through a “mainstream analytical process” most of us would be driving a Kia Rios, LMAO.

And I doubt if “Eco-smugness” factors into many of the decisions.

This is Califonia, man. “You are what you drive.”

(Quote)
blkstne Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 8:38 pm

The Volt should have been built to be around 25 thousand than it would have been in a better position to combat the many hybrid/electric cars coming out this year.
I believe one point of the article is the high cost of selling the Volt for 40 thousand.

(Quote)
kent beuchert Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 8:43 pm

First question is why anyone thinks that Americans (or anybody) buys cars based on cost effectiveness. Like who? So you can reject this study outright.
Reinert continues to produce stupid claims. Nothing new here, folks. Move along.
T continue : the first step in determining cost effectiveness for such a vehicle is to assume a price for gasoline. I don’t know what the study assumed. The typical driver gets 20MPG and drives 12,500 miles every year, using 625 gallons. At $4 per gallon, that’s a $2500 gas bill. The Volt we know can easily avoid over 90% of gas and thus use less than $250 worth of fuel or even less, and save over $2200 per year. After ten years, that’s $22,000 worth of gas less the cost of electricity ($180 per year, or $1800 for 10 years) leaving a net energy saving of $20,200. At $5 per gallon (which we all know is coming) the savings over 10 years are over $26,000. There are valuable national reductions in balance of trade
deficits, which are caused in large part oil purchases (NOT things we buy from China). A Prius gets roughly twice the average MPG and saves $1200 per year or $12,000 for ten years, $8,000 less than the Volt at $4 gas, and around $15,000 at $5 gas prices, or
$11,000 LESS than the Volt. A fleet of Prius cars would require
eliminate 50% of gasoline consumption , or roughly half of what the Volt could eliminate.

(Quote)
Paul Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 8:45 pm

Just goes to prove how STUPID egg heads really are.

Errr the f%cking Volt isn’t even in production yet and these egg heads have the battery price pegged as a non-variable!!

Do these university types have any idea how a market economy works? If his entire ’study’ is based on a $16,000 battery price (the same 16kw/hr battery capacity is sold in China for less than $5000 already) then the paper used to print the report can just be used as a fire starter… it’s a worthless report.

The list of multinationals investing in EV scale li-ion manufacturing capacity is a whos-who of successful global companies. Mass market supply will reduce prices as per every other comodity product.

Give me a break, how can there be a mass market when there isn’t even a single mass production li-ion plug-in car on the road outside of China? Li-ion batteries as a commodity will be incredibly cheap, but ALL new technology comes with a premium… how is it these eggs heads could possibly NOT KNOW THAT??? That guy should be terminated for being stupid enough to put his name on and go public with such a useless report

This sounds like a rehash of the idiotic report from some consultant firm recently that said li-ion EV batteries cost $5000 a kw/hr…. LOL (it’s $300 per kw/hr)

(Quote)
SteveK Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 8:45 pm

As others have pointed out the development of the Volt market (if it happens) will take years. In the meantime the batteries will get cheaper and who knows what the price of gasoline will be? A Volt purchase will probably make sense from a strict financial point of view at some point.

Of course, if we had any sort of rational national energy policy gasoline taxes would have been high for decades(Europe) to reduce oil importation. Note: this does not mean higher taxes overall. Taxes are as much an instrument of policy as they are a means of raising money (mortgage deductions, etc.).

In 5 years the Volt will be making money—not sure whether the entity will still be called GM but ….

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 8:50 pm

I’ll jump on this dog pile for a minute..

If you’re going to drive the volt around after “customer depletion”, you’re probably not going to be happy with performance. It is highly unlikely that you’ll get 50 mpg and you’re not going to have much sustained acceleration. This is going to prevent any sort of a downsized battery “volt light”. Basically, a series hybrid with anything less than enough battery capacity to get you through your average day’s drive is going to suck.

The series hybrid may still have a niche market, but the market will be much smaller than that for a parallel, series/parallel, or plug in variants of these two.

Bottom line: unless battery prices come way, way down, or fuel prices go sky high to the point of unavailability, the series hybrid will not win a dollar per dollar comparison against a parallel (or series/parallel) plug in hybrid.
(IMHO, of course)

I could go on with engineering references, but I don’t think the people on this board are much into that.

(Quote)
Shawn Marshall Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 8:51 pm

Who cares what Carnegie-Melonheads think? The Volt is a long lived, high resale value vehicle which fact (maybe) I’m guessing they overlooked. The first 10,000 with all matching serial numbers (you with us GM?) will be collectors’ items; the early adopters will be able to recoup their investment if they can ever bear it to sell.
And we all know it’s all about the batteries. Hopefully the price will come down as everyone expects. GM is out in front of the appropriate price and Toyota is going to lurk back and sneak up behind it. Betcha there is a 20 mile Prius whenever Volt arrives and at $10k less. I’d still buy a Volt to help our country.
How much will a Volt rehab cost? New battery, motor bearings, front end, computer(s)??

(Quote)
Mark Bartosik Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 8:52 pm

Another example of most cars being “I want” rather than “I need” are SUVs.

How many SUV drivers need to go off road?
The only “need” I can see here is a false perception that SUVs are safer due to size. But of course many people also have a false perception that something heavier also falls faster.

The Bloomberg article – not worth reading.

(Quote)
jeffhre Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 8:55 pm

Clearly the same conclusions could have been made for the first consumer items that have applied technological advances. Edison would have been told the same thing about electric lighting if economists had been advanced enough to point it out. Regardless of cost, the Volt will be the only American made EREV in 2010 and supply be less than demand.

Computers, cell phones, mp3 players, flat screen TV’s, ABS brakes, digital cameras, the list is astounding, would not be readily available if manufacturers were frightened by reports like these. Of course it helps if the manufacturers are able to survive in a down economy. Time will tell all. If there are 10,000 people who can afford payments who say I want that, then the introduction will be a success in 2010, regardless of how long the study says it will take to pay back the additional costs of the platform.

We already know what the additional benefits are. Martin Eberhard said he once smugly asked a woman if she knew how long, if ever, her Prius would take to pay her back in gas savings for the premium she paid for it. She replied, how long will it take for your Audi to pay you back. You’ve got to put in the work and make the investments or you’ll be waiting a long time to get anything back, or for things to improve.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 9:01 pm

#26 add,

On the positive side. I think the software control possibilities for plug in hybrids operating in “blended mode” has huge potential. I would expect v2, v3, v4 etc… could continue to yield ever higher mpg while still utilizing the same mechanical setup on the car. Perhaps the car’s computer will be a “smart” computer that analyzes your driving style and route habits over a period of time and develops a customized program to maximize fuel efficiency for the individual driver.

(Quote)
charlie h Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 9:09 pm

Something may have been lost in the translation.

The customer gets full value out of a small battery with just 10 miles of driving.

The customer does not get full value out of a large battery with just 10 miles of driving.

Which is the smarter buy? The car with the small battery will still get excellent fuel economy after battery depletion. At a much lower price.

(Quote)
James E Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 9:12 pm

If they can get the cost of the Volt into the high 20’s (35,000 – 7500 rebate) I would buy it today.

The problem that is on the horizon for GM is the BYD REV. The Volt cannot be 5k to 10k higher or it will not sell.

NPNS!

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 9:18 pm

Jeremy Michalek is entitled to his opinion of course but he doesn’t cover all the essential factors in buying a Volt. No mention of performance, or comfort compared to a Prius. When your merging with freeway traffic slow acceleration is not an option or at the very least is uncomfortable. Zero to 60 in 8 seconds for the Volt is decent and better than any Prius. So if economy is a drivers only concern, rather than economy plus safety, why not buy a scooter, they get the best economy.

(Quote)
BillR1 Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 9:25 pm

You can show just about anything if you make false assumptions. Just a few days ago Dr. Patil of CPI (subsidiary of LGChem) stated that the batteries cost $1000 per AVAILABLE kW. That is much less than the $16,000 used by the academic experts in this study.

In addition, GM has not released the MSRP for the Volt (nor will they for another 18 months or so). So how can you do an economic analysis without the price? Again – speculation.

And as many others have stated, how many cars are actually purchased based on an economic proforma? I venture to say very few.

So when the day comes to test drive potential new cars, first you drive a Hindsight with a 0 to 60 time of 12.5 seconds. Then you drive a Volt with an 8 second time for 0 to 60. Add in the silent drive, up to 40 miles of zero emissions driving, the “insurance value” against volatile oil prices, and the $7500 tax credit, and you won’t even remember the name of that other car.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 9:27 pm

#31 charlie h

Huh?

The car with the 40-mile battery will take longer to reach the customer depletion point. So, it will have better energy efficiency between 10-miles and 40-miles. If you only drive 10 miles per day, get the smaller car with the smaller battery.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 9:36 pm

If we support inferior technology, based solely on the fact that “it’s our technology” ,i.e. it’s our tax dollars vested therefore we must support the home team, then we’ve pretty much got a shltty socialist system in place.

I dislike the the GM bailout, I absolutely deplore the GM bailout if it’s based on an unproven production intent concept that very likely won’t match up to the competition.

(Quote)
BillR1 Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 9:39 pm

#35 Thom,

“If you only drive 10 miles per day, get the smaller car with the smaller battery.”

Of course, this works fine until you get laid off and end up with a new job 30 miles from home.

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 9:41 pm

“In 5 years the Volt will be making money—not sure whether the entity will still be called GM but ….”

Prediction:

I think today’s GM will fragment into several entities, only one of which will still be called “GM,” literally a developer and manufacturer of engines and electric motors which may be used by any number of other manufacturers (Tesla’s new sedan will reportedly use GM engines, or do I mean Fiskar? Things have already taken a step in that direction. Why not sell whole gensets?).

One of the fragments will be General Voltec, perhaps; and will make only EREVs.

All the fragments put together will be less than half the size of the current GM, even without Saturn and Hummer.

(Quote)
BillR1 Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 9:41 pm

#36 Carcus1,

“If we support inferior technology, based solely on the fact that “it’s our technology” ,i.e. it’s our tax dollars vested therefore we must support the home team, then we’ve pretty much got a shltty socialist system in place.”

So why is it that only 3% of the cars in Japan are imported?

(Quote)
DaV8or Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 9:48 pm

Dumb article. Anybody with an 8th grade education could tell you the Volt won’t save you any money. It’s cool new technology and people will buy it for those reasons. I’m one of them. I’m not even remotely considering the new hybrids from Toyota and Honda. I would much rather have an turbo diesel than one of those. If no Volt for me, than I will no doubt just run the wheels off the car I have now until somebody can make me a car like the Volt that I can afford.

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 9:49 pm

If some kind of improved ultracapacitor comes down in cost to sit beside a reduced-size Lithium battery, power for “volt light” won’t suffer much. This does not require EESTOR to happen, just someone’s improved, but already understood ultracap technology with a pricing breakthrough. So inevitable maybe, but not anytime soon. By that time, larger Lithium Ion batteries will be less expensive, and the supercaps may simply raise the performance from Volt levels to Tesla ones (minus the AER, of course). Kind of hard to put a costing analysis against Tesla performance.

(Quote)
DaV8or Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 9:51 pm

Staik #13-
“I’ve seen the Volt a couple times in the flesh now, and it doesn’t look any better than the Cruze…actually I find the Volt’s homogenized/aerodynamic form less appealing (especially the interior)
Cruze interior (for reference):
http://image.automobilemag.com/f/car-news/first-2011-chevrolet-cruze-interior-photos/10687760+cr1+re0+ar1/chevrolet-cruze-interior.jpg”

————————————————————————————

I completely agree! I wish we could have the Cruze interior, or something like it instead of what they want to do. Exterior wise, both cars are uninspiring, just the way most people seem to like it these days.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 9:52 pm

#39 BillR1,
“So how is it that only 3% of the cars in Japan are imported?”
__________________________________________________

Uh, I’ve only been to Japan once, and I couldn’t understand what anybody was saying, so I couldn’t ask. But according to the Detroit News, it’s 7%, and the reason why :

“. . . . most Japanese prefer domestic cars made by companies such as Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co. for their reasonable prices and compact sizes.”
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090108/AUTO01/901080428

(Quote)
Redeye Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 9:55 pm

I may never be able to “afford” a Volt.

But if this recession/depression doesn’t vaporize what’s remaining of my life savings,
I’ll buy one anyway as soon as they are available in my area.

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 9:59 pm

Given years of waiting for reasonable production/pricing, it’ll be hard to say “no” to some of those new Honda hybrids.

One of them will be a Fit. Another will evoke the CRV. It’s not just the Prius-bland Insight II.

Given GM’s overall “iffy” future (to say nothing of our Nation’s), I don’t know how wise it is to try and “run the wheels off” of my old Saturn.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 10:03 pm

hi Jackson #38,

“One of the fragments will be General Voltec, perhaps; and will make only EREVs.”

________________________

E-REV is moving forward whether GM survives or not. Uncle Sam, through us tax payers, is now injecting $25-$50 billion into the former GM because the CEO said that people won’t buy from a bankrupt company. A January reorganization could have been completed and the tax payer would have saved billions. Oh well.

It may be best for a piece of the former GM to become a distributor. This will eliminate the current and reoccurring labor/strike/benefit costs and concerns. This will finally start a modest positive cash flow.

The former company I worked for, bankrupted by rising oil prices, is now a much smaller redistribution company. They have office workers, a small Q.A. department, and dock hands. They import from Taiwan, check quality, re-label, and mark up for profit. All of the floor grunts (me) are gone. Life goes on.

I think E-Motors is a good name for a dealership chain. E-Motors can feature the Volt, MiEV’s , E-kit cars, smaller personal E-transports such as electric scooters and carts, and similar electric vehicles. California buyers would flock and keep inventory moving. I guarantee this, we have so many green freaks here it isn’t funny.

President Obama could support this move by assisting with the financing of a U.S. battery company. The U.S.B. would supply batteries to E-Motors at no charge. The buyer would see low prices at the distributor and (as Jim Cramer says) buy-buy-buy. No need for rebates and tax credits. Just carry the cost of the battery through U.S.B.

Is this too simple and cost effective?

=D~

(Quote)
Michael D Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 10:05 pm

I guess if we rated the viability of every new invention by the cost of the first ones produced the world would be very different. The first automobiles most certainly were not cost efficient compared to a horse and buggy. Who would pay for an expensive television in 1940 when you could go to a movie for .25 cents. Why would anyone air condition their house when they could just use a window fan!

The pioneers always have to pay the price. That’s why I’m on the list for both the Volt and the Fisker!!

Good day all!

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 10:06 pm

“E-Motors” sounds too much like some of our posters —

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 10:24 pm

What gas price did Carnegie Mellon use to justify this article… today’s price of $1.76/gallon? I think anyone can fudge data to make a point, especially when the data doesn’t exist yet.

(Quote)
vincent Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 10:33 pm

Opinions are like A**holes. Everyone has one.
We need to get off oil period.
Enter albeit hi priced…Volt Version 1.0
Coming soon Volt 2.0…more efficient…less expensive…faster….stronger….better…less expensive.
(deduct the profits from the overseas battery supplier) I’m sure its $3K to 5K per battery…

Whats Carnegie Mellon University doing to help free us from Oil?

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 10:34 pm

#26 carcus1 Says:

I could go on with engineering references, but I don’t think the people on this board are much into that.
=============

No, please do. I’m an enginerd.

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 10:42 pm

#28 Mark Bartosik Says:
Another example of most cars being “I want” rather than “I need” are SUVs. How many SUV drivers need to go off road?

===========

Lots of us around the 45th parallel need SUV’s… for going down the road, and towing stuff, and hauling stuff.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 10:48 pm

#51 kdawg,

I could go on with engineering references, but I don’t think the people on this board are much into that.
=============
No, please do. I’m an enginerd.
____________________________________________________

AC Propulsion (founder Alan Cocconi of some EV1 fame) was hired to build and test a series hybrid. Their Final Report on the converted Jetta from 2005 is here:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/icat/projects/acprop.pdf

pg. 40, 6.3.1. Series vs Parallel designs.

They also built and tested a range extender generator for their electric tzero. Less than stellar results there as well. 30 to 35 mpg and limited performance in acceleration, long hill climbs, and sustained highway speeds.

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 10:49 pm

#33 Ed M Says:

Jeremy Michalek is entitled to his opinion of course but he doesn’t cover all the essential factors in buying a Volt. No mention of performance, or comfort compared to a Prius. When your merging with freeway traffic slow acceleration is not an option or at the very least is uncomfortable. Zero to 60 in 8 seconds for the Volt is decent and better than any Prius. So if economy is a drivers only concern, rather than economy plus safety, why not buy a scooter, they get the best economy.
======

I agree. (BTW, i get 94 mpg on my scooter)

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 11:02 pm

#43 carcus1 Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
#39 BillR1,
“So how is it that only 3% of the cars in Japan are imported?”
__________________________________________________

Uh, I’ve only been to Japan once, and I couldn’t understand what anybody was saying, so I couldn’t ask. But according to the Detroit News, it’s 7%, and the reason why :

“. . . . most Japanese prefer domestic cars made by companies such as Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co. for their reasonable prices and compact sizes.”
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090108/AUTO01/901080428
============

I work for a Japanese company and have been there several times, not that that matters. What I do know, first hand, is that they stick, to their own. You can claim quality, or prices, but that is not the truth. Even when doing work for other Japanese companies, everything must come from another Japanese company, no questions (im talking down to the fricken nuts, bolts, wires, stickers, etc). They want as much of their money to flow to other Japanese companies. Its their culture and they protect their own businesses. It has nothing to do with quality or prices. In fact, most of the stuff I’m forced to used is poor quality, doesnt meet US specs, and cost twice as much.

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 11:10 pm

#53 carcus1 Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
#51 kdawg,

I could go on with engineering references, but I don’t think the people on this board are much into that.
=============
No, please do. I’m an enginerd.
____________________________________________________

AC Propulsion (founder Alan Cocconi of some EV1 fame) was hired to build and test a series hybrid. Their Final Report on the converted Jetta from 2005 is here:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/icat/projects/acprop.pdf

pg. 40, 6.3.1. Series vs Parallel designs.

They also built and tested a range extender generator for their electric tzero. Less than stellar results there as well. 30 to 35 mpg and limited performance in acceleration, long hill climbs, and sustained highway speeds.
===========

The date on that article is 2003. Which is 6 years old, and doesnt take into account any of the strides made by the Volt team?
(FYI – im still reading, but that jumped out at me)

(Quote)
Stew Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 11:12 pm

#10 Dave B
“this guy sure doesn’t speak for me when I want to stick it to OPEC who has been sticking it to me all my life. I’ll pay extra and ensure I plug-in just to avoid the pump”

#17 old man
“We americans and probably most of the rest of the world were and still are pi$$ed at the oil producers, sellers and especially the oil speculators. I do not care if I ever break even regarding cost of car verses cost of fuel. I do not intend to sit by and let them get me again.”

# 40 DaV8or
“If no Volt for me, than I will no doubt just run the wheels off the car I have now until somebody can make me a car like the Volt that I can afford.”

====================================

What you guys said!

Stew

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 11:15 pm

#55 kdawg,

My point has never been that we should support imports over american built (if there even is such a thing). My point was we shouldn’t have to support EREV technology for political (see bailout) reasons, especially when it’s unproven and likely inferior to series/parallel hybrid technology.

I don’t want to be forced into any of it, for that matter.

Ford is going with plug in series/parallel, by the way.

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 11:27 pm

Carcus1, i guess where we disagree is that you see EREV as inferior, and I see it at superior. The next superior step will be BEV (when the technology is there).

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 11:30 pm

I see it at superior.
_________________________

What does that actually mean?

Greater reduction of oil consumption overall, per population?

Potential to sell more?

Ability to provide financial sustainability for an automaker?

Less expensive?

(Quote)
Edwin Mang Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 11:51 pm

Lets see at $1000 per troy oz that is 40 oz for a car but the car I can drive and do something with . The Gold sits I can not drive it or eat it . I have trouble trading it for any thing . But I can drive out hit a rabbit and eat it . Bad example but try that with a oz of gold . The stupid rabbit gets back up and runs away .

God Bless

(Quote)
Stevethefinancialplanner Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 11:54 pm

Can you afford a Volt? Assuming a 35k Volt:

1. Do you make more than 105K per year? (No more than 1/3 of your yearly salary should go towards a car.)

2. Do you have 35k in savings, above and beyond your 9 month living expense fund? (No portion of car purchases should be ever be financed).

If you answered yes to both questions congrats, you can afford it.

If not, you are kidding yourself, keep your current car or buy used.

(Quote)
David L Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 11:55 pm

Statik #13 wrote:
I’ve seen the Volt a couple times in the flesh now, and it doesn’t look any better than the Cruze…actually I find the Volt’s homogenized/aerodynamic form less appealing (especially the interior)
—
There’s been discussion in previous blog topics about the Chevy Orlando possibly building on the Voltec EREV (delta) platform. The Orlando’s interior is surprisingly similar to the Cruze:
Orlando: http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autobloggreen.com/media/2008/10/258630-1280.jpg
Cruze: http://image.automobilemag.com/f/car-news/first-2011-chevrolet-cruze-interior-photos/10687760+cr1+re0+ar1/chevrolet-cruze-interior.jpg

(Quote)
Victor Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 12:07 am

The Volt is a wonderful idea and technical wonder whose time has come and gone some 15 years ago. How soon we forget.

I remember a Clinton era program started in 1993, called the “Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV)” project.

The goal was to make a decent midside American Sedan that sat 5 people and get a reported 80 MPG.

From that program we got……..

Ford produced a prototype Prodigy Diesel Hybird Vehicle in 1998 that got 72 MPG. (taxpayer funded)look at the following website:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/car_shopping/green_machines/the_green_brigade_feature/ford_prodigy_feature

GM Produced the prototype Precept Diesel Hybird Vehicle in 2000 that got 80 MPG. (taxpayer funded)look at the following website:
http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/gmprecept.html

And Chrysler Produced the prototype ESX-3 Diesel Hybird Vehicle in 1998 that got 72 MPG. (taxpaer funded) look at the following website:
http://www.allpar.com/model/intrepid-esx3.html

And the damned things actually worked well. That program acheived its goals. The cars were all the size of the Ford Taurus and had decent performance numbers with acceleration 0-60 times in the 9 to 10 second range. And they met all government safety requirements.

But where are these car or their decendents today? Religated to the dust bin of history. The technology to build cars such as these has been with GM, Ford and Chrysler all along. But they never had any intention to build them. The program was cancelled in 2001 during the Bush administartion at the REQUEST of the automakers themselves.

The Volt is GM’s Hail Mary pass But nobody has told GM that the game was already over years ago and Toyota won the game and has already gone home with the trophy.

As full disclosure I have a 2007 Toyota Camery Hybrid that was built in Kentucy. Fully load with nav system and such at a cost of 30 grand. Got my 2200 dollar Fed tax rebate and a 1500 dollar state rebate for it. So the true cost was closer to 27500. It seats 5 comfortably and gets 35 real MPG consistantly. And the best thing… It looks good and does not look like a science experiment gone horribly wrong.

The PVNG was the card that the BIG 3 should have played. But they all took the easy way out and these cars never saw the light of day.

GM, Ford and Chrysler lost me with all their promises and never really delivered. So I went with a compant that delivered on its promise and I am happy.

I wish them luck, I truely do. But for my money I’ll stick with a true winner with a proven track record.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 12:32 am

#59 Kdawg,

“I guess where we disagree is that you see EREV as inferior, and I see it at superior. The next superior step will be BEV (when the technology is there).”
_______________________________________________________

I challenge you to find one EREV hybrid in this world that is getting 50 mpg after “customer depletion”.

You won’t find it.

After the batteries are mostly depleted, you’ve got an inferior machine compared to a parallel hybrid. (wiki even lists one of the disadvantages of a series hybrid train as “less efficient in fuel use” , wiki up diesel-electric train, then hybrid train)

The reason? Generator losses.
Generator Losses – Copper,Hysteresis, Eddy Current and Mechanical losses
http://powerelectrical.blogspot.com/2007/03/generator-losses-copperhysteresis-eddy.html

I’m predicting GM’s generator losses on the EREV are exceeding any transmission losses on the series/parallel hybrid.

The only reason GM can claim better fuel efficiency is because they’re running bigger batteries.

All things being equal, same size battery, same size engine, same approx weight of vehicle, same types of acceleration and highway speed, the series/parallel hybrid is going to win the efficiency contest every time.

That’s my undereducated guess. So far, everything I have (haven’t) seen from GM proves me right.

That’s why I think they are going to delay, delay, delay on producing any testable models of the volt.

(Quote)
Don Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 1:07 am

The battery doesn’t cost $16K. I’ve seen LiFePO4s available for prices of near $300/KWH such that the pack could be as low as $5K.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 1:08 am

Pass the lithium salt please.

NSNS

No Salt No Sale

=D~

(Quote)
Jim in PA Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 1:30 am

What net savings does a BMW incur for its owner? Do leather seats ever pay for themselves? When does a Lexus make more financial sense than a Honda?

ANSWERS: None, No, and Never.

But I don’t suppose we’ll see any articles on these earth-shattering revelations. These idiots need to move beyond this artificial concept that the first generation Volt needs to pay for itself in gas savings. People will pay for the car that they want to drive. A $26,000 Prius doesn’t pay for itself in gas savings either, compared to a 36 mpg $15,000 Cobalt. So their point is……. ?

(Quote)
andy Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 1:37 am

carcus1, how out of date can you get? Sure it shows 35mpg for a 1.4 ltr engine. Have you checked out the GREAT strides VW have acheived with small engines recently? The report also shows what great promise the system has, remember it was a guesstimate engineering job. So stop salivating and panting.
To change the subject slightly, I would like to know how GM intends becoming profitable with a car market of 7-8 million cars. Remember their previous plan was based on 10 million sales, which I questioned and nobody paid any attention to.
If they still cannot stop the bleeding, they are GONE. They need to restructure NOW, not in three months because 5 billion last month and now a capinhand for 10billion is not going to endear them to Obama for long. I cannot beleive that they cannot stem the massive bleeding and its not as if it suddenly happened: Its been coming for 8 long years. And then to have the nerve to cut 20,000 jobs in their “profitable” sattelites all the while losing 6000 per car sold in USA, are they insane? What do they put in the water in Detroit?
This is a real threat to the VOLT. A forced bancruptcy may just flush out all the dead wood in GM

(Quote)
Laura Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 1:40 am

Yeah, that is what I figured a long time ago.

Those stating that the ‘Volt’ price is justifiable given the importance of foreign oil independence:

The vast majority of people would buy a product based on feasibility. No matter what. Moreover, if Toyota manages to make a Prius at 9 miles rnage all electric and the vehicle costs less, that is it. BYD already masters this technology, don’t they?

(Quote)
solo2500nt Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 1:45 am

Okay here is the deal. If you want to know what a study is going to conclude, don’t read the study, find out who paid for the study.

There are a lot of scenarios where a car like this WILL and WILL NOT pay for its self. I doubt the vast majority of Prius’s have ‘paid’ for them selves for most drivers. But they still sell and produce a hell of a lot of good will with the greens. I almost bought a Prius/Civic hybrid when they first came out because I was driving 50,000 miles a year. Only obnoxious short sighted dealers charging a 3000 premium put it out of range.

The first ones off the line well sell like hot cakes but in order to make the car reasonably cost competitive for mass market a few things will have to happen, most of them very likely.

1: The car gets produced and they turn out to be the darling of the green crowd, regardless of price. (the only thing holding this possibility back is GM going under and the green crowd rejecting an American product because it is American).

2: The economy recovers and the price of gas hits 3.50 a gallon or the price of gas hits 3.50 a gallon anyway through because the tax rate on fuel gets Obamanized.

3: The price of batteries comes down either through mass production or new battery formula’s.

P.S. I bet the American tax payer funded this study in some way.

(Quote)
Frank D Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 2:43 am

It’s worth it to me just knowing I’m investing in new technology that will rid us of the addiction to oil. Not to mention investing in our Country once again in worth while innovation. There are somethings that require the sacrifice.

(Quote)
Jay Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 2:55 am

Nice Emblem!! Why can’t Chevy have a cool Emblem?

(Quote)
J Man Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 3:28 am

I used to live in Pittsburgh where they study came out of. You need to realize that the way the area is set up, if you are going to a place 40 miles away, you will actually travel 50 miles to get there. To go most places in that town there is no direct route. So, if you live in Pittsburgh a volt will may not be worth it, if you live anywhere else it will be great.

The same guy most likely complained about all the smog in the area from the steel mills in the ’50’s. Now that all but three mills are gone he will complain that all the jobs are gone and the city is depressed.

(Quote)
Keith Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 4:58 am

I personally don’t want 40 miles on a plug in charge , I want 60 + miles as a Series Hybrid without a plug in. It would certainly cost a lot less to make and to buy and I wouldn’t have the hassle of plugging the darned thing in all the time. I also wouldn’t have to worry about some dumb ass suing me because they fell over the plug in cord either.
While you are at it put a gen-set in it with 500 cc and make it a smooth running four cylinder engine for heating and defrosting. I liked some of my cars , but I never loved any of them , they are just machines for transportation to me.

(Quote)
old man Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 6:36 am

3,4, or 7% of the cars in Japan are imports. Do not know which number is correct but do know from my machine tool back ground that in order to export to Japan you have to go thru a multi tier import system and each tier adds there mark up to the product. By the time the product reaches the customer it is very expensive. My GUESS is a Volt in Japan will cost about 60,000 to 70,000 dollars and you can bet all of your children in will not enjoy a tax credit. That is why steak is so costly in Japan. We import beef from south america and our farmers find the competition to be tough. But in Japan that south american beef is expensive.

(Quote)
Lawrence Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 7:04 am

Correct me if I’m wrong, I’m pretty newbish are these themes, but I would like to share some of my primitive understanding:

a. Standard ICE cars have the advantage to be mature, technology/economically wise. The problem: ICE are known not to be energy conversion efficient (gas -> movement). As far as I record, from 100% energy stored in the fuel, actual ICE will only be able to transfer 20% of it to movement, the rest lost in heat and various transmissions.

b. Standard ICE car need energy to accelerate and to keep continuous movement (air friction, gravity, etc). The stored cinetic energy is unfortunately lost when we step on brakes (heating on brakes, etc).

c. Hybrid cars, such as prius, we all know focus on capturing the lost energy generated while braking (regenerative braking), and storing it back to batteries, which is then dedicated to transfer it again to movement generation by assisting the base ICE.

d. Hybrid cars then only make sense when frequently getting into the brakes. In highway driving, there might be absolutely NO energy consumption reduction. It becomes a normal ICE car, with it’s 20% efficiency.

———————-

Now, about EV, electric engines seem to be very high energy efficient (about 90% as far as I remember). This difference is, for me the key element. And this is why car electrification is IMHO a very important step to overcome. The Volt idea is for me the only way we can build proper transition. There are loads of things to discover technically, and if GM succeeds in releasing the initial Volt, the concurrency will have to respond with sense, and not only with stupid improvements, such as automatic detection of rain, tunnel entering -> lights on, automatic vaccuum cleaning, or Testosterone-like Camaros or for-brainsless-pseudo-elitist SUVs

Cheers

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 7:21 am

From the article: It is pointed out that the Volt’s battery is likely to cost $16,000 at current prices, and the car close to $40,000.
————————————————————————————–
Why does everyone keep saying this?

GM has said the Volt will cost mid-to-high 30s:
http://gm-volt.com/2008/08/19/gm-ceos-best-guess-volt-will-be-priced-in-mid-to-high-30s/
This corresponds to around $30K after the tax credit.

CPI (who makes the batteries), says the battery currently costs $1,000/available kWh:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/02/profile-li-ion.html
CPI makes clear that this is not the total kWH, but rather for the available kWH accounting for both end-of-life and depth-of-discharge issues. So CPI is saying that the Volt battery costs $8K. Furthermore, CPI says battery cost should be between 1/4 to 1/2 of what it is now in the next 5-10 years.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 7:23 am

Hybrid cars then only make sense when frequently getting into the brakes. In highway driving, there might be absolutely NO energy consumption reduction.
_____________________________

It’s hard to believe such misconceptions still exist, especially here.

50 MPG on the highway. That’s what I get during the summer.

It’s achieved through an engine specially tuned for efficiency, sacrificing power since there’s also a large electric motor for which is constantly fed electricity directly from the engine. When additional power is needed, electricity comes from the battery-pack too. Combine all that with the aerodynamics and the extremely efficient “transmission” to get a system that delivers highway efficiency of 50 MPG.

Energy savings from braking is a bonus. You still consume less even if all you do is cruise on the highway.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 7:34 am

Why does everyone keep saying this?
_______________________

Because the tax credit is temporary.

At the rate which the competition is proceeding, Volt will only get a portion of the quantity available. Owners of other plug-ins will use much of the quota.

As for battery price dropping quickly, that is unrealistic. From breakthru to high-volume manufacturing takes many years. But someday when that does happen, there’s still have the additional cost of the internal heating elements and the liquid cooling system for Li-Ion but not for NiMH.

(Quote)
BillR1 Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 7:51 am

#55 kdawg and #75 Old Man,

Thank you for your responses regarding Japan’s import regulations and business practices.

If more people in this country could realize that we don’t have a level playing field (not really free trade), and that due to culture (or prejudice), we cannot sell cars in Japan as they do here, then perhaps attitudes would change.

(Quote)
koz Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 8:02 am

“The study suggests that a rechargeable auto with the Volt’s target range of 40 miles is “not cost effective in any scenario.””

I’m hoping the study qualified this statement by basing it on current costs or some assumed costs, otherwise their study is ineffective in many a scenario.

It’s a long time since we’ve a thread about costs and I personally like the segway away from viability threads, so let’s discuss cost and value a little.

Costs are simple and discrete but value not so much. It’s in the value part of the scenario that most of the manipulation of information is done to present the desired results. I’ll try to lay bare how I see the cost/value comparison of ICE-only vehicles to the Volt. For this I believe it is best to determine a ICE-only cost equivalent.
-Assume $40,000 price for Volt. If prices stay somewhere close to today’s steel way down, aluminum way down, labor down, freight down, plastics(oil) down, etc then the Volt could sell more profitably(less loss) at $37,499 in late 2010 then was expected with mid last years $35,000-$40,000 price estimate (based on costs at that time). So, my guess is $37,499 to allow for $29,999-with tax rebate adds, but I’ll stick with $40,000 for this discussion to keep it mainstream.
-40 miles AER and 50mpg are achieved
-12,000 miles/year driving (roughly US average), 9000 BEV miles
-8 years of car ownership, battery retains 80% capacity
-$3/gallon gas at time of purchase (2010), $6/gallon gas at time of sell (2018)
-Equivalent ICE vehicle averages 27mpg (hatchback with decent power (~2.0L engine)
-Electricity averages $0.12/KWh and car consumes 9KWh input/40 miles AER
-delta in price between ICE and Volt financing and maintainance costs balance out
-$8,000 residual value based on this analysis’ assumptions of 27mpg ICE comparison, 8 years ownership, $6/gal gas at time of sell, $4000 residual value for ICE comp

Volt costs $28,604 after 8 yr ownership:
$40,000 purchase price – $7500 rebate = $32,500
$1944 for 72,000 electric
$2160 for gas
($8,000) residual value

Comparable ICE costs $16,604 ($28,604 – $16,000 + $4000)
$16,000 gas
($4,000) residual value

I know everyone will have differences in their assumptions and the financing/ maintainace costs are oversimplified but I believe I used middle of the road numbers. You will be hard pressed to find the functionality and performance the Volt will offer for under $18,000.

Now we can discuss value of AER:
-reduced noise inside and outside the cabin
-smoother ride
-Electric torque
-Reduce gaseous emmissions
-Reduced particulate emmissions (no combustion, less friction braking)
-NO GAS!
-NO GAS!
-NO GAS!

Oh! Did I forget to mention, NO GAS!

LJGTVWOTR NPNS! Start your own stimulus plan, buy North American!

(Quote)
NZDavid Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 8:02 am

This study is a load of crap.

I post another study that clearly shows the Volt is a winner, at least in Holland.

A cost- and benefit analysis of combustion cars, electric cars and
hydrogen cars in the Netherlands
The development of the costs and benefits of cars powered by gasoline, electricity and hydrogen in the Netherlands in the period 2008 – 2030

/Warning: This is a 72 page Thesis
http://www.peakoil.nl/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/a_cost__benefit_analysis_of_combustion_cars_electric_cars_and_hydrogen_cars_in_the_netherlandsfinal.pdf

(Quote)
Jerry Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 8:13 am

Reading these posts, it seems that almost everyone seems to have accepted the premise that the Volt will “not be cost effective under any scenario.” Why? If the tax credit is $7500, and the economy recovers by 2011 (and even pessimistic forecasts see some recovery by 2011) the price of oil will shoot up as fast as it collapsed. Gas will quickly reach $5/gallon, and by 2014 $8/gallon. Volt drivers will save between $75 and $160 a week as compared to a contmeporary car averaging, let’s say, 20 mpg city and country. Conservatively, over a 5 year period, that is over $28000. So the comparative cost of a Volt, to today’s average car, is about $5000. Of course, if we compare the Volt to a future plug-in hybrid, averaging 60 mpg the savings may only be about $9000. If that plug-in hybrid also gets the full tax credit and costs in the low 20’s, it will be significantly cheaper to own than the Volt. So the Volt is not more expensive in “any scenario” it is merely more expensive than another, less efficient (as compared to Volt), but much cheaper hybrid. So less expensive HYBRID autos are….less expensive!! The proposition presented by Bloomberg is no more than an advertisement for upcoming cheaper Japanese hybrids.

(Quote)
Van Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 8:25 am

As was pointed out early on, it depends on your average daily commute whether to buy a Volt with an AER of about 32 miles or a Prius with an AER of about 16 miles. For me, being retired the possible plug in Prius with an AER of 16 makes better economic sense.

But if I drove 12 or more miles to work 5 days a week, I would buy the Volt, assuming my job would enable the purchase of such a pricey work car.

Economic justification turns of the cost of operation and the difference between purchase and resale price. Lets say I buy the Volt for 37,500 and then get 7,500 back, so my actual cost is 30,000. And lets say I sell the car after 5 years for $15,000. Lots of folks shell out around $250 per month for their car so the price of ownership does not seem out of line.

Turning to the cost of operation, lets compare to a vehicle that gets 25 miles per gallon average and travels 15,000 miles per year. Lets assume the average cost of gas over the next 5 years is $4.00 per gallon. So the fuel cost is $2400. For the Volt, lets assume one third of the fuel cost comes from gas, or $400 (at 50 MPG) and two thirds come from the plug or $600. So the annual saves on the cost of operation is about $1400 per year or $7000 for the 5 years.
So based on these assumptions the Volt is a bargain.

Each of us has to look at our own driving pattern and figure out which Plug in makes the most sense for us.

(Quote)
sudhaman Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 8:26 am

the holden volt logo is good .GM rocks the world it should be a great success and GM should license this technology to saab in exchange for an ownership of that company and GM gets back all it had lost

(Quote)
Guy Incognito Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 8:46 am

#63 Victor
You are correct.
As an ancillary footnote, it was the PNGV that worried the Japanese.
So much so that it spurred their own flurry of R&D, the result of which we now know as the Toyota Prius.

It should be also noted that the often talked about, often bemoaned for being talked about General Motors EV1 was the result of the Partnership for Next Generation of Vehicles as well.

=D~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think part of the auto bail-out money should be used in the form of $10-$15 K direct rebates for anyone that wants to buy a hybrid from those automakers that have received said funds.

Thus, a $40 K vehicle such as the Volt, after bailout rebate ~$25 K
Some more advertising for the Volt would be nice as well, I seem to remember a barrage of Saturn commercials when they were getting ready to release the first models.

(Quote)
k-dawg Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 8:47 am

#64 carcus1 Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 12:32 am
#59 Kdawg,

“I guess where we disagree is that you see EREV as inferior, and I see it at superior. The next superior step will be BEV (when the technology is there).”
_______________________________________________________

I challenge you to find one EREV hybrid in this world that is getting 50 mpg after “customer depletion”.

You won’t find it.

After the batteries are mostly depleted, you’ve got an inferior machine compared to a parallel hybrid. (wiki even lists one of the disadvantages of a series hybrid train as “less efficient in fuel use” , wiki up diesel-electric train, then hybrid train)

The reason? Generator losses.
Generator Losses – Copper,Hysteresis, Eddy Current and Mechanical losses
http://powerelectrical.blogspot.com/2007/03/generator-losses-copperhysteresis-eddy.html

I’m predicting GM’s generator losses on the EREV are exceeding any transmission losses on the series/parallel hybrid.

The only reason GM can claim better fuel efficiency is because they’re running bigger batteries.

All things being equal, same size battery, same size engine, same approx weight of vehicle, same types of acceleration and highway speed, the series/parallel hybrid is going to win the efficiency contest every time.

That’s my undereducated guess. So far, everything I have (haven’t) seen from GM proves me right.

That’s why I think they are going to delay, delay, delay on producing any testable models of the volt.
==============

I think you are forgetting about all of the ancillaries; headlights, air conditioning, stereo, liquid pumps, etc. This will play a big part. You will need an alternator or belts to run these on systems that are not 100% electric. Also RE ICE can be kept at optimum RPMs vs. one that is actually driving the wheels and constantly changing. There are so many variables, it goes on and on, and we could argue till blue in the face, but it will come down to the final collected data, the price of gas, and the driver’s driving habits to compare efficiency in the propulsion and efficiency regarding your wallet. One thing I know, with a bigger battery, I will use less gas, and to me that is one major superior design point of the Volt over current hybrids.

(Quote)
Mitch Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 8:51 am

#73 Jman

“, if you are going to a place 40 miles away, you will actually travel 50 miles to get there. ”

O…kay… so basically the idiot that wrote the article is saying driving 40 miles on gasoline (because a 10 mile AER is better) is better? yee..a..h…R..ight.

Even if you can do it in 40 miles..the volt is still a NO GAS vehicle!!

There are enough rich tree huggers to snap up the first 10k Volts. The tax credits will END, but should be enough to stir the interest and devellopment of cheaper batteries and make mass production more viable ( and car costs drop)

Car buying is about “I want!” not payback…if I had the dough? Corvette? or cobalt? Porsche or Prius? Hmmm…I’ll take curtain number 1 Bob and your eggheaded calculations on payback can spend 4.2 seconds sucking my tailpipe emmisions (cuz I’ll be gone by then…:-p) and there are MANY people with that kind of dough…

Cant wait for the Volt SS!! (gen 2 or 3 I expect)

(Quote)
k-dawg Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 8:56 am

#64 carcus1
I challenge you to find one EREV hybrid in this world that is getting 50 mpg after “customer depletion”.

You won’t find it.
===========

Show me a parallel one that does?

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 9:05 am

#87 k-dawg,

2010 prius: no belts, 50mpg

(Quote)
Mitch Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 9:15 am

#90

I see your 2010 Prius and call with the 2010 Volt…

Flip cards.

(Quote)
Bob McGovern Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 9:21 am

James E Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 9:12 pm

If they can get the cost of the Volt into the high 20’s (35,000 – 7500 rebate) I would buy it today.
======================================================
Don’t forget this $7500 will be a Tax Credit not a Rebate. The price will still be $35,000+ at time of purchase.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 9:28 am

#91 Mitch,

The problem is, you’re playing with imaginary volt cards. Next thing you’ll tell me is that you’ve got 5 aces.

(Quote)
Joe Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 9:40 am

In general this site is a pro-Volt site. But, while GM is trying to survive, I don’t think it’s a wise idea to propagate negative opinions from someone like Bloomburg. GM already gets enough negativity! Lyle, lets try to get better topics if you really care about GM. I know it’s your site and you can do what you want with it. Just hoping.

(Quote)
Schmeltz Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 9:49 am

Regarding Jeremy Michalek and his article, it is disappointing to read something like this. Not that everyone needs to be a cheerleader, but why criticize something like the Volt that is a definite, (and widely accepted) step in the right direction? Sounds like someone is just looking for a little attention.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 9:58 am

hi Joe #94,

“I don’t think it’s a wise idea to propagate negative opinions”

____________________________

Thank Christ we live in America and can say what we wish to say. The opinions I have expressed here in the last year would have had me arrested or even eliminated in many countries around the world. The sinking stock market (-40%) and lowering unemployment situation (+4%) make it tough for many to survive financially. But we still have freedom at 100% and a bill of rights that protects our ability to speak our mind. Let’s talk about the positives and negatives.

The nit-picking over “getting your money back while driving your car” seem irrelevant to me. I’ll take a Volt, Camaro, or even a Mini Cooper over a Yaris, Versa, or Prius with gasoline money left over. I may own 30 vehicles in my lifespan. Should they all be moped, Subaru, and Civics?

=D~

(Quote)
eightzero Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 10:04 am

Hahaha! Somone really thinks that people make a choice about which car to buy based solely on price? What planet are they from?

I want a Volt/electric car simply because *I want one*. Sure, I have to be sure I can afford one (that I actually have the $$$$ to pay for it) but that ot “won’t pay for itself” is wholly irrelevant. There’s lots of things that I buy that aren’t justifiable .

(Quote)
Get it out there now, GM. Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 10:34 am

This study is hugely wide of the mark on the important issues in the automotiove sector right now and of decisions made in new production vehicle specs right now. There is absolutely no produced competition right now in plug in range extended four wheeled highway capable vehicles, so whatever the Volt retail specs are is the right choice. If Toyota was making US retail sales of a plug in vehicle, that result might change, but Toyota isn’t. Wake me up when retail plug in range extended vehicles hit the showroom floors in every state.

Dozens of vehicle models have sold in huge quantities for more than $40,000 in the past, so I don’t see starting price, which can go down over time, as a problem, per se. Overproduction of vehicles, in general, though is a huge problem now. Americans don’t want more cars in general right now, regardless of the type and even if they did, they can’t get credit to purchase them.

Since the current price of gasoline fuel does not include massive negative externalities (such as pollution and sending our fuel money overseas for imported oil, where it leaks into violent groups opposed to the US hands) or the massive subsidies it receives (such as military expenditures to influence overseas oil regions and combat the violence problem we are funding with our imprted oil gasoline purchases), any results based on fuel savings are so much garbage.

This is why you want economists to do studies of economics, not engineers doing accounting reports.

People are primarily not going to buy the Volt for fuel or accounting savings, just as they don’t buy existing strong hybrids primarily for fuel or total life accounting savings. Marginal cost savings is considered more strongly by consumers, with the portion of any additional vehicle cost to get the marginal savings considered a fixed, sunk cost as soon as the vehicle is purchased. Look at it this way – to many folks, for both autos and housing, the fixed price is way, way less important than “Just tell what my initial monthly payments will be” which explains how consumers got in so much trouble with resettable housing ARMs.

Major other factors in vehicle purchase include consumer preference, which includes a potentially very high value attached to the benefit of getting off of imported oil dependence.

Last, remind me again, when do power steering, air conditioning, leather seats, sun roofs and power windows start to pay for themselves?

One method to resolve any debate over power pack size is to offer different power pack size options. Different consumers want different consigurations. This can be done within one model by versions, or by different automakers, to differentiate their products, so that they are not in direct competition (this already happens all th etime with vehicle specs on full gassers). This is fall off the log obvious and highlights the problem with GM’s strategy of long, long delay on releasing the Volt and its mismarketing while GM uses the concept repeatedly as a bargaining chip. Toyota’s methods of actually producing new product in large scale, soft selling it with brilliant marketing where the superiority of the product speaks for itself creates a massively powerful soft power for Toyota. When is GM going to learn? After they are knocked out of first place in the world? Oh, that already happened last year.

C’mon, GM, get plug ins onto dealer lots NOW. They’re ready.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 10:41 am

“And the value of driving without gasoline is for some, priceless.”
————————————-

I think that sentence really sums this up quite well. I think this is the way most of us who comment here on a daily basis (or nearly) feel exactly that way. I don’t want to pay that kind of cost for a Volt, but if I had the opportunity to purchase one of the first ones, I would do it in a heart beat. Of course, it will be more likely 2012 before I can get access to one locally and that is alright.

I just wonder who paid for this study. I suspect if you looked deep enough you would find Toyota money funding something at that university and the people putting out the study. Their basis for this claim of no savings is without warrant. They don’t take every consideration into account. Anyway, how many of us make purchase decisions solely on cost? Not many, I suspect. So, I say throw this study out with the hog-wash and let’s move on.

(Quote)
juk Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 10:41 am

#81.

Your Volt and ICE numbers are calculated differently, i think you’ll find that the cost of fuel is not a negative in the ICE example and that the residual is. This gives a $40k cost of the ICE, $12k more than the Volt.

Volt Wins.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 10:42 am

I’ve conducted a study. I find that the narrow focus of Carnegie Mellon University’s study limits its value to people considering a vehicle purchase.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 10:43 am

New topic please

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 10:50 am

#1 John1701a

“A secondary configuration of Volt with a smaller battery-pack is pretty much inevitable.”
————————–

I think you may be correct. I could see GM coming out with a Voltec system in a smaller, lighter car and with a smaller battery, but delivering 20+ MPC. It would work for many of us as a second vehicle.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 10:56 am

#5 pj

“Do the Japanese really think all American’s are morons? ”
————————–

Well, yeah! Just look at our blindly purchasing Japanese products, especially vehicles, without considering the cause and effects on our economy. Yeah, we are morons and yes, I do believe the Japanese think that we are.

(Quote)
George in Berkeley Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 11:08 am

Let’s all bow down to the great god of “cost-effectiveness.” Good grief. What’s the true cost of gasoline? How many zillions are we spending on stealth planes to guard Arabia’s oil fields? How many parents have folded up flags in glass cases on the mantle piece?

(Quote)
DonC Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 11:10 am

Claiming that a plug-in parallel vehicle is superior to a plug-in serial vehicle is brain dead. Without having seen the study (couldn’t find it) it’s impossible to say why it’s brain dead, but my guess is that it’s completely static. By that I mean it uses current numbers (probably very wrong ones at that) and doesn’t account for pricing over time.

It’s the reason that engineers are always predicting that we are going to run out of commodities when any economist would tell you that we never run out of anything — the price just rises, less of it is used, and substitutions occur.

A system like Voltec will use half as much fuel and create 80% fewer emissions than an urban capable PHEV. Other than the facts that development costs have already been amortized and the battery costs are higher, there is no reason why a Voltc vehicle would cost more than a PHEV system. In fact the Voltec system is much simpler to maintain and substantially more flexible than a PHEV system, which is somewhat Rube Goldbergish. So over time as battery costs drop, fuel prices increase, and development costs are amortized, Voltec like systems will beat the PHEV systems like a drum.

Even out of the blocks in 2010 the tax credit makes the plug in serial a winner. Ignoring maintenance costs, if the Volt costs $30K ($37.5K minus the $7.5K rebate) and the Prius costs $28K, the break even point on a cost basis will be anywhere from two to five years depending on your gas and electric prices.

#98 Get It Out There Now GM

I see we have an economist in the house. Just as a side note, with respect to engineers doing economic analysis, what makes me laugh is that the substitution effects are totally different than what engineers imagine and, as a consequence, they always get it completely wrong. The Prius has been a huge cost saver. The engineers say it costs more than a Camry. But I don’t know anyone who turned in their Camry for a Prius. The people I know who bought a Prius turned in their Mercedes or BMW. Completely ignoring gas prices, they saved a bundle.

(Quote)
statik Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 11:12 am

#79 john1701a said:

Because the tax credit is temporary.

At the rate which the competition is proceeding, Volt will only get a portion of the quantity available. Owners of other plug-ins will use much of the quota.

As for battery price dropping quickly, that is unrealistic. From breakthru to high-volume manufacturing takes many years. But someday when that does happen, there’s still have the additional cost of the internal heating elements and the liquid cooling system for Li-Ion but not for NiMH.
==============================
Actually, that was the case up not too long ago.

It has since changed from 250,000 total industry to 200,000 per manfacturer…under the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Which is great for GM (and everyone else)…unfortunately, you can almost feel GM slowing down the process, as there is no longer a rush to market to achieve a price point the consumer can swallow through the time sensitive rebate. (see Volt engine plant in Michigan for december 2010 as a example, or still no hard contract deadline for LG to actually mass produce production intent batteries)

Reality moment:

This is great news for GM (and the electric industry in general), but bad news for us tapping our foot waiting. When this was passed on February 17th, we all but lost even the most remote hope of seeing them mass produce any quantity of Volts on time. The original ‘limited’ rebate legislation was putting a fire under everyone.

Why is GM going to spend money on it now? They have none to spend. And why rush this thing to market? Now they have more time to do it right and test it…and more importantly, every delay sees the raw cost of the batteries go down.

Is it not better for them to wait and have Toyota blow through its 200,000 rebates on the $30,000 Prius’ PHEV first in 2010 and 2011? GM can then come to market with volume and be able to sell them all at $42,500 (pre-rebate) because Toyota has blown their rebates…and by then the car costs them probably 35K to make…they pocket $7,500.

If they try to come to market in 2010, they probably have to sell them at $37,500 because of the rebated Prius and the crappy economy. Additional to that, each one of them probably costs $40K to make…they lose 2,500 a pop.

/I don’t think GM had any chance of making the Nov 2010 deadline to start with…now they have incentive to not come out on time

(Quote)
Shawn Marshall Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 11:14 am

Wish I had invested in a Volt instead of my IRA, at least I’d have something.

Now the boneheads in government want to push the cap and trade charade for all you global warming freaks and the price of electricity is going to skyrocket, injuring our competitiveness and costing everyone money and making the Volt less economic.
They are also pulling back leases for shale oil in Utah; only windmills and solar cells are acceptable it seems. Don Quixote is in the White House tilting with windmills. We don’t need T Bones hand in our pockets – why can’t he make his money honestly?
You hate Lutz? What a waste of time. Direct your spleen at the Nutz.

(Quote)
Fahrvergnugen Fanboy Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 11:16 am

They’ll never sell millions of them until the battery cost comes down. We all knew that already.

They’ll have no difficulty selling 10,000 a year to affluent greenies, affluent energy-independentistas and affluent techies.

I fit into two of those three categories, except for the “affluent” part. Sigh.

(Quote)
Fahrvergnugen Fanboy Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 11:30 am

Shawn #109

I agree that “cap and trade” is the biggest fraud to come down the pike since, oh, maybe subprime mortgage derivatives. And oh, guess what, it’s invented by the same bunch of Ivy-League brainiacs who figured out that taking a whole lot of uncollectable loans and running them through a computer produces a good investment!

If they want to reduce carbon emissions, then tax the heck out it. It’s the only way. Anything that tries to be painless will not work.

(Quote)
CDAVIS Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 11:30 am

______________________________________________________
GM has it right with the VOLTEC platform.

The cost of batteries is now at a point in price and technology to make EREVS, such as the VOLT, affordable for early adopters willing to pay a premium for bragging rights; Lyle alone has nearly 50,000 of those early adopters on a VOLT waiting list. There are millions of early adopters standing on the sidelines waiting for an opportunity to purchase an EV/EREV. All available first and second generation EV/EREVS from the various cars makes will be sold out.

The cost of batteries is likely to halve in price every three years. The compounding effect of battery prices halving every three years means that in 10 years batteries will be less than 20% of the cost they are today.

Ten years ago I purchased a plasma flat screen TV for $12,000. Today I can walk into a store and purchase the same size plasma TV (but better made) for around $1,700. Ten years from now old-school gas ICE cars will be as hard to find on a dealer’s showroom floor as are today hard to find old-school tube televisions in an electronics store.
______________________________________________________
Electric Cars + Nuclear Power = American Energy Independence.
______________________________________________________

(Quote)
TonyKelly Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 11:53 am

If you drive 10 miles a day, you should be riding a bike. For the rest of us who have longer commutes. 40 miles gas free is brilliant.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 11:54 am

#43 Carcus1

“. . . . most Japanese prefer domestic cars made by companies such as Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co. for their reasonable prices and compact sizes.”
————————–

That and the Japanese people have a very high level of national pride. Too bad that same level doesn’t exist in the U.S. IMO.

I have been to Japan once, myself, in 1965. A long time ago and I found the Japanese people very friendly and likable.

(Quote)
Tom H Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 11:59 am

#31 charlie h

Huh?

The car with the 40-mile battery will take longer to reach the customer depletion point. So, it will have better energy efficiency between 10-miles and 40-miles. If you only drive 10 miles per day, get the smaller car with the smaller battery.
=========================================
If you only drive 10 miles per day, that is 3650 miles per year, or 5,000 miles per year allowing for trips. Your best choice would be an inexpensive, non-hybrid car which gets 25 miles per gallon. At $4 per gallon over 10 years, that is only $8,000 per gas.

A Prius would save you $4000 or a Volt would save you $6000. Neither saves enough to make up the hybrid premium.

As long as electric cars carry a purchase price premium, they only make sense if you drive a lot.

(Quote)
MetrologyFirst Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 12:17 pm

Tom H @ 115 is right

For those who only drive 10-20 miles/day, the economics of the Volt is not in your favor.

I am almost a perfect Volt buyer. 50 mile one way commute. not all highway. Plus I should be able to recharge at work during the day.
I’ll get ~80 miles of electric driving a day. Thats about 3-3.5 gallons of gas per day I’ll not be using. At that point, I won’t care what gas costs.

Plus I’ll be supporting GM & Detroit. Win-win for me.

(Quote)
MetrologyFirst Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 12:25 pm

N Riley @114

They have no choice but to have ‘compact size’. I have been to Japan several times recently. There is simply NO SPACE to put a larger car at the common Japanese home. The roads are narrow, the parking lots are small, gas is expensive etc.. Their society has evolved small cars as a fact of life, not really as a choice.

And yes, they have pride in their domestic products. Whether they are the ‘best value’ or not. There are made in China stickers on alot of things there also. But, its almost a badge of dishonor to not buy domestic goods.

Wish more Americans had the same pride.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 12:26 pm

#108 statik:

If that is really GM’s strategy, then they are truly doomed, IMHO.

I believe that, if the Obama administration actually does decide to prop up GM, a large part of the motivation will be to force the development of the Volt, and similar technologies. If the administration, and its supporters, become convinced that GM is “playing” the tax credit program in the way you suggest, I think that the plug is quite likely to be pulled, no pun intended.

Or, if the Task Force reads your GM-Volt.com comments, which I sincerely hope thay do, they will put iron clad language in any agreements to forestall same.

I have the cash available to buy a Volt. I have offered many times to put down a deposit. It would be an “I want” purchase for me, as I can keep my existing cars running for many more years. If they start playing this kind of games, they will most certainly lose me.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 12:28 pm

#64 Victor

“But where are these car or their decendents today? Religated to the dust bin of history.”
—————————

Oh, but no, no my man. They are not in the dust bin of history. You are driving a descendant of them today. Toyota took what the Big Three developed and the U.S. taxpayers financed and came out with the Prius. Typical Japanese strategy. Let some one else do the research and financing and publish the findings. Toyota then takes those findings, improves on them or changes them some here and there to meet their design needs and introduces it as their own. We taxpayers keep right on financing many great achievements that are then sold to the Japanese, Chinese or whomever at ridiculous prices.

I must agree the Big Three were too dumb to see the advantages and the Bush administration did what most administrations would have done when faced with trying to force them to continue with development. Plus, who was going to pay 90 to 100,000 dollars in 2000 for one of these cars. Toyota did the smart Japanese thing. Took it, tuned it down to their needs to where it could be produced at a “reasonable” cost and put it on the market. Good for them, bad for the home team.

(Quote)
FLASH Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 12:33 pm

In TEXAS, most drivers average 15-25k miles/year, EASILY. At $4/gallon, the gas savings would be MORE than substantial. As has been mentioned numerous times before, however, most early adopters will not base their purchase of the VOLT on that principal alone……………

(Quote)
kent beuchert Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 12:33 pm

Aside from the obvious fact that people seldom buy cars based on sheer economics, a more obvious fact si that there simply won’t be many Volts to sell for the first few years, a clear indication that there will be plenty enough early adopters to scoop up GM’s entire output.
Bllomberg also has missed the equally obvious fact that battery prices will take a tumble and so will the VOlt sticker priice, making mincemeat of Bloomvberg’s analysis. It’s a damming indictment of the competency of our business journals when they stumble so badly in trying to cover business costs. This country seems to possess virtually no ability to proccess facts. No wonder Obama gets away with his brainless mistakes.

(Quote)
joe obrien Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 12:42 pm

Just another article from someone who is too “book smart” and not common sense smart to realize the real price structures, and ecoomies of scale, and the greater good driving electric versus fossil fuel will provide on a much larger scale. Why is it soo hard to get supposedly smart people to see the bigger picture of a world not affected by ridiculous price swings in the price of oil?

The peace of mind that the price of oil won’t affect me as much (driving wise) will be enough to justify the cost. Besides, does everyone make 100% perfect financial decisions, or never indulge in something they want. Motorcycles rarley return a return on investment, actually they lose their asses $$$ wise, but we all still buy them. Even eventually the Volt will break even, especially as gas goes back up (as soon as greedy oil traders get even a hint of economic recovery in the works) then we’ll all be saying told you so to the naysayers.

Lets just hope GM lives long enough to sell us the Volt. I hope they scale down enough to weather the current financial storm and reduce output to market acceptable levels.

(Quote)
Koz Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 1:13 pm

Juk #101

I think I did the math correct. I was bringing the price of the ICE to a cmparable purchase price. Basically that analysis showed that if you purchase an ICE for $16,600, spend $16,000 in gas over the life, and it has a residual value of $4000 then you up with a total cost of ownership caparable to the Volts $28,600.

The value issue appears to be more of a non-issue except for drivers with little daily driving.

(Quote)
k-dawg Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 1:13 pm

#94 carcus1 Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 9:05 am
#87 k-dawg,

2010 prius: no belts, 50mpg
=========

How many of those are driving down the road? Is that highway miles?

(Quote)
Victor Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 1:25 pm

The Li-ion batteries prices are going to be just as volitle as oil prices are today. The Volt may cost 35 to 40 grand at the start and may even drop in price as the battery falls in price at the beginning.

But remember over HALF of the world’s known supply of easy to get to Lithium is in the South American country of Bolivia. A country that has no love for the USA and is closely alined with Hugo Chavez of Venezula. And if they deside to put the squeeze on Lithium, watch out… Your Volt may wind up costing 60 to 70 grand the following year.

All we are doing is trading Middle Eastern despots for a South American ones.

What is needed to be truly off all over seas energy sources is to develop home grown batteries with materials readily available in the US.

(Quote)
Newport1980 Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 1:51 pm

Was the Carnegie Mellon study paid for by Toyota?

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 1:53 pm

#124 K-dawg,

50 mpg combined as per Toyota, not officially epa rated yet, as far as I know, but would be out of character for Toyota to overpromise on this.

Showroom floors this April.
Disclaimer: I’m not trying to promote Toyota here. My point has been contrasting series vs. series/parallel plug in hybrids.

(Quote)
pbennett45 Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 2:21 pm

No one called it a cost effective car… it’s a first step… of course battery technology needs to evolve for it to really be cost effective… most technologies aren’t cost effective when they first come out, it takes an evolution of the technology to bring them to that… that’s why production isn’t expected to be huge at first….

(Quote)
Dareaper Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 2:48 pm

Carnegie Mellon the (so-called) University, has been on a grant run the last couple years. They just put out a totally worthless study slamming ethanol which demonstrates that if you have a grant – you will deliver the requested “study” results.

One benefit of the energy transition has been to identify this absurd use of public funds to attempt to persuade the public to follow a political agenda. Trouble is, unlike any other time in history, there is a viable and uncontainable alternative to media. It’s that thing Algore claims to have invented: the INTERNET (Al rues the day.)

The INTERNET lets rational, sober, critical thinking dominate the global mindset. Thus, the tiny voices calling out from domestic networks, newspapers and radio stations are dwarfed by a new reality. Resulting in the failure of agenda-based “science” like Global Warming and “economics” like Global Recession. The result is massive disbelief in the spoutings of government and grant-fueled academia. MSNBC? CNN? New York Times? Washington Post? Tombstones in the media graveyard. You gotto be nimble in this world boys! RIP.

(Quote)
Akio Toyoda Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 3:20 pm

Looks like the toyota prius will be the cost/efficiency leader in this space for many years to come. Most people will opt for the much cheaper prius over the expensive Volt. Did I mention 50 MPG (FIVE OH BABY).

Do yourself a favor and grab one of these bad boys today and be done with it. Get your carbon credits now.

(Quote)
Frank B Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 3:35 pm

The idea of the electric car is to get off of oil. The pure economics of it is not the point! No doubt that when electrics start hitting the road, OPEC will reduce the price of oil even more making the economics even worse. OPEC will drop the price for just that reason, they don’t want us moving away from them. So just looking at the Volt on pure economics is not correct.

I’m sure the VOLT and all the other electrics have OPEC really scared, to which I say TOO BAD. Get off the oil fix!

NPNS

(Quote)
Joe Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 4:17 pm

“Thank Christ we live in America and can say what we wish to say.”

************************************************************************************
Dave K. =D~ Says: @97

I don’t know why you have to swear and get bent out of shape on this one. I’ve seen many times bloggers on this site suggest a different topic without anyone swearing. If you proclaim freedom of speech, well that goes for all including myself.

(Quote)
Jerome Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 5:25 pm

#109…look at the research on shale oil in the U.S….especially the kind we have in the western states. Using current/proposed technology to get it requires huge amounts of electricity and WATER in the western states….water the western states don’t have in abundance. I’m all for building nukes to provide the power required but the water is a big problem.

whatever you want to call it (carbon or sales), I’m all for a tax on oil/gas……of course I want other taxes reduced for a zero sum result….like reducing payroll taxes to lower the cost of U.S. labor.

(Quote)
Tall Pete Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 5:25 pm

Don’t you think that the GM Precept of 2000 and the Nissan Altima of 2007 (and 08 and 09) have many similarities as far as looks is concerned ?

Coincidence ?

(Quote)
Tall Pete Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 5:29 pm

Statik #108

I don’t think they will play that card of waiting until 2012 for the Volt. The Volt is on a backburner (sort of) at this time because they have a much higher priority to attend to – find a way to save the cie first.

As soon as this is over with (ch. 11 or else), they will push the Volt as hard as they can, as soon as they can. JMO.

(Quote)
Mark Z Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 5:30 pm

When oil rises to $300 a barrel, the VOLT will be the number ONE desired car in America.

These Bloomberg studies are just a smoke screen to hide the flaws in the current gas-guzzling hybrid technology.

Reset the trip odometer in your garage each day to check how the 40 mile range is perfect for the majority of drivers.

(Quote)
Paul Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 6:25 pm

BTW if you want to tell the studies author how stupid you think he is

jmichalek@cmu.edu

(Quote)
Dan Petit Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 7:20 pm

The problem with many of these “Ivory Tower” University “studies” is that these “professors” have not the slightest clue as to real world costs to maintain vehicles past the 100,000 mile mark. I intend for this post to be as scalding to these “techno-shallow” “short-sighted” so called “experts” as is possible.
I am already strongly warning my 98 Auto Servicing facilities whom I have already taught L-1 Advanced (ICE) Systems Training, to not expect that there will be any future brake work (regen braking), any future air conditioning work (sealed electric compressors), and any future automatic transmission work.
(HALF OF THEIR WORK!!!)
(I have their complete attention).
You people who supposedly are qualified to do these so-called “studies” hardly know how to change your own motor oil. You would make many of the classic 20 different kinds of mistakes changing out your own spark plugs, I would wager.
The second techno-shallow aspect of this so-called “study” grossly leaves out the fact that people are fed up with the excessive technologies forced to be contained within the ICE set-ups.
This is just another story that totally lacks any technical depth as to the far long term aspects of cost-of-ownership of a high mileage/high runtime-hours ICE. People want to have an auto that will last them 20 years. They can not afford to be “bored” and just go out and get another one every several years.
Come back in 1 and a half years to this very post when the 2007 vehicles have automatic transmission problems and other Controller Area Network problems (of which I am now seeing in luxury 2005 autos that are breaking peoples’ budgets because a Do-It-Yourselfer put in a 12 volt battery insufficiently). (There are 8 extremely serious errors in doing that in CAN systems!!!).
So, once again, this is just another inferior, scholarship-lazy, speculative story that attempts to ignore the unsatisfactory long-term cost-devastation of the ICE “status quo”; and to grossly repackage it in a technically-incompetent/technically-dishonest manner as the final costs (long-term) of the Volt have not been finalized, and thus can not possibly be “compared”.
There are many supporting independent competitive parts and servicing aftermarketers already aware that they will need to be THE most highly competitive cost-wise, and THE most highly-trained technology-wise to be able to win the future business of the Voltec technologies owner in order for them to survive past 2015. Most of all, including of course, my 98 shops who I have already strongly warned.
Dan Petit Austin TX.

(Quote)
Paul-R Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 10:43 pm

Sigh … once again, arm-chair auto experts (this time Carnegie Mellon) are missing the obvious reason the Volt needs a larger battery. Reason: A battery half as large will wear out twice as fast. it needs to be reliable to be viable.

I’m glad Volt is being designed by GM and not these Carnegie Mellon-heads.

(Quote)
CS Guy Says:
February 28th, 2009 at 10:10 am

Thank you Lyle for this topic. I’ve enjoyed reading all the opinions.

The winning arguments are those which point to the true costs of using foreign oil (military expenditures, lives, pollution and its health consequences and thus rising medical bills, etc.).

America desperately needs to change laws that allow companies that make a polluting product (cars, electricity generation, factories, what have you) to push their real costs onto the American taxpayer.

Put a polluters tax on all these products which prices that product at its actual cost to society and the market will fall in line very quickly.

I’m not just talking about carbon tax. I include all forms of pollution; of air, water (fresh and sea), and the land. If your business relies on destroying the country and leaving a steaming pile of filth for our children then you should pay the price today and not reap huge rewards while killing our future. Period.

(Quote)
Brad Horton Says:
February 28th, 2009 at 11:01 am

The best mix would be for GM to purchase back the patent they sold to Chevron for a larger NiMH battery. Then we could go 100+ miles per charge. THAT would be cost effective. Paying out the whazoo for lithium batteries that probably won’t make the 40 mile mark.

(Quote)
The Capitalist Says:
February 28th, 2009 at 12:24 pm

Do we know the average age of this forum’s participants? The tone and quality of responses indicate somewhere around 16.

Crediting those who have made rational arguments, this statement is true: the ROI from the Volt or any full hybrid is not practical for most owners. If you were to compromise your life to the extent of going ‘gasless’ for 10 years, you might save over $10,000. Similar calculations can apply to the Prius. All considered, a VW Jetta TDI looks very appealing in comparison.

The point of the Volt, of course, is to be a pioneer, and a sign of things to come. It will be, as many hope, the beginning of a new technology wave that helps reduce the country’s oil consumption while preserving the spirit of independent vehicular travel. It will be a source of pride for its owners.

Pride can be bought in many ways, however, whether it be a Prius, an S600, or a classic Pontiac GTO. Pride at this level usually comes at a higher cost, but cost is often irrelevant to the owner to seeks to induce envy in others by advertising some form of advanced awareness or social status.

For the rest of us, the market works its usual magic. If the mainstream public does not buy enough of this car or its successors, it will not succeed. The Volt must sell well enough to be profitable for GM. If not, future GM vehicles based on the same technology must be profitable, in which case the Volt would have been, effectively, a large R&D investment.

Wishing the Volt to success will not make it happen. Wishing and taxing our country to success will not make it happen. ‘Hope and change’ is an empty statement without healthy business. The budding little socialists on here crack me up.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
February 28th, 2009 at 1:02 pm

Well, I suppose that why those individuals have to depend on their tenures for job security, and not forced to thrive in a true capitalist market.

The Volt is a least means squared solution to the EV conundrum. I expect its price to come down, as battery production ramps up, thereby bringing more value to the consumer. As for “not cost effective in any scenario”, I am certain there is a price point for gasoline, for which a Volt owner would quickly recoup their costs.

If they are comparing it to the current cost / value of the Prius, then no, a Volt will never catch up with the Prius based on costs, but the Prius hybrid (no plug) will never be able to drive gasoline free for its first 40 miles. Some customers value NO GAS usage over a couple pennies per mile.

(Quote)
Timaaayyy! Says:
February 28th, 2009 at 2:18 pm

Timaaayyy say duuuhhh!!!

1st model cost/benefit in purely personal economic terms is terrible. BUT, that’s not the point of the car. Heck, that’s not the point of many new cars. For purely personal economic terms, buy what has the lowest TCO for your needs. Probably almost always a USED car.

(Quote)
LaughingTooHard Says:
February 28th, 2009 at 4:25 pm

Right on the second page, where it should have read:

“In summation, we accomplished nothing original with this study. We humbly suggest that you, the layman, stop reading now. On the off chance, you have ever contributed to Carnegie Mellon University or are an esteemed Alumni, we are personally very, very sorry.”

Instead they wrote:

“High fuel prices, low-cost batteries, or high carbon taxes combined with low carbon electricity generation would make small-capacity PHEVs cost-effective for a wide range of drivers. In contrast, increased battery specific energy or carbon taxes without decarbonization of the electricity grid would have limited impact.”

Really? Are you sure? No kidding eh? A return to $1/gallon gas increases the ROI of a $40k PHEV? Come on?!?

Likewise, 50 year-old coal power plants generating / delivering electricity to homes of owners of PHEV is greater GHG production than driving a Prius at 18mph on a flat road during a 65 degree day?

If we start burning old tires to power steam generators, that is a step backward right? Do you want to get back to me on that? I want to make sure I get this PhD lead study’s finding correct.

You mean, we shouldn’t try to decrease our GHG emissions at the Utility level? Or take personal responsibility for our own electricity/use generation (See: Living off the Grid, Green Homes)?

Good thing there are no state or government rebates, taxes credits or subsidies to get people thinking about Net Zero electricity use and net metering…whoops too late.

Maybe we can hope Aliens will return from the Home World with some similar to the Doc. Brown’s Mr. Fusion?

Thanks for the hearty laugh and the reminder that a PhD and a 15 page CV is nearly worthless without a moral compass or a shred of common sense.

Next time: try making something. Of use. Potentially. You are still engineers, right?

(Quote)
El coche el Says:
February 28th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
koz Says:
February 28th, 2009 at 10:14 pm

Not sure if it was linked already but this gives a little detail about the study: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/02/study-conclud-2.html#more

Actually, the study’s projections are based on PHEV versions of parallel split hybrids like the Prius not an EREVs like the Volt.

(Quote)
Nick Says:
February 28th, 2009 at 10:50 pm

I posted this basic analysis on another forum but I think it’s useful here too:

The Volt has a 16kWh pack. The $16,000 price tag assumes $1,000 per kWh, which is total and complete bullshit. That’s the price a consumer buying a few cells would pay from the most expensive manufacturer. GM’s cost should be below $500 per kWh for sure. It could actually be less, like $250 per kWh.

I’ve seen talk around the web lately about the difference between the Volt’s electric range and Tesla’s. The Volt is only allowed to use 8 kWh of the 16 kWh total capacity. This is being done because the battery is potentially going to receive deep cycles very frequently. When you have a massive battery like the Tesla, deep cycles are infinitely less frequent, so they are able to allow significantly more than 50% use of the battery.

So back to the mileage issue, GM is saying 40 miles per 8kWh, which is 5 miles per kWh. Tesla has a 52 kWh pack, which would deliver 265 miles in theory if total weight was equal to the Volt. The Tesla is also more aerodynamic and about 500 lbs lighter, so in actuality it would in theory get even more range. However, Tesla limits the deep cycle somewhat, so that leaves it with a 244 mile range, which makes perfect sense.

I actually do not understand why GM would consider LG Chem’s lithium-polymer battery or even A123’s iron-phosphate unit. They should be using Toshiba’s SCIB, which will be a MUCH cheaper version of Altairnano’s lithium-titanate battery. Instead of paying for a 16 kWh battery, they could get an 8kWh titanate unit and allow full deep cycling. After all, those batteries last 20,000 cycles easily. Although it would cost a bit more per kWh, it would still cost less overall since it would be half the capacity.

Nick/Leftlane

(Quote)
LeKaido Says:
March 1st, 2009 at 5:47 am

The first car parts must have cost a fortune compared to the cost of the available horse-cart parts! I’m pretty sure, there were also plenty of ‘wise’ men who predicted gloomy future for the automobile. Or the steam engine, or the….. (fill in the blanks)..

Making industrial progress has always cost a fortune and no the first units have NOT been cheap but I guess this is still news to some!

(Quote)
nataraj Says:
March 1st, 2009 at 1:07 pm

Until true cost to the planet of fossil fuels is calculated and made a part of gasoline price (as carbon tax) this will always be true. Dirty fuels will be cheaper than clean fuels.

No different from lead paint being cheaper with better performance when they banned it in 1978.

Let us calculate the cost of billions dead / displaced, most coastal cities drowned in the next 100 years. Devide that on each gallon of gas (or ton of coal) that is the culprit over the next 10 years, using their CO2 emission.

All this not even including the cost of likely terrorism funded by gasoline money that we generously send to middle-east.

–
“And the value of driving without gasoline is for some, priceless.”

Thats why look forward to an pure electric car like the iMeiv.

(Quote)
Wayne Says:
March 1st, 2009 at 2:31 pm

I think they are correct. If gas doesn’t cost greater than $4 a gallon, why not just go buy a Honda FIT or TDI Jetta,, etc.?

It’s just simple reality. A 100 fuel vehicle is $20,000, and the Volt is $40,000. With gas at $2 a gallon, it will take a long time to re-coup that other $20,000.

Heck in Europe they have had super high gas prices for years, and all that happened is they drive more fuel efficient cars.

Sigh… Since they first talked about the Volt, it’s price has just went up. At $25,000 it can work, and $40,000 it’s an experiment for the rich.

(Quote)
Nick Says:
March 1st, 2009 at 5:28 pm

Wayne: how asinine of you. I’ve heard lots of people use the line “toy for the rich,” as an argument against Volt, Tesla, and others. Do people like you realize who started that meme? Elon Musk was the one who described the Roadster that way. He said all new technologies begin like this, and that’s the point. The first ICE cars were toys for the rich, too. Get is straight. And since when do you have to be “rich,” to have a $40,000 car?

You’re saying the Volt is comparable to a $20,000 ICE car? I’d give it more credit than that.

(Quote)
stopcrazypp Says:
March 1st, 2009 at 9:08 pm

Toyota’s Bill Reinert was the same guy two talked about a death watch for the Volt, Karma, and the Tesla Model S, let’s just say he’s not going to give the most balanced analysis.

@Wayne, Nick

While $40k is certainly out of the “affordable” category, it’s not really only for the rich; a mid-upper middle class family can probably afford one. I imagine the 2nd gen, 3rd gen would be much lower in price. There’s a lot of cost cutting that can be done in a complex car like this, and given they are rushing for a deadline, they probably haven’t done it all yet for the Volt. There’s also factor of the scale of production for the battery, which plays a big role in the cost for the car.

(Quote)
AutoElectric Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:02 am

My colleague pays (Switzerland prices) $29,000 over four years in gasoline. He drives 63 miles per day to and from work. Even if we couldn’t charge the battery at work (we will be) it still makes financial sense.

I live really near, and I would be able to drive a whole WEEK without a drop of gasoline, and charge only on weekends.

Sorry, this Toyota sponsored study just doesn’t hold water for me.

I want this car or something like it very soon. I don’t want to send my money to countries that sponsor terrorism or religion/government (often quite the same) that finds my lifestyle repugnant.

(Quote)
stas peterson Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:53 pm

RE; carcus

There is no reasonable engineeering expectation that a Chevy Volt running its engine won’t have similar or better performance than a Prius’ 12.5 seconds to 60. A Prius with its 1.4 liter engine is no different than what you can expect form a Volt 1.4 liter genset engine.

As for 50 mpg, If the Prius 1.4 can do it, running at all different rpms, the EREV architecture so much more efficient when run at near constant and optimized rpm, cannot achieve better is a ridiculous engineering assertion.

You do not recognize that economic warfare is conducted by Japan, and many non tariff barriers including one-by-one inspections of foreign imported vehicles is the reason as to why there is a tiny foreign presence. Our domestic automakers foreign affiliates, and the European makers build plenty of small, fuel efficient vehicles that fit the Japanese markets, yet there is still only a tiny presence. Your answer makes no sense.

(Quote)
Lokki Says:
March 26th, 2009 at 5:11 pm

You do not recognize that economic warfare is conducted by Japan, and many non tariff barriers including one-by-one inspections of foreign imported vehicles is the reason as to why there is a tiny foreign presence. Our domestic automakers foreign affiliates, and the European makers build plenty of small, fuel efficient vehicles that fit the Japanese markets, yet there is still only a tiny presence

Stas – You’re fighting the last war, and fighting it with bad data. I’ve just come back from a 3 week trip to Japan, and I’ve been making regular annual visits for the past 20 years.

The reason that the Japanese don’t buy many “small fuel efficient European” cars is that they have at least six domestic makers competing in the Kei market Toyota, Honda, Madza, Suzuki, Daihatsu, Nissan. These small cars comprise roughly 60 percent of Japan’s car market. Most of these cars advertise that they’ll get roughly 25Kilometers/Liter (roughly 60 mpg).

It’s very hard (and foolish) for a foreign maker to come in and sell a low cost car in this kind of fiercely competitive market environment, as profit margins are very small. Instead, foreign companies have focused on their status value and luxury value, just as BMW and Mercedes do in the U.S. During my most recent trip in late Feb/early March, the most commonly sighted foreign cars were VW’s, then Mercedes then BMW, followed by a smattering of other makes. I did see a few Mini’s and a Smart, but most imports were status vehicles.

By the way, the single vehicle inspections at import went out in the 80’s. Yes, they did exist, but so did dinosaurs at one point.

Finally, Toyota even tried selling Cavaliers as Toyota back in the 90’s with very little success…. you can look it up. Suzuki currently sells a few cars badged as Chevrolets, but they’re really Suzuki’s in bowties.

Now let’s stop the Japan bashing, and get back to the Volt.

Thanks.

(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

Study: Cost of Chevy Volt Limits its Value to Drivers

156 Responses to “Study: Cost of Chevy Volt Limits its Value to Drivers”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts