The MSRP of the Chevy Volt remains a mystery. Despite the concept being unveiled more than 2 years ago, and the thousands of articles, comments, and interviews about it, the exact price of the car remains unknown.
GM claims they don’t know how much they will charge yet either. They say it will depend on the price of gas in November 2010 when the car is launched.
“We’re not wishing for higher petroleum costs, but the economic viability of what we’re doing only gets greater with higher fuel prices,” said Bob Kruse, GM’s director of EVs and HEVs, “$1.50 gallon gas is not helping our business case.”
Another apparently unresolved financial aspect of the car is whether the battery packs will be sold or leased to the customer. Kruse noted the possibility of separately leasing the car’s battery still remains an option.
The Volt is profoundly important to GM’s future viability. Speaking to how critical fuel cost is in the Volt equation, GM’s CEO Rick Wagoner recently went on record stating that a mandatory federal gas tax to keep gasoline at $4.00 per gallon minimum is “worthy of consideration.”
GM VP John Lauckner recently announced when we we finally know what the Chevy Volt’s MSRP will be. He said “we won’t set the price of the Volt until 6 months prior to start of production.”
Best estimates place it in the mid to upper 30s range before a $7500 tax credit.
Sources (GlobeAndMail) (Washington Times) (Jalopnik)
-1
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:06 am)Oh great I can really plan ahead with that information .
No wonder GM is in so much trouble .
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:08 am)Why based on the price of gas? Well, I guess I understand their reasoning. We have been discussing it for years. The higher the price of gas, the easier to justify a higher price for the Volt. Most of us would like the Volt for reasons other than saving a few dollars on gas. We want to remove gas as a method of fueling our cars and trucks. The Volt is one way to do that. There will be other choices.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:10 am)Can understand the business case aspect, but can imagine the critics decrying a vehicle price that moves with the cost of fuel. Ouch.
Will be interesting to see where the world oil market is in 13 months or so. I’ll order one regardless of the fuel price, but understand the position of those for whom total cost of ownership may not allow for that (have been there).
Volt team – you folks surely are working under some extraordinary pressures. Hats off…
(Quote)
-1
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:11 am)Price depending on gas price ?? means cheaper volt means less gas price. Thatz good.
Anybody knows on the Armour plate used in volt ? I read some news on the Armour plate which covers the battery, helps in case of a battery explosion.
Another Q is on T shape of the battery, why its T because it reduces 1 seat from car config and has more surface area than other shapes.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:12 am)I’m a huge Volt fan, of course, but this is a PR failure.
Open mouth…insert foot.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:14 am)The US economy has a big hole in it, oil! Or economy runs on petroleum, without it we can’t commute to work, our goods cant be shipped to market, many goods simply can not be manufactured etc. Over 60% of the oil we use comes from foreign sources. Whatever the price of the oil is we have to pay it.
Remember those high gas prices during the summer of 2008? Just 6 months later our economy was in a big down slide. If the oil prices didn’t cause the collapse they sure as heck intensified it! As any money manager knows you can’t keep throwing large amounts of money out the door. Eventually something has to give.
We have to make the “Clean Tech Revolution” work. So the US can be better insulated from the whims of the oil producers. At any time an oil exporter could decide not to sell the US any oil, Saudi Arabia did it in 1972, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez threatened it last year. And yes, the “Clean Tech Revolution” will save the economy by plugging that big oil hole.
The Volt is a step in the right direction. But it is a small step. Unless the electric range is boosted to at least 60 the car wont do much for me. This would also raise the number of people the car would be practical for.
(Quote)
-1
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:14 am)This will only make people look at other cars.
And not to trust Chevy and there cars.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:16 am)I have always said I exoected the Volt’s prive to be in the mid to upper 30’s. with the $7500 rebate, that will bring the price down to about $30,000, which is high, but not prohibitive, especially for something as new as the Volt. It looks to me like things are still on track and moving in the right direction.
I don’t like the idea of a tax to artificially force the price of gas to around $4.00/gal. I think people already realize that gas prices are at the mercy of OPEC and that we need to get off petroleum dependency. However, I think that people would resent taxing to make the Volt more competitive and might refuse to buy the Volt in protest. I believe electric cars can outsell gasolene cars simply on their own merits – quietness, less maintenance, etc.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:17 am)You are basing a car that runs on electricity on the price of gas?
EPIC FAIL GM!
(Quote)
+1
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:26 am)The price of gas in 2010 is going to depend on the market not the government. A significant gas tax isn’t under serious consideration. The Cap & Trade proposal is playing second fiddle to health care and isn’t going to be pushed this budget cycle.
Having said that, the production numbers they’re talking about are so low that the price of gas won’t matter terribly. There is a lot of interest ins EVs, so with the $7500 rebate GM should be able to sell these without breaking a sweat selling the first 10,000 units at $30K. The next 60K will be more difficult but still not a huge challenge.
After that the price of gas will become critical to mass adoption, but even then I don’t see it as being as critical as some might imagine. The Prius was selling well enough when gas was cheap — let’s remember that Tesla was founded when it was noticed that houses with a fancy sports car also had a Prius parked in the driveway. There has been a change in the Zeitgeist.
If GM can deliver on the promise of the EV driving experience — what they’ve said is similar to a very expensive luxury car — it should be able to sell 250K a year without any problem. If the car is nasty and falls short then the numbers will be lower. Maybe much lower. Of course if gas goes to five dollars per gallon they won’t be able to make enough of them even if the car doesn’t deliver on the promise. Let’s hope, however, that at this point GM understands the need to make outstanding product and not hope for government or gas prices to bail out below average product.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:33 am)This topic will certainly bring out some people from the “wood work”. I suspect a healthy “debate” on this topic. I think I will just sit back and watch.
(Quote)
+1
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:33 am)OT but fun. A study shows that men in expensive cars look sexier!
http://gmy.news.yahoo.com/v/12680141
So GM, where is that Concept Volt!!!!
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:34 am)Personally I think the Volt will sell at whatever the gas price. People have been stung hard by the gas prices and will remember.
They just need to get the Volt out at the scheduled release date.
I’m waiting for the first affordable EREV or BEV. First one out gets my $$$. My range is $28,000 to $37500.00 BEFORE the tax rebate.
(Quote)
-2
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:34 am)Another Original General Motors idiot. Rick you must be real proud of this one buddy.
GM never never stops producing fantastic jerks.
A fine example of precisely why they are in the complete mess they are in.
The future is efficiency and alternate energy. Period.
Here is a clue…perhaps you should worry of the future residual value of your vehicles so you can lease them without loosing your proverbial shirt…or in GM’s case their borrowed socks…
Dont forget the Converj if you want to make money and have the ability to pay back the debt. Sheeeesh….WTF
Also remember to offer the body kits…front and rear fascia options for the volt instead of marketing your usual array of different brands with minor tweaks to style exercises…
Should I slow down Rick…going to fast for you. Print it and read it over coffee later…..your still a huge cost buddy even a a dollar. We get more from a dollar store…
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:35 am)Just build it….
(Quote)
+1
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:35 am)And I will buy!!!
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:36 am)$4 gas is killing the lower economic classes. They also often have to
commute the longest distances, living well outside the higher cost neighborhoods.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:37 am)It doesn’t matter. The first year Volt (50,000 units) will be sold to high profile people. The real test of price will be November 2011.
Competition, rather than OPEC gouging, will set the price. I still believe we’re looking at $38,000 + 3800 (fees ~ license ~ delivery) less $7500 year end tax credit = $34,300 total.
Hey Static, we’re off to wagerland this week. I’m going with UCONN at the sports book. May have a look at The Masters as well. See you on the other side bud.
=D~
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:42 am)@ Dave K 18
“The first year Volt (50,000 units) will be sold to high profile people.”
Man that’s a shltload of high profile peeps. I wonder who they are?
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:44 am)# 10 DonC
Agree with everything you wrote.
But, I would say that the way to reduce oil consumption has always been to raise the price, as was done in Europe where cars have been smaller, with better MPG for a long time.
I think people tend to forget that taxation is as much an instrument of policy as it is a way to raise money (tax deduction for home mortgages—we may rethink that one at some point, etc. …). A rise in gas taxes does not mean more taxes (lower elsewhere), but it would mean less importation of oil. This would have been in our national interest for a long time (rising imports, oil cartel, etc.) but it just isn’t in our national character to do it.
Now that technical alternatives are appearing (the Volt) that not only use less oil, but no oil, a tax on oil would be even more effective (over time), but I agree that it will probably never happen here, no matter how much sense it makes.
(Quote)
-1
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:46 am)They are simply talking about issues of demand. If gas is low, the demand will be lower and they will have to reduce costs to make the car viable. Low gas prices will add more red ink for GM as far as the Volt goes.
I want 1.50 gas until I get my volt and then the price can go up….
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:55 am)“We’re not wishing for higher petroleum costs, but the economic viability of what we’re doing only gets greater with higher fuel prices,” said Bob Kruse, GM’s director of EVs and HEVs.
O ye of little faith. Toyota went ahead with the Prius several years ago and now it’s such a best seller that they can hardly keep up with the demand. When will GM get it????
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:55 am)Sounds like no new news to me…
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:56 am)The gas tax pays for road repairs (as it should). In 5 years when a significant amount of electric cars are on the road the tax will have to be raised on gas just to cover the road maintenance. Then 5 years after that when EV technology has advanced far enough to replace all manufacturing of ICE engines, they will put the technology in the cars to track your driving across the roads, then when they maintain the roads, you’ll get billed for using those roads.
Of course there will still be ICE engine on the road in 20 years, but they’ll be few and far between.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (12:01 pm)This just goes to say that…”If we can, we are going to stick it to you!”
Hawk
(Quote)
-1
Mar 27th, 2009 (12:09 pm)The more I read about this, the more I think that GM saw this financial downturn coming in January of 2007, and announced this “revolutionary” new idea called the Volt so that they could be begging us for bailout money under the false pretenses that this vehicle is the “Messiah” of vehicles. The idea behind how this car works is very impressive, but this car itself is just a let down.
Chris – one who used to have faith.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (12:11 pm)#1, if you can’t plan ahead to something you can see over a year from now, you need to work on your planning skills, lol. We all know the roughly estimated price, so you have a clear marker to shoot for.
(Quote)
-1
Mar 27th, 2009 (12:12 pm)Glen @ 7 says “This will only make people look at other cars.
And not to trust Chevy and there cars.”
————–
I agree completely…GM is so DUMB to link the cost of gas to the cost of this vehicle. It has NO relation. Dictating US policy on taxes has no capitalistic value whatsoever. If you are going to survive, you do it by the free market. THIS IS WRONG.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (12:13 pm)Did anyone notice the Government tax on fuel to keep gas at $4 a gallon? Talk about forcing everyone in the US to buy a Volt. This is what will happen if the Government takes over business. No competition, no options = socialism. God help us all.
I like the Volt but at $30,000+ I can’t afford one. Maybe if Uncle Sam quits taking 40% of everything I earn I could buy one.
(Quote)
+1
Mar 27th, 2009 (12:14 pm)Personally, I truly do believe that GM has a great chance at success here. This car is fascinating. And if it can do what they say it can do, then it will be a success as long as gas isn’t dirt cheap. Having said that, it is decisions like this thread suggests that GM has problems making a decision. GM should take this technology, perfect it, and become a global powerhouse again with the green theme.
Hawk
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (12:16 pm)#5 AutoElectric
“I’m a huge Volt fan, of course, but this is a PR failure.
Open mouth…insert foot.”
I agree completely. I’m a HUGE fan of the free market and although I believe GM has every right to base the cars price on supply and demand (Which is directly linked to gas price), I don’t think I would have so blatantly admit it. The one redeeming quality is their honesty about it, but maybe they could have just been honest and vague….LOL ( We don’t know the price, we’re evaluating cost and market conditions)
One thing to consider, what if in 2010 – 2012 we see a lot of car companies hit the market with EVs and/or Plug-In Hybrids and gas demand does not go up as expected? At some point gas will be a worthless commodity. I’m not saying this is just around the corner, but I bet it’s in my life time. Technology will eventually make a better mouse trap and electric motors are FAR superior to internal combustion engines so once the battery/energy storage issue is overcome a gasoline driven car will fade as the preferred source of transportation. I expect to see a “Tug of War” relative to gas price and consumer buying habits. Gas goes up we buy EV’s and Plug-Ins….then gas falls and we stick with our traditional cars. This may go on for a decade before finally EV’s give us a 400 mile plus range and the electric finally wins out right. But it will happen because it is the better engineering solution. Reliability, performance (electric motors vs. gas), quiety, maintenance, etc. The battery is the last hurdle….
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (12:25 pm)Kruse is nearly Lutzian in his ability to make obtuse statements that do GM no favors. Did he really think that this would help GM? He must be an MBA, it takes years of training to focus so blindly on the bottom line that you ignore most of the truly relevant data points. It may be that GM will in fact increase the price a bit if gas is at $5 a gallon, but he hurts his own position by admitting that he will take advantage of high fuel prices to screw the buyers out of the maximum amount possible.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (12:31 pm)Just another perfect example of why I will never buy another GM.
Go Tesla!, Go America!
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (12:32 pm)The original concept was to make an affordable E-REV. Make it a Chevy – the car for the masses. I understand that the initial Volts will command a premuim. I hope that, as production volumes increase, GM will trend towards the original concept.
It is said that greed caused the current economic situation. Waiting to know gas prices before fixing an MSRP seems greed-based. Gas prices have little or nothing to do with the costs of production, marketing, etc.
GM; produce a good product at a fair price for the masses. Base the price on your costs plus a little return on investment. Don’t gouge us. With a smaller margin, you may have to sell a lot more Volts. But, wasn’t that the original plan? Make us feel like you are a business that cares about its customers. Then you will earn our loyalty. Loyalty will keep your business going.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (12:36 pm)#20 Steve K — I agree with you completely. I’d also say that oil is something of a free rider because the price doesn’t capture the external costs it imposes on society (defense, health, CO2, etc.). Ultimately price signal are important, and while cap & trade is a free market solution, it isn’t going to happen this budget cycle.
#31 AlabamaEng
Two great points. I love your revision to “We don’t know the price, we’re evaluating cost and market conditions”. This is what we’ll probably hear going forward.
Your point about oil demand destruction is valid but more in the medium or long run. In the short run there won’t be a sufficient number of EVs on the road to make a significant dent. But given the inelastic nature of the supply, small drops in demand can keep prices down to a seemingly disproportionate extent. Note that Cap & Trade is designed to effect demand destruction across a wise range on uses, not just transportation.
As for the batteries, their price will probably keep BEVs from becoming cost effective solutions for many many years. The E-REVs make the best use of the batteries because there is little or no wasted overhead — the battery is constantly fully utilized. Essentially the E-REV design is one of those 80/20 solutions where you get 80% of the benefit for 20% of the cost.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (1:01 pm)My 700th post!
35 posts on this thread and the most important part of the article has not been discussed……
“Kruse noted the possibility of separately leasing the car’s battery still remains an option.”
If GM truly wants to kill the Volt, then this is how they will do it!!!! I will not buy a car that has the possibility of not having a power supply to go with it!
I guess we have to have a new acronym to go along with NPNS:
NLBP – NO LEASED BATTERY PACK!!!
NPNS – NLBP
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (1:01 pm)Looks like Tesla is going to get some finacial backing from an unamed aut mfgr…
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/03/27/report-tesla-to-get-funding-from-an-unnamed-automaker/
Bring on the EREV & BEV’s!!!
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (1:09 pm)If they force me to lease the battery, that’s a deal breaker. I don’t do car payments. If I can’t buy it, you’ve lost my business.
(Quote)
-1
Mar 27th, 2009 (1:12 pm)GM claims they don’t know how much they will charge yet either. They say it will depend on the price of gas in November 2010 when the car is launched.
“We’re not wishing for higher petroleum costs, but the economic viability of what we’re doing only gets greater with higher fuel prices,” said Bob Kruse, GM’s director of EVs and HEVs, “$1.50 gallon gas is not helping our business case.”
=============================
Translation: The Volt is being built as a limited run…we are going to price it to get the maximum dollar per copy.
Side note: $1.50 is not helping your business case? Which business case is that? The one that lets you sell the Volt at $45,000 when gas is at $6?
This car is $35,000-$40,000 at either $1 a gallon or at $4.00.
With the starting MSRP being so high to begin with, the ‘cost of fuel’ is very low on the checklist of a potential customer’s reason to buy…unless your potential customers are grade school drop outs and didn’t learn any math after grade 4. At $6+, you are looking at $80 fills in regular sedans…that might be enough of a stinger to get a extra 5K.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (1:20 pm)Does this mean we get to blame Bush for the price of the Volt? People still blame him for the price of gas, right?
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (1:21 pm)#10 DonC Says: A significant gas tax isn’t under serious consideration.
————————————————————————————–
Don’t be too sure. If / when the economy picks up, Obama will probably push for it, and if the car companies back him up, it may get done.
A minimum price / floor tax is a great idea. $4 / gallon may be a bit high, but we need something to stabilize the market. With gas prices bouncing around between $4.25 and $1.50 within 6 months, people have no idea what to expect next, so they just sit back and wait to see what’s going to happen. Which means people put off buying cars, and companies put off buying fleet vehicles.
Also, a minimum price would bring in huge amounts of new investments into batteries, bio-fuels, etc.. If investors know there is a minimum price on gas, they will know OPEC can’t pull the rug out from under them.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (1:22 pm)#37 DaveG said:
If they force me to lease the battery, that’s a deal breaker. I don’t do car payments. If I can’t buy it, you’ve lost my business.
=================================
Dave my friend, we are so totally in agreement here! (which is not that common).
My criteria for buying a EV are simple: “I will BUY any PHEV, with any range, from any manufacturer, that I can get also get serviced inside that electric range”
I want to also be clear here. I’m not going to lease the car or the battery! No way…no deal! I wouldn’t do this from ANY car manufacturer…but especially GM. I’m guessing I’m not alone. (Well I might if the lease was at a significant discount that forced me to do it…like $400/month for the car AND the battery (with nothing down), but I’m guessing that is not the number GM is looking for)
/I wonder how that kind of sentiment fits into Mr. Kruze’s economic viabilty plan? If DaveG is out…thats got to represent a pretty large demographic, lol.
(Quote)
+1
Mar 27th, 2009 (1:23 pm)Gas prices are relevant.
And don’t think its about gouging.. i think its about minimizing losses per car. The Volt ver 1.0 is not a money maker….. (yet).
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (1:26 pm)If we set a minimuim price for gas at $4.00 per gallon, then OPEC will just say thank you and raise the worldwide price of oil so that it works out to $4.00 per gallon……….. They are not going to let the government take “their” money!
Are they really that stupid in Washington, D.C.??????
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (1:28 pm)It makes sense that 1.00 a year Rick would make the statement about 4.00 per gallon gas (TAXED!). He gets FREE FUEL from GM… along with a FREE CAR. What does he care if we have to pay for it. He has enough money to work for a dollar a year. There’s no way a ‘normal’ American could do that. Once again proven..”Wealthy people are out of touch with average people!”
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (1:30 pm)@41 Statik
Weren’t you trying to get on the lease program for the Mini-E?
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (1:34 pm)Michigan gasoline taxes are already ~55cents. Just make it $2 even. That would put gas at about $4 right now.
My string would be that the $ has to go towards ways of producing more & cheaper electricity.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (1:45 pm)#40 Dave G said:
A minimum price / floor tax is a great idea. $4 / gallon may be a bit high, but we need something to stabilize the market. With gas prices bouncing around between $4.25 and $1.50 within 6 months, people have no idea what to expect next, so they just sit back and wait to see what’s going to happen. Which means people put off buying cars, and companies put off buying fleet vehicles.
Also, a minimum price would bring in huge amounts of new investments into batteries, bio-fuels, etc.. If investors know there is a minimum price on gas, they will know OPEC can’t pull the rug out from under them.
===========================
Dang…really? Two in a row? Has to be some kind of record.
I’m behind a hefty hike in gas tax myself. My reason wouldn’t be so much about stabilization, as it would still bounce around quite abit…unless you were talking about adding a flat tax (like $2+) in which case prices would be bad, bad or really bad, lol. I like some kind of scaling base tax + a percentage (to allow people to adjust/modify their driving habits and vehicles), something like:
2009 20 cents +2%
2010 40 cents +4%
2011 60 cents +6%
2012 80 cents +10%
I’m all for ’sin tax’ (gas, alcohol, cigarettes, etc). The US infrastructer/road fund is in really bad shape and could use a hefty/sustained infusion (provided it is not raided like it has been for other projects), and some direct investment in alternative fuels is a bonus.
The main benefit beside all that of course is the indirect economic pressure at the pump encouraging adoption of other alternatives, or at least the more conservative use of the gas.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (1:49 pm)Evil Conservative (#29),
Like you, I consider myself a big time conservative. As such, I also hate taxes, but if there is a “good” tax out there, I think the gas tax is it. As I see it, the best tool the government has to promote Electric Vehicles and the like is to double the price of gasoline through taxes. This, of course, could have negative economical consecuences, which can be ameliorated by automatically adjusting the tax so gas prices will remain steady even as oil goes up in price. I don’t make a lot of money, but (as, I assume, most of the followers of this site) I have always owned fuel efficient vehicles. A true conservative should (by definition) also be an environmentalist. Sure, we’d like to conserve our collective values, ideals, language, culture, standard of living, economic, political, and military dominance, but (just as importantly) we should also want (and actively seek) to conserve our environment. If it takes a hefty gas tax to help in achieving that, so be it.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (1:54 pm)the hole in the economy is partially oil, but mostly china.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (1:58 pm)I think you have all lost it. Four dollar a gallon fuel will destroy the lower and most likely the middle class. It drove down the value of the admittedly large, overkill size vehicles they drove so they could not, even if they wanted to, trade in for smaller more efficent vehicles. Bad idea, very bad idea.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (2:01 pm)I agree. GM needs to set the price of the Volt according to the market value. They can charge whatever the market will bare for all I care. If they can charge $100,000 for the first 10,000, that’s what they ought to do. That’s what Tesla is doing and no one seems to have a problem with it. Anyone who takes an Economics 101 class knows that you don’t sell your product at whatever price you think is “fair”, you sell it for it’s market VALUE.
Continuing in our Econ 101 class…The red flag for any innovative company who thinks they can charge customers whatever they want? Over charging people for an EREV will only create more dollar signs in the eyes of competing companies to go all out on creating their own Volt competitor (if they don’t have one already).
Anyone who has been paying attention in the forums knows that there are dozens of EV and EREVs already well underway at auto makers worldwide. Any market gouging GM could do will be very short lived. They might as well enjoy while they can. They earned it for being first. Let’s face it, GM just invested well over a billion $$ already, deciding how much each copy actually cost them would be moot.
Besides that, if they set the price too high, people just won’t be able buy them when they can’t get a loan for a car so expensive.
For the record, in case anyone at GM is listening. Not that you probably don’t already know this, but there are A LOT more factors that go into the VALUE of the Volt than just gas prices. Living in Oregon, I know many many people who are willing to pay extra to buy organic food, that are willing to pay extra for vegan food. These same people are willing to pay a lot more to have a car that they feel is more environmentally friendly (there just aren’t any to choose from in showrooms yet). Plus, there are a lot of people that are afraid of peak oil (myself included). Whether or not we are paying $2/gallon right now or in November 2010, anyone who reads what the DOE has been saying, what Chevron and Philips-Conoco have been saying, is afraid that their $30,000 gas powered car will be practically worthless to them in 5 years if gas were to skyrocket again. Global production peaked in 2005, and now we have China and India are getting millions of cars a year.
Go ahead and charge whatever you want GM!
By the way, those who want to talk about $4/gallon gas floors right now are seriously putting the cart before the horse. Right now there is no alternative to gas. Go to any show room in America. It’s either gas, gas, or diesel. Even when the Volt comes in, the average Joe wont be able to get their hands on one for a few years. Even then, the lower class making minimum wage trying to put themselves through school, or starting a family, or whatever will have no incentive to work. Who wants to work a minimum wage job that you make $1,000 before taxes, but then 1/3rd of your paycheck goes to income taxes, and 1/3rd goes to paying for gas, car insurance, and maintenance (as well as about $500 a year for tags now in California). It would be so much easier just to stay at home and collect welfare.
Maybe in 2020 we can talk about doing that. In the mean time, I think gas will get back up to $4/gallon anyway very shortly, probably more. Let’s let the economy recover.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (2:08 pm)#45 k-dawg said:
@41 Statik
Weren’t you trying to get on the lease program for the Mini-E?
==========================
Nope, wasn’t me. It was always limited to NY, NJ, California…which cancels me out from the start.
However, I did say that I didn’t have a problem their lease, under their scenario (I think…it has been awhile, lol)….basically because Mini was making no issue about it, they were up front…they were not selling you a car.
They were clearly saying you are paying them to be a test driver for their electric car – it is not yours, you only get it for 12 months, then they get it back and your never seeing it again.
Mini did not want to sell you the car, there was no hook, no angle…they want all the cars back, they were just offsetting some of their costs in exchange for you getting to have a cool EV long before anyone else did.
If GM wants to lease a non-production, test car to me before the gen-pop gets it, with the same understanding as Mini…cool beans, there is added value there. I’d do that for 12 months for a hoot…but after thant (when EVs are in production) I’m owning,not leasing.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (2:28 pm)#18 Dave
You said a mouthful. The first year Volt production will be sold exclusively to West Coast Hollywood types that will park it in their 10000 sq/ft garages next to the Bently, Viper, Escelade (if it’s a rap star), etc. They will need a green wash buggy to show off at the next awards ceremony. The rest of us who really need a car like this, possibly just to survive the next rise in gas prices, will have to wait till 2011 before the fly-over state dealers can even get their hands on one.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (2:32 pm)Regardless of the price of gas, it is always smarter to buy the most fuel efficient vehicle you can buy. Likewise, it’s a good government policy to encourage car makers to build fuel-efficient vehicles. CAFE is not doing it.; get rid of it. Tax gas instead. Poor people would be affected, for sure, as would businesses of all sizes. However, public transportation and bicycles are an option for those that can’t afford to own a vehicle, and if Diesel is exempt from any additional taxes, semi drivers (and groceries and other goods delivered that way) will not be affected. Middle class people, like me, will be affected, and it won’t be easy to take. But it will make it a lot easier to justify spending 30K+ for a Chevy Volt.
On the other hand, I do believe that GM should make the Volt as affordable as they can make it, regardless of gas prices. They will have a hit, and they will make money; although they may need to wait a little longer to see a profit.
GM, have some faith. Build it, and we will buy it.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (2:35 pm)The price is a result of the demand. Whatever price GM sets, if gas goes up to $4, or whatever the magic number is, and people start to line up to buy Volts, the dealers will trot out the extra stickers for the “dealer markup”, or whatever we call it these days. If the price of gas falls, and they can’t sell them, out will come the “rebates” and “0% financing”. That’s how it’s always worked. Why should the Volt be different? The guy may be guilty of an unfortunate choice of words, but supply and demand is what it is.
#19 Capt JackSparrow:
They’re us, of course, the GM-Volt.com waiting list!
#22 Anderson:
Prius sales have tanked as gas has fallen from $4 to $2.
#41 statik:
Did you see the post on allcarselectric.com about the Insight leases Honda is offering? $229/mo with something like 3K up front. I’m not going to be driving a Honda at any price, but it does seem like a pretty good deal. If you read the fine print, it looks like you have to have about a 799.9 FICO score though, LOL.
BTW, did anyone see the AP story on the Yahoo page about the President’s remarks about GM/Chrysler at his “on-line town meeting” yesterday?
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (2:56 pm)To Anderson @ 22 who says:
Toyota went ahead with the Prius several years ago and now it’s such a best seller that they can hardly keep up with the demand. When will GM get it????
—————————————————————————–
Prius sales are WAY down. Gotta have current data to think staight.
http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2008/12/toyota-reeling-from-slump-in-sales-scuttles-plan-to-make-priuses-in-us-in-2010.html
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (3:07 pm)#48 Anderson Says: Like you, I consider myself a big time conservative. As such, I also hate taxes, but if there is a “good” tax out there, I think the gas tax is it.
————————————————————————————–
Like Ronald Regan said: “It’s not a tax, it’s a user fee”.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (3:09 pm)The price of gas will have absolutely nothing to do with the price of the Volt. It will be the price of other plug-ins. If Toyota puts a PHEV-20 on the market for $27,000 before $3000 rebate, that will drive down the price of the Volt whether gas is $4.00 or $2.00.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (3:12 pm)Its not a tax… its an opportunity.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (3:12 pm)Prius sales are WAY down.
_____________________________
That’s called good inventory planning and consumer awareness.
Sales of the new model are expected to begin mid-May.
So it makes perfect sense that sales are down, even without taking the economy and gas prices into account.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (3:14 pm)If you don’t like what you are hearing about pricing,…..
#2:
N Riley Said it best…..
“There will be other choices.”
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (3:16 pm)# 55 Noel
The guy may be guilty of an unfortunate choice of words, but supply and demand is what it is.
___________________________________________
Couldn’t agree with you more. looking at some of the other threads,
who would be incentivized to buy a volt for 37.5k when they can buy a cobalt for 19k with gas being 2 dollars a gallon. so does GM undercut them selves and make it a PR campaign if they can only sell 10k or so volts, or do they market the car as a real product with a real market price. It was a PR gaffe for sure, but it sounds like that just a gaffe.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (3:17 pm)CaptJackSparrow #19
Good point. There are 300 million folks in US, 33 million in Canada and hundreds of thousands of Mexico’s 110 million population that look to the US market for buying choices. For the last six months it seems like most of those folks have held off on buying what they want. There may be a few ready in 2010 for something new.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (3:18 pm)This is great! Now, the next time I hear about OPEC cutting production, pirates hijacking oil tankers off the coast of Africa or rebels seizing oil platforms in Nigeria, I know who’s responsible…
I think GM may need to put a gag order on the Volt pricing issue until the car actually debuts.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (3:19 pm)#43 Jim I Says: If we set a minimuim price for gas at $4.00 per gallon, then OPEC will just say thank you and raise the worldwide price of oil so that it works out to $4.00 per gallon
————————————————————————————–
It doesn’t work like that.
Yes, OPEC can lower the price of oil by flooding the market, but to raise the price, they have to cut back world oil production, and that involves more than OPEC. For example, if OPEC cuts back and Russia increases output, then the price of oil stays the same, and Russia gets a bigger slice of the pie. With this in mind, it’s much harder for OPEC to raise prices than to lower them.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (3:21 pm)Limited supply, high fuel prices, higher demand, higher MSRP.
Not sure why this is news…
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (3:32 pm)Undoubtedly, the price of fuel is important to Volt sales and thus price. However, GM should set the price soon and bite the bullet if gas is still low. It will certainly go up again in the near future, patience is needed.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (3:36 pm)#60 John1701a
“That’s called good inventory planning and consumer awareness”
So why did Hummer sales go up? Nah..couldn’t be the cost of gas dropping and consumer short sightedness..
Also BTW Toyota is going to offer both the old and new Priuses, they are not discontinuing the old one
http://www.detnews.com/article/20090327/AUTO01/903270340/1148/rss25/Auto+briefs
and the the market is so bad even the mighty T needs a bail out..after they made over a TRILLION yen LAST YEAR alone!! (yep good planning and foresight there…)
Sorry John…with every post you still prove you are pro Toyota anti GM troll.. I think Toyota is a fine company, just not the great glorious manufacturing god that you worship…The way they do business there is NOT the same as here, same with accounting.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (3:37 pm)When I buy a car, I buy the whole car. What is this crap about leasing the batteries. I won’t buy half the car and lease the other half at any price. This is on top of the retarded statements about the price of the car depending on the price of gas and the imposition of a tax that keeps gas above $4.00/gallon. Either the car is economically viable or it isn’t. GM is wrong on this one. No wonder GM is going down.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (3:46 pm)The word “lease” sounds like something you can’t afford. However if you can swap out the old leased battery for a battery that can be recharged in seconds, then I might be interested.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508988,00.html
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (3:49 pm)#45 noel park said:
#41 statik: Did you see the post on allcarselectric.com about the Insight leases Honda is offering? $229/mo with something like 3K up front. I’m not going to be driving a Honda at any price, but it does seem like a pretty good deal. If you read the fine print, it looks like you have to have about a 799.9 FICO score though, LOL
===================
Thanks for the heads up..I just checked it out, the details are:
The price is low per month I suppose, but I can’t understand the math…I confess that I just buy cars outright as I don’t have to worry about all the red tape and strings (and it is easier to haggle)
Here is the details from the website:
$229/36 months +2,799 down (Excludes taxes, titles and fees. For well-qualified buyers). Thats about $11,000 total committment for 3 years. Option to purchase at lease end $13,919.60. (Lessee responsible for maintenance, excessive wear/tear and 15 cents/mi. over 12,000 miles/year for vehicles with MSRP less than $30,000).
As I understand it, you are putting down $2,800 + $8,300 (monthly payments) and if you want to buy it, another $14,000. To me that equals $25,000…or $5,200 more than MSRP.
Why would you do this over just buying it for $19,800? The residual/resale after 3 years is probably like $16,000 lol. You only pay like $3,800 to drive it if you buy it outright, then flip it after 3 years. If you walk away from the lease you have lost $11,000…or if you buy it out, then flip it, you have lost $9,000.
/sounds right…but am I wrong?
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (3:50 pm)#24 tom Says: The gas tax pays for road repairs (as it should). In 5 years when a significant amount of electric cars are on the road the tax will have to be raised on gas just to cover the road maintenance. Then 5 years after that when EV technology has advanced far enough to replace all manufacturing of ICE engines, they will put the technology in the cars to track your driving across the roads,…
————————————————————————————–
First, they will be making internal combustion engines for at least the next 40 years, but they will run mostly on ethanol or bio-diesel, and most won’t turn on that often.
Second, taxing by the mile and tracking your driving habits – that’s a really bad idea, for 2 reasons:
1) Obvious privacy concerns
2) It doesn’t encourage conservation. The way we drive has a huge effect on the amount of electricity we use.
If there is going to be something inside the car that is used to collect taxes, just keep track of how much electricity the car consumes, and tax based on that. Simple.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (3:57 pm)I dont like the idea of leasing batteries either.
But lets see how the numbers play out over the life of the vehicle…in addition to how it should dramatically drop the price of the Volt like a prom dress.
Also for those that speak of Economic 101 type examples… you may enjoy reading from this Gentleman.
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/
You will understand far more. This Man is fantastic.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (4:01 pm)Lease the battery pack? And risk an EV-1 like fiasco all over again? Not a chance. If I can’t buy the entire car, I’ll look elsewhere.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (4:07 pm)I don’t see the problem with leasing the battery. I guess if you think the battery pack will increase in price or stay the same it might be a good idea.
As battery tech get’s better the previous generation battery cost goes down(price based on resources not counted). If I pay 8K for the Volt’s battery now it may only be worth 3K in 3 years(5K loss). If I had leased I might of only paid 4K in 3 years for the battery. I could also turn in the old tech battery for a new tech battery if the company does that. With a lease comes an unlimited warranty as long as you renew the contract.
But as a company who needs mass amounts of money now and upfront leasing is not a good idea.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (4:14 pm)#60 John1701a
#68 mitch
Re: Prius Sales
I don’t think there is a clear winner between you two, you both have valid points.
I think yes there was some ‘Prius fatique’ after the price of gas came down and every was tired of hearing, “I’m just gonna buy a Prius”
I think that yes, Toyota is also having a lot of difficulty navigating this market, they too are losing money, and have some ill-conceived products for this environment.
There is also a very real (and expected) drop off when a model gets long in the tooth and a new, superior model is announced and is being flogged on the internet and at car shows. Who wants to buys yesterday’s newspaper today?
If you disregard the significance of the next gen coming on the poor data in the months before the launch, you have to do the same for the numbers after the launch. I think most would agree there is going to be a significant swing in year over year numbers and demand when the next gen is available.
You also have to take into consideration the wider market, Prius is off 31% this month, compared to about 41% for the market overall.
Personally, I didn’t care for the look (or the drive/interior) of the last gen and would not buy one, but I do consider it to be a success…and I think the next gen has improved the brand in a lot of ways, and will only build on its predecessor legacy.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (4:14 pm)I can see the headlines now.
GM wants 4 dollar a gallon gas!
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (4:23 pm)@jeffhre 64
“There may be a few ready in 2010 for something new.”
So true. The goons here I work with are all ready to buy a new car but won’t till “Something Else” comes out. They already own Hybrids but they want sometnig off petrol. I’m the only broke one without a hybrid. The Tesla S brought up a stirr for them but after the smoke cleared, it was a general consensus that it was “Cost Prohibitve”. So far the Volt is something of their interest. For me, a low cost BEV will suffice.
Like I said, first out with a freeway speed 4 seater BEV or EREV get’s my $$$.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (4:25 pm)GM won’t risk another EV1 fiasco, at least not if they have any intention of surviving the 21st Century. I have, in the past, been very critical of GM for the handling of EV1. However, I believe they are serious about the Volt. It’s swim or die time, and the Volt is their life preserver.
Of course the price of gas is going to affect the price of the Volt. Well duh. If gas is $10 a gallon in November 2010, the Volt can be priced at $40K, or more, and it will easily sell everything produced and the demand won’t be satiated.
If gas is still hovering at $2 a gallon, $40K Volts likely ain’t gonna sell, and GM might well have to ask for another sip from the bailout well, or something else.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (4:32 pm)Mid to Upper 30’s??!!
What happend to Lower to mid 40’s? Typo?
If’ it’s mid 30’s, Somebody give the Prius a nice pat on the back and show them the door
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (4:40 pm)#57 Dave G:
That’s what our Governator says every time he wants to raise taxes (oops, sorry, “user fees”), LOL. It seldom plays however. There is always someone ready to go to court to challenge the euphemism, and 99% of the time he loses.
#71 statik:
I dunno. I’ve never leased a car, and I certainly don’t plan to start now. The blog seemed to think it was a heck of a deal, so I guess I just got carried away with the mood!
Our local car radio show host John Retsek once famously said that “The car salesmen with the plaid jackets, red polyester pants and white shoes and belts never left the dealerships. They just moved to the leasing departments.”
All:
More importantly, I just this minute heard a report on “Marketplace” on NPR that GM has hired “advisors” to help it in the sale of Opel! I am not making this up. Did anyone else hear same? Do we know any more?
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (4:43 pm)Did someone say lease? Not an option for me. No car payments, no lease payments, and no mortgage payments. Even my credit card companies are paid off at the end of the month. No lease for me, thank you.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (4:44 pm)Dave G #65: Re: Oil Pricing – I just think that if the US Government sets a minimum price, all the oil producing countries are going to jack up prices, What have they got to lose? Because the government is taking out the supply and demand dynamic.
statik #52: Re: Mini Coper 1 year lease – Isn’t that what GM did with the EV-1, and they are still getting grief over it all these years later? At the end of the twelve month leases, the “owners” are going to say they want to keep them, and make offers to buy them, Then they call the TV stations to say how they are being treated unfairly. Then the next thing you know, there will be a movie called “Who killed the Mini”……..
statik #71: Re: Math on the Insight lease – You math is correct, but people lease because they do not have $20K in cash to buy a car. I usually buy my cars and keep them long time, so the long term cost of ownership ends up being pretty low. But I know lots of people that just like to have a new car every three years, so they just turn it in, sign a new lease, and make a car payment forever. I guess it is all in how you decide to spend your money…
Have a great weekend everyone!
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (4:47 pm)Very complex subject. Peak Oil is not about running out of oil; it’s about having reached maximum supply and production. There’s a big difference.
Basically what Peak Oil does is that it puts a cap on GDP, where the only way GDP can grow any further is through efficiency gains. The practical effect of this is that we will see repeated cycles of rolling recessions (or worse, depressions) and recoveries, but without a longer term trendline of growth. The longer term trendline will be flat. This is exactly what we are seeing. Global oil extraction and production peaked in 2005 and has fallen slightly since then. We are now on a very slightly decreasing plateau and will likely not see larger declines in oil output for a few years, possibly until 2012-15, when the declines will get steeper. There can be, and will be, lots of oil price volatility within this paradigm, with price basically determined by demand. What we now have is a demand-destruction dynamic, where price will moderate demand and vice-versa, but where total supply is limited and capped by the global peak that is now clearly visible behind us in the rear-view mirror back in 2005. Peak Oil is only visible in hindsight, and we’ve now got that hindsight to clearly see it.
There are mathematical models which explain the extreme price volatility we are seeing and will continue to see in the oil market. In the absence of any widely developed and available, competing substitute for oil and with the supply of oil constrained and limited to the peak we have already seen behind us and unable to expand any further, I see mathematical queueing models as a good proxy and theoretical construct for explaining this price volatility. In a queueing model, you have a demand rate and a supply rate,
just as in the case of the oil market. Mathematical queueing models do not directly incorporate price into them, but this can be done by proxy, as the length of the queue — or equivalently, the waiting time in the queue (which is proportional to the length of the queue) — can be thought of as a proxy for price, since price will likely be directly proportional to the length of the queue (or equivalently, waiting time in the queue). This may be somewhat counter-intuitive to those without mathematical training, at least on first thought, but the length of the queue (and waiting time in it), and hence, by proxy, the price of oil, takes off exponentially and skyrockets as the demand rate approaches the limited, constrained, fixed supply rate. In fact, the length of the queue, and hence price of oil, actually goes to infinity (in the mathematical model) as slack capacity completely disappears and the demand rate reaches 100% of supply, bumping up against the fixed supply constraint. This can be seen mathematically, for the simplest M/M/1
queue, with the formula:
L(t) = 1/[mu(t)-lambda(t)]
where
L(t) = length of the queue (as a proxy for price) at time t
lambda(t) = demand rate at time t
mu(t) = supply rate at time t
This mathematical model is a good proxy in explaining the demand-destruction dynamic in a supply-constrained environment, as we now have with the oil market having reached maximum global ouput, and the resulting repeated cycles of rolling recessions and recoveries that we are seeing and will continue to see, with a flat longer-term GDP trendline, where demand continues to bump up against this fixed ceiling at the height of each recovery, causing the price of oil to skyrocket, which then results in demand destruction, leading to another recession and then subsequent recovery, and so on and so on.
As demand backs off of the fixed, constrained supply going into each
recession, the mathematical model explains and demonstrates how the price of oil will drop precipitously with the more slack capacity that is freed up through demand destruction. Basically what will happen is that with sufficient slack capacity (of supply over demand) in the global oil market, the price of oil will start to drop back down towards its cost of extraction and production, which is exactly what we are now seeing.
The only way we can get out of the vicious cycle of this paradigm (explained reasonably well by mathematical queueing models), which has stalled and flatlined long-term economic growth, is to develop a widely available competitive substitute for oil, which of course would be electrically-powered transportation, i.e. EVs. That would remove the constraint and ceiling on economic growth and allow the global economy to once again expand.
I hope this fully explains to GM the price of gas and the value of their Volt. Now set a price we can plan on and we will plan to use no oil at all in our car.
Take Care,
TED
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (4:54 pm)AND NO BATTERY LEASE…
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (4:56 pm)with every post you still prove you are pro Toyota anti GM troll
____________________________
How would you come to the conclusion that being against Volt only offered as a single configuration (40-mile range) as being against the automaker as a whole?
It’s like the 7,232 sales of Prius last month being portrayed as bad even though though that resulting in an annual total of 86,784 would be good.
Consider the big picture.
The goal is to provide consumers with choices in large quantity, at affordable prices, soon. Volt is just a small piece of that effort, which Prius is helping with. So fighting Prius simply doesn’t make any sense. And of course, when incorrect/misleading information is posted, someone needs to keep the discussion honest & objective by correcting/clarifying it.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (5:14 pm)If they lease batteries then I will NOT consider a VOLT in Australia,
I will go with Nissan who at least with project better place offer battery swap stations and cars than can actually swap batteries.
The battery in the Volt is not a universal swap or instant swapable.
Are GM trying to reach official bankcrupcy faster with these insane ideas for the reasons above !
Some people in GM managment need to bee laid off it seems…….
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (5:15 pm)Suggestion for G M
The rule should be nobody other than marketing can talk price. This rule should apply to all regardless of their title.
Bet the marketing dept. just sh+t when they heard that one.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (5:16 pm)fwiw, just read that Toyota hasn’t figured out pricing for their newest Prius model… they were “surprised” by Honda’s pricing of the new Insight and they said they might not be able to raise the base price of the new model like they wanted… they said they might unbundle some standard features into separate options to get a lower base price.
I think GM is going to wait to see not only the price of gas but what the competition is like and charging at that point in time.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (5:27 pm)Looks like the Auto Task Force will make a decision and Obama will lay out a framework for moving forward on Monday. Appears it will be general with some but not alot of specifics.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090327/bs_nm/us_autos_timing
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (5:33 pm)MAN!!
Some of you are hating on GM right now. I think it would be very hard to set a price this early, so much is still not set in stone. I think energy costs have a HUGE role. I think his comment was referring to the cost of building it, but it would make sense they can charge more (and actually break even…) if gas is higher.
Just look at the price of the tesla s, likes like 50K AFTER rebate…….
Please no battery lease.
GO GM!
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (5:37 pm)On the gas tax:
Sounds like an OK idea at first, except. . . . .
Let’s say the federal gubment starts taxing an extra $2 per gallon on $2 gas for the total of $4. Do you think the feds will ever give up that revenue? No. They don’t give it up once they’ve got it. That’s the way the system works. So if oil goes back up to $135/barrel and we’re looking at $4 gas under the old system, the new gas price is going to go up to $6.
It’s kind of like giving government loans to companies that are “too big to fail”. Once you’ve started, there’s just nowhere to stop.
Central planning = BAD
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (5:39 pm)Also, let’s not forget that GM is required to be very clear about intentions due to all the loan/bailout money they are receiving.
Keeping goals concise is a win for everyone.
When and how price is set is a good example of that… hence this thread.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (5:41 pm)MarkFLL Says:
Did someone say lease? Not an option for me. No car payments, no lease payments, and no mortgage payments. Even my credit card companies are paid off at the end of the month. No lease for me, thank you.
RIGHT ON! Recession or not, that’s the way to do it, and the way I’ve been conducting my affairs since I’ve had money to spend. If GM will not outright sell the vehicle (and its battery) for a reasonable price, I’ll take my business elsewhere. GM needs to understand that. AND I’M GLAD I’M NOT ALONE…READING THROUGH ALL THESE POSTING, I SEE THAT GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE!!
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (5:42 pm)I gotta say that’s kind of disappointing. This whole time I’ve really been wishing for a car that goes from point A to point B as cheap as possible. At every corner GM kept upping the gimmicks and probably the price to, that’s poor planning. A car isn’t a 3G phone. A car is not a want in American society it’s a need. There are very few places in our country where you can get by without a car. Ever notice when a new car company starts it’s always at the low end of the price spectrum? Then when they get the good rep for reliability they move into higher end vehicles, not the other way around. Market share is always easiest to build at the bottom. My hope of finally buying American, aside from my pickup, is dimming by the second. It’s sad but I really think the CEO’s of American car companies are tarts. I want my bailout back… what a waste of a good idea.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (6:00 pm)I think what Rick meant was No matter what the profit/loss on the Volt for GM, they know most average purchasers are going to do some math in their heads as to how much it will cost to drive a mile, as opposed to how much a mile in a gas only, like we covered in a previous thread. GM has to guestimate how much a gallon of gas will be when the Volt makes it to market, to even follow through on this project. A guarantee of gas prices would be nice but unrealistic. If it stays at $2 a gallon, and I think most agree that it will go up, (Greed happens!), then the Volt isn’t viable, but if gas were $4 a gallon, it maths out. Just a blunder to put it the way he did.
I AM going to buy a car in 2010, as will a lot of folks. I may have to put it off until 2011 if I have to, based on availability of the Volt in my area. My decision will be balanced on: Initial Cost, Expense to operate, Value on resale, Safety, Reliability, and Looks (call me vain). So far the Volt fits my Bill, but I WILL shop it.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (6:00 pm)It’s likely that the first 3 production years already have buyers. As well, the die-hard number-crunchers and market-comparison folks (outside of GM) have to contribute their applied-professional experience toward (and against) the fact that the first 3 production years likely are already spoken for, it seems to me.
Satisfying public expectations as to price for a larger segment of the populace which thinks that ANY Voltec sales will not happen as well due to, for example, the cost of gas, “competition”, or the cost of Voltec technologies, just doesn’t sufficiently add up for me.
While discussions here on the large numbers of topics regarding Voltec vehicles have tremendous merit, it really seems to me that anything Voltec that GM produces has already been sold. It is almost ONLY a matter of how well production can be efficiently ramped up, and very little or nothing more whatsoever. (Excepting a possible market distribution toward purchase opportunities for the various economic/earning abilities category cross-sections of America. That’s what I’d really like to see.)
This is why I strongly believe that Uncle Sugar would get a proper return on loan-investment with GM for Voltec vehicles.
The spirit in America nowadays is to get back to local and American business financial well-being, (I hear much more frequently people saying “I want to buy it if it is made in America”) and, GM is right on top of that list for me and for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of other Americans, and, yes, citizens of other nations who want to buy GM Voltec technologies.
Dan Petit Austin TX.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (6:00 pm)#92 carcus1 Says: Let’s say the federal gubment starts taxing an extra $2 per gallon on $2 gas for the total of $4. Do you think the feds will ever give up that revenue?
————————————————————————————–
Yes, if it’s structured that way. It’s not a $2 tax. It’s a $4 (I would prefer $3) minimum price tax. So whatever the current price is, they would add the necessary amount of tax to get it up to the minimum price.
Also, if you look at history, when gas spikes up really high and threatens the economy, the government does lower gas taxes temporarily, so there is precedence for this.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (6:00 pm)This Wagoner guy is great.
First, he runs his company into the ground. Then, he forces me to loan him money to keep his bankrupt company going. Then, he wants me to pay an extra $2/gallon so that I’ll buy a new car from his bankrupt company. Finally, he wants me to sign a lease on the battery so I keep the monthly payments coming.
Am I getting this right?
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (6:11 pm)#84 Ted in Fort Myers Says: Very complex subject. Peak Oil is not about running out of oil; it’s about having reached maximum supply and production. There’s a big difference.
Basically what Peak Oil does is that it puts a cap on GDP, where the only way GDP can grow any further is through efficiency gains.
————————————————————————————–
It’s actually worse than this. After the peak, much of the oil that’s left in the ground is lower quality. It may be mixed with a lot of water. It may be thicker, more like tar but not that thick. In other words, it’s a lot harder to extract and refine. That means it takes increasing amounts of energy to get a usable product. At some point, it takes more energy to extract and process than the energy it yields. At this point, the well is abandoned, even thought there is still oil in the ground. So after the peak, oil supply declines, sometimes rather sharply.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (6:11 pm)#99 Add,
Oh, I left out that once gas gets taxed up to $4, then wags can charge a HIGHER PRICE for a car from his bankrupt company which I’m supporting through government loans and then start paying a monthly lease on a battery.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (6:16 pm)Just to start speculation and scepticism. What about the reliability of the battery. If they are planning to lease it might it be for alterior motives. I’ve read a few of the threads over the years. so I know you guys put the battery choices through the ringer. Such as the use of the battery doesn’t quite stand up in practicality. just food for thought. that or maybe there holding out for better tech and want a way to get people to switch them out, and forcing options on them, because thats what Rick Wagner is suggesting the government do. ahh the possibilities are endless.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (6:19 pm)#83 Jim I Says: Re: Oil Pricing – I just think that if the US Government sets a minimum price, all the oil producing countries are going to jack up prices, What have they got to lose? Because the government is taking out the supply and demand dynamic.
————————————————————————————–
First, the U.S. is not the only country that imports oil, not by a long shot. So there would still be still supply and demand dynamic in the market.
Second, in order to jack up prices, the oil producing countries would all have to cut output. I doubt that would happen. It only takes one country to get greedy and increase output to get a big slice of the now higher priced pie. Then other countries fall like dominoes.
Third, if they could all coordinate reducing output, without someone getting greedy, then that might be a good thing, considering the realities of peak oil.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (6:21 pm)carcus1 Says:
Am I getting this right?
It seems you are the only one who got it right. I’ll be damned if I am going to buy a GM vehicle that the people are forced to fund. They don’t deserve my business. The fact that GM still keeps going back for more money just helps deteriorate public support for them. GM should be allowed to fail but most likely Obama will continue to feed the cancerous UAW but must do it by camouflage by the false perception of “Loaning to GM”.
The market for their products are down/dead, why are they still manfacturing anything other than the “Volt”? Do we really need to stock up on the gas guzzling big SUV’s and Large Trucks? Typical GM business process. They don’t have a clue. Why do you think they have to go outside to help market the Ampera? This means the current team is crap but hey, they’re still getting paid by the massive loans that we the people are funding.
Troll I am.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (6:26 pm)Don’t be surprised if you see a mandatory battery lease pushed for “safety reasons” or some other B.S. when the real reason is money and power.
i.e. We can’t have unregulated batteries out on the highway! People’s lives are at stake! The only way to insure safety on the roadways is to regulate these batteries through OEM ownership, where their inspection is guaranteed through OEM compliance along with government oversight.
I’m joking, of course. (but then again, maybe not)
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (6:26 pm)#84 Ted
Thanks for the read…I enjoyed it. I have have sussed out a very similar opinion from time to time myself about the realities of ‘peak’ oil (and they generally end up just a long, lol)
I find once you get start modelling out what we are experiencing now…you always end up extrapolating a model of what will happen in the eventual reality of a sustained declining extraction environment.
/lets just say, we’d all be a lot better off getting ahead of the curve…environmental concern or otherwise
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (6:31 pm)#101 carcus1 Says: Oh, I left out that once gas gets taxed up to $4, then wags can charge a HIGHER PRICE for a car from his bankrupt company which I’m supporting through government loans and then start paying a monthly lease on a battery.
————————————————————————————–
Right. I was thinking along the same lines.
GM said the Volt would cost under $30K. I’m willing to throw in the tax credit to get there, but GM should keep this promise. And forcing a lease on the battery is a deal breaker.
In any case, I agree with GM that it’s too soon for them to finalize the price.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (6:33 pm)I love reading this blog everyday.
One day it’s: “Go GM! Go VOLT!”
Next day it’s: “Grab your pitchforks! Let’s hang the b@stards!”
It keeps me chuckling during this recession. Thanks guys!
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (6:40 pm)Ok, it is late in the thread, so time for more cynical observations:
First:
No way GM gives out a hard price in May 2010…I take all bets on this one.
Secondly:
Lauckner didn’t say May, he said, “we won’t set the price of the Volt until 6 months prior to start of production.” Notice he doesn’t mention when the start of production is? This guy knows how to make a ‘loosey-goosey’ statement and let other draw conculsions for him,
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (6:43 pm)#108 CorvetteGuy,
“One day it’s: “Go GM! Go VOLT!”
Next day it’s: “Grab your pitchforks! Let’s hang the b@stards!”
______________________________________________________
Electric cars . . . I like. GM upper management . . . not so much (but I keep hoping they’ll become somebody else — literally).
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (6:46 pm)You are dead on Carcus! If this spokeshead is the best that GM can saddle up to the table, ( how much $ does he make??? ) if this is their arrogant take to say that the State must tax gas to make a 4 buck gallon then maybe this guy needs to be in a future unemployment soup line as GM folds and numerous NEW auto companies take it’s moldering foul place. Think the 1920’s. Even Durant would agree as he spins in the ground.
Further, as the revenue falls from gasoline taxes via alternative and efficient autos rest assured that the ever “benevolent” State will be slamming electric cars with GPS 1984 devices that will track the mileage used and tax you accordingly to make up all the huge lost revenue. So keeping gas at $4 via a tax is a very naughty idea that will come back to bite the Volt and Tesla users!
By the way, yes I know Big Nose Kate very well Carcus and I think she might just be the Anti-Christ.
Regards!—Doc
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (6:47 pm)Sounds like more GM greed. Keep gas at $4 a gallon? So it’s either run out and buy an electric car or get screwed at the gas station. Nice. GM, Chrysler and Ford should have all been allowed to tank. It’ll be the people who can’t afford 30 to 40 grand on a car who get screwed with that plan.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (6:48 pm)Did anyone actually read the Globe and Mail source article? To me there is one of the biggest and most important pieces of information in there we have gotten so far.
There is a HUGE admission in there, which should be the main subject of this thread…if not the next one:
Lauckner is asked this question in the Q&A: “At what temperature those promised 64 kilometres of electric-only driving were verified”
Not only does he answer, but he adds to it, “… the figure achieved in the normal city cycle testing, said Kruse, which is done at 20 degrees Celsius”
40 miles is CITY, @20 degrees celsius ie) no heat, no A/C–this means 40 miles is only achieved under the most optimistic of conditions
DaveG, time to change you chart…because no way in heck you are getting a real world 40 miles if this is accurate. It will be significantly less on the highway, and even worse when it is cold or hot.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (6:50 pm)GM, if you’re listening, I think most people would rather have a 10 year warranty on their Volt battery than pay a monthly lease. Besides that, it sounds like it would be a lot of extra paper work to keep track of all those leases (millions before too long I’m sure).
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (6:50 pm)/villian
(wave to Rob Peterson)
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (6:56 pm)111 Doc,
Big Nose Kate was the antichrist?! holy crap. All those years of watching and I never picked up on that. I’ll be viewing the re-runs with renewed interest. (flash of red in the eyes, lack of mirrored reflections, etc . . )
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (7:09 pm)I graduate with an engineering degree summer 2010. I will drive my fully paid off Kia POS til Jan 2011. At that time I will decide whether to pay $49K for a pure BET with Tesla or $39K for the Volt. The price of gas has NOTHING to do with my decision.
And Detroit support for hiking gas prices will make me choose Tesla and resent GM even more.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (7:15 pm)#113 Statik,
“Turns out, it was the figure achieved in the normal city cycle testing, said Kruse, which is done at 20 degrees Celsius.”
[you actually read the sources?]
____________________________________________________
They almost had me convinced the 16 kwh battery would handle 40 miles under less than optimum conditions. Guess not.
Ouch, that’s going to leave a mark.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (7:17 pm)The Fall of GM: A Visual Guide
http://www.mint.com/blog/finance-core/the-fall-of-gm-a-visual-guide/
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (7:21 pm)#92 carcus1:
When oil is $135/barrel, gas should be $6/gallon, IMHO. Otherwise, we will never get off of the !@#$% stuff. It’s been well over $6 in Europe for many years, and they have survived.
They have all sorts of much more fuel efficient cars and light commercial vehicles, which we never see here. They have a much more viable public transportation system. Thus, their transportation system is much more sustainable than ours. It’s just good public policy.
Plus, sombody, somewhere, is finally going to have to pay some more taxes, or the country is literally going to go broke.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (7:22 pm)This thought process shows exactly why GM is bankrupt and only surviving on government aid.
Instead of thinking we should create demand by making a great product at a great value that people absolutely have to have. They think, maybe we can have the government manipulate the price of gas to create more demand for our product and let us charge a higher price.
Why can’t they get it? This is basic business 101. Fail.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (7:27 pm)The latest on NPR news (about an hour ago) is that rumors abound that GM has reached agreements with the UAW and the bondholders. Has anybody heard any more about that? Anyway, the pot is boiling in anticipation of Tuesday.
What’s the old saying about “War and rumors of war”?
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (7:35 pm)#110 carcus1 Says: Electric cars . . . I like. GM upper management . . . not so much (but I keep hoping they’ll become somebody else — literally).
————————————————————————————–
You may get your wish. The fact that Wagoner went out on limb with the $4/gallon minimum price gas tax, that could be writing on the wall. Besides, they usually put in a new guy after a major reorganization, just the way it usually works. With a new guy at the helm, a few other top execs usually leave as well. So you may get your wish.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (7:38 pm)GM isn’t doing anything ‘new’. The price of wedding gowns has always fluctuated directly with the market price of latex.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (7:39 pm)Starman Says:
They think, maybe we can have the government manipulate the price of gas to create more demand for our product and let us charge a higher price.
They’ve already started that with the tax credit up to $7500. Big 2.5 spent a lot of money to lobby for some folks to push for big financial assistance to be able to sell their product. Why do you think there is almost only one car that qualifies for it? OK, Tesla can but way out of Joe the Plumbers ability, Toyota Hybrid doesn’t, Honda hybrids dont, not even the Ford hybrids. Just GM Volt. Now they are considering a push for raising taxes to help make their product more desireable/feasable? Why would anybody want to even support a company with such assnine business practices?
jes12 Says:
And Detroit support for hiking gas prices will make me choose Tesla and resent GM even more.
That should be everyones conclusion, not specifically Tesla but something other than GM.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (7:41 pm)#120 noel park,
A lightweight, low to mid $20k- ish BEV that requires almost no maintenance and has 100 mile + range will sell to the masses and compete with $2 gas. That, IMHO, is what will get us off the stuff. The maintenance costs are the key that nobody talks about. (and GM doesn’t want to give up)
Plug in hybrids will do their part as well.
But I’m no central planner, and I don’t want one controlling me or my options.
Freedom and taxes are a one way check valve. You give them up and they never come back.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (7:45 pm)Couple points, and I know they go against most of the stalwarts of this site:
1) Battery lease: Nearly everyone jumps on this like it is some evil, that must be avoided at all costs. How can anyone make the case against it until you know what the terms are? I for one, would entertain the lease option, but of course I need to know what the terms are. The battery, would replace my monthly petrol cost, and if it makes the Volt more attractive and makes sense, I say bring it on.
2) Gas tax: So now GM would like people to pay more money in gas tax, so the govt can collect more taxes, so GM can borrow even more money. Also, of course the people who are least likely to be able to buy an electric car, will be the ones paying at the pump. These people now get to help pay for the wealthy’s new Volt (or equivalent, over priced EREV, BEV, etc).
Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES! (This time I mean it, George!)
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (7:49 pm)117 jes12
“I graduate with an engineering degree summer 2010. I will drive my fully paid off Kia POS til Jan 2011. At that time I will decide whether to pay $49K for a pure BET with Tesla or $39K for the Volt. The price of gas has NOTHING to do with my decision.”
———————————————————————————-
jes, where are you expecting to find a job? Please let me know how you manage to graduate in 2010, and then in a years time, your able to afford, what I would consider a luxury priced car.
I may want to send my resume to your future company.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (7:50 pm)jes,
GM is not going to raise the price of gas. Don’t give GM more credit, than their due.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (7:50 pm)#113 statik says “There is a HUGE admission in there, which should be the main subject of this thread…if not the next one:”
Welcome to the real world bro! I’ve been trying to tell you this for quite a long time. It’s why the Model S is never going to get built at the claimed price — a standard car just takes too much battery (energy) to go 50 miles.
It’s why the only possible exception to the general rule that BEVs are not cost effective may be the Aptera. It weighs 1700 pounds and has a Cd of .15. When you start comparing it to the Volt or I-Miev at 3000 pounds and a Cd of over .2, or worse, the Model S at 4000 pounds and a Cd above .25, you start seeing why Toyota and Honda have been reluctant to bring out a BEV.
However, the 40 mile city drive may not be as bad as you think. Highway might actually give you better rather than worse mileage. Highway is actually more a rural road cycle with a top speed of 45 mph, but even if you go faster, it only takes about 10 hp to drive a car like a Volt at a steady 60 mph. So if you lay off your normal rubber laying behavior you might actually get 50 or even 60 miles.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (8:05 pm)35 DonC
“As for the batteries, their price will probably keep BEVs from becoming cost effective solutions for many many years. The E-REVs make the best use of the batteries because there is little or no wasted overhead — the battery is constantly fully utilized. Essentially the E-REV design is one of those 80/20 solutions where you get 80% of the benefit for 20% of the cost.”
—————————————————————————————
Well, this is not quite correct. You cannot ignore the fact that an EREV still requires you to lug around an ICE, generator, radiator (even though you still may need some type of radiator, but likely downsized), catalytic converter, muffler, and various other mechanical components.
So, first you eliminate the one time cost of having these added to the base vehicle. Then you need to factor in the savings over the life of the car, in eliminating much of the routine, and not so routine maintanence. Also, if your time is worth anything, you would want to work that into the equation, as you sit waiting for oil changes, mufflers, and more extensive engine servicing.
In my opinion, this will be why you will eventually see the BEV take over as the front runner in the future. Battery prices and new technologies will emerge, making them cheaper and lighter, to the point where they will no longer be a range anxiety issue.
I think we are still years away from the BEV taking over the ICE and hybrids, but it will happen, in my opinion, in the not so distant future.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (8:09 pm)#130 DonC said:
#113 statik says “There is a HUGE admission in there, which should be the main subject of this thread…if not the next one:”
Welcome to the real world bro! I’ve been trying to tell you this for quite a long time. It’s why the Model S is never going to get built at the claimed price — a standard car just takes too much battery (energy) to go 50 miles.
It’s why the only possible exception to the general rule that BEVs are not cost effective may be the Aptera. It weighs 1700 pounds and has a Cd of .15. When you start comparing it to the Volt or I-Miev at 3000 pounds and a Cd of over .2, or worse, the Model S at 4000 pounds and a Cd above .25, you start seeing why Toyota and Honda have been reluctant to bring out a BEV.
==============================
Tell me this? Maybe you are getting me confused with someone else, lol. I have never said the Volt is going to pull 40 mile AER under anything but the most optimistic of conditions…hence the ‘up to 40 miles’ on all the commercials. I have been of the position that it is probably going to be more like 28 to 30 under stressed conditions…and mid 30s for your ‘average driver’
/this is just the first time I have seen the admission from the horses mouth…so I thought it worthy of at least a mention (if not its own thread)
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (8:11 pm)IMHO GM had better be careful. There are people who say the Williston Basin may well contain 6 to 10 times as much oil as all of the Middle East. Do a little research. Some of the wells have come in at 300 to 400 barrels a day.
Take Care
Arch
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (8:16 pm)JEC Says:
Well, this is not quite correct.
He’s missing one thing. When the battery has been depleted, you are now carrying a 400lb piece of crap while the same time trying to maintain the charge of the battery that is only utilized 55%. This means there’s approx 200lbs of dead weight you will be slugging around and for what? Just in case? You’ll never be able to use the rest of the REAL SOC. That is engineered poor efficiency of the product. I can understand using 85% of the REAL SOC but they just basically said, nope, you don’t get it.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (8:21 pm)134 WarrenPeace
Good point. I forgot about that little caveat.
Also, I am not anti-EREV, just want to be sure we all understand whole story. Kind of like Mulligan stew.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (8:23 pm)Statik,
Why do you end your posts with the /?
Does this imply something, that I am missing. Just one of the things, that I probably should know.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (8:23 pm)http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/community-news/bakken-oil-drilling-55031701
Take Care
Arch
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (8:30 pm)http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977633752
Take Care
Arch
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (8:39 pm)(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (8:43 pm)Does anyone know if the tax credit is affected by the alternative minimum tax (AMT)?
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (8:44 pm)+ Sorry I’m so late to post, I’ve been busy. But Rick’s just begging for this one. +
—————————————————
This is why Rick Wagoner, and everyone else foaming at the mouth to raise gas prices, should die. But especially Rick Wagoner. His death must be as slow as the dark arts can make it, and all of it should be televised.
Why am I so angry? Because it cost me $500.00 a month for gas last year, and I am still repaying the credit card I charged it to. Exactly how the hell are poor people supposed to get to work? Are the Eco-Nazi’s here (Dave G, Noel Park, and K-Dawg I knew about, but Statik too? Et tu, Brute) so greenwashed that they would make the lives of millions of poor people even worse? Do they want the poor to live in shanty-towns like in Africa? It doesn’t matter – permanent 4.00 a gallon gas would do just that.
Just look at the damage the oil speculators caused last year – a burst housing bubble, banks in bankruptcy, and a world economy so close to disaster, even China is worried. Permanent 4.00 a gallon gas would be a million times worse – we’re talking worldwide depression here, folks.
If we had a way to charge gas prices according to income, maybe that would work. But pricing gas taxes at a flat rate makes about as much sense as a flat, fixed price tax on everyone, regardless of income. (Imagine if Bill Gates paid the same flat federal tax as a McDonalds worker.) Please don’t be in such a rush to throw the poor under the bus, just because that azzhole Rick Wagoner is making veiled threats not to produce the Volt if gas isn’t taxed.
All Rick needs is a healthy dose of lead between the eyes. His replacement, I believe, would not be as stupid as he was. The only person with less intelligence is Pee-Wee Herman, who I believe was jailed for popcorn-fondling in a theatre
In short, Mr Wagoner, you are NOT good with words. Use spokespeople, and for God’s sake, just shut up and make the Volt.
And NEVER, EVER threaten me with 4.00 a gallon gas again.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (8:49 pm)141 Grump
I think Pee-Wee had his shoe mirrors on, and was looking up little girls dresses. Now serving “hard” time.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (8:56 pm)142# – LOL’ing. Rick’s such a nice guy.
“Do as I say, or the Volt gets it.”
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (8:58 pm)#136 JEC said:
Statik,
Why do you end your posts with the /?
Does this imply something, that I am missing. Just one of the things, that I probably should know.
===============================
Not really sure why i still do it.
It is a holdover from playing MMORPGs in the past (which yes I was too old for really…had to stop playing a few years ago when my son was born–ate up too much of my time)
It is just a short form that generally expresses a emotion, action or is a aside.
/wave
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (9:04 pm)#144 Statik,
Thanks! Just one of those things, and I felt I had to know. You complimented someone else on the use of it recently, and it stuck in my head.
Back to more serious things like the Volt, taxes, and Pee-Wee Herman….
/waving back lol.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (9:13 pm)ziggy is now changing his name to “zipdrive.”
thank you.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (10:03 pm)My post from June 2008 when gas was $4.00:
Although I hate taxes, I think the government will give subsidies to lower the cost of electric cars in the form of tax credits or rebates. Like it or not, taxes are used for social engineering. If you want to discourage buying gas, tax it and use that money to provide funding for the electric car rebates. Do we want energy independence or not?
During the oil crisis and embargo in the 70’s gas was rationed by odd and even days, everyone was aware of our dependence of foreign oil. There was a scramble to find new oil fields, and big money was spent on starting oil shale projects. OPEC was concerned about loosing control of the oil market and increased production. Within a year or two, things were back to normal and most of the projects that were in development were canceled. We went back to our gas guzzling ways.
2008
If OPEC opens up production and drives the cost of gas down below $2.00, nobody will want an electric car and we will repeat the same mistake we made 35 years ago, by doing nothing. Since $4 appears to be the price that got everybody’s attention, I would say have a variable tax on gas, so the price at the pump is not less that $4 and use the tax money collected to lower the cost of the electric cars. Although this favors the new car buyer, the used car buyer will benefit, when many new electric cars are sold. The successful launch of the electric car will create a good used market of electric vehicles in 5 years.
This type tax is much easier to administer and should get positive results. I think the electric hybrid will revolutionize the way we live and will create a much cleaner planet.
The bureaucracy that will be created with a cap and trade carbon tax will have little or no benefits.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (10:06 pm)#131 JEC says “You cannot ignore the fact that an EREV still requires you to lug around an ICE”
Actually this cuts equally the other way. With a BEV you have to lug around a much heavier battery which you won’t use 80% of the time. Same issue just slightly different, though you might notice that the battery pack for the Model S gives it a curb weight of 4000 pounds. And you’re worried about an ICE?
But weight is hardly the point. It’s a complete canard. The cost of the battery is what matters.
#134 WarrenPeace says “When the battery has been depleted, you are now carrying a 400lb piece of crap”
Er, how is this any different than a BEV? Let’s say you have a battery pack that weighs 1000 pounds. It’s 80% depleted. That means you’re carrying around, in your words, 800 pounds of crap. Or say you only use 10% of the pack in a day. That means you’ve carried around 900 pounds of whatever. Really, the argument makes no sense. (FWIW your argument suggests always keeping your fuel tank empty, no reason to carry around all that extra weight).
As far as using only 50% of the pack, it’s a great technique not a bad one. Doubling the pack halves the charge and discharge rates, which in turn quadruples the life of the pack. For a small pack that only gives 40 miles it’s a most reasonable solution.
#141 The Grump — You probably don’t need to get so excited. The idea for the gas tax is usually paired with a cut in the payroll tax so the impact is revenue neutral. You pay more for the gas but your larger take home pay cancels it out. (Otherwise the tax is far too regressive). But like I’ve said, even Cap & Trade is not happening this budget cycle, and if recent trends keep up the free market may dish out your $500/month bill before even Cap & Trade comes up for serious consideration.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (10:29 pm)Of course the price of oil/gas will figure into the price of the car. It will take a lot of gallons of the stuff to transport piles of parts from subcontractors to the factory to build the cars.
Lease is a bad idea. What if GM decided not to continue building batteries for this car after a few years.
Consider this – the lease runs out, GM takes thier batteries back, there are no new ones in production for some goofy unknown reason and you’re stuck with a car that has no battery/power/drivetrain… sounds too much like the EV1 to me – send them to the junk yards.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (10:49 pm)#148 DonC Says: Actually this cuts equally the other way. With a BEV you have to lug around a much heavier battery which you won’t use 80% of the time. Same issue just slightly different, though you might notice that the battery pack for the Model S gives it a curb weight of 4000 pounds. And you’re worried about an ICE?
————————————————————————————–
Yes. Not only does an ICE weigh less than a larger battery, it also costs less – a lot less.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (10:56 pm)#140 Hercule Says: Does anyone know if the tax credit is affected by the alternative minimum tax (AMT)?
————————————————————————————–
Yes, the credit is affected by AMT, so higher earners may not get the full credit.
Also, retired people with nice savings but low income will not get the credit.
And for those that do get the tax credit, it will make financing more difficult.
They should just make it a federate instant rebate when you buy the car.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:06 pm)148 DonC says “You probably don’t need to get so excited. The idea for the gas tax is usually paired with a cut in the payroll tax so the impact is revenue neutral. You pay more for the gas but your larger take home pay cancels it out. (Otherwise the tax is far too regressive).”
—————————————————————–
Yeah, I’ve seen how that works. The gas tax gets passed, then the payroll tax cut dies in committee (never brought to the floor for a vote), or is tabled (put on the side, and then forgotten) in Congress because it is too expensive.
NO. No new gas taxes. It stops here. We’ve seen how well the Omaba administration handled AIG (Oops, but hey, it’s just 165 million dollars). I don’t need my government making me even poorer and more miserable. What part of “it cost me $500.00 a month for gas last year, and I am still repaying the credit card I charged it to” do the gas taxers not understand?
Look what $4.00 a gallon gas did to the world economy in 2008 – the economy went to hell, almost a worldwide depression. And now, Dave G and his gas taxing friends want to make it worse – much worse. In the name of what? The Volt? Being Green?
Rick Wagoner is the bad guy here, forcing you to say such things, under threat of not producing the Volt. He is the biggest threat to GM there is, and he needs to be “retired” immediately, no matter what it takes. Rick has completely lost it, threatening production of the ONLY vehicle GM has which keeps it out of bankruptcy court. He may have cracked under the stress of running GM into the maw of bankruptcy, and barely escaping. Rick Wagoner must go, or GM will die.
PS: If you gas taxers want to pay extra for gas, be my guest. But if you try it with me, you’ll get the same reception as someone trying to steal out of my wallet. It’s pretty much the same thing in my book.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:10 pm)#134 WarrenPeace Says: When the battery has been depleted, you are now carrying a 400lb piece of crap while the same time trying to maintain the charge of the battery that is only utilized 55%.
————————————————————————————–
This is not quite right. When the gas engine turns on, the battery is still used to supply peak horsepower. That’s how you get 150 horsepower out of a 75 horsepower gas engine. The gas engine only supplies average horsepower. The following diagrams try to show this:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/Volt_Electrical_Block_Diagram.jpg
Also, there are good reasons why only 1/2 of the battery is used initially:
1) At end of life, the total capacity degrades to 70%. As the battery ages, the control code uses an increasingly higher percentage of the battery to maintain the 40 mile range. If the control code used a higher percentage initially, the initial range would be higher, the battery would age faster.
2) When the ICE comes on, the battery still supplies peak horsepower, so you need some charge in th battery to sustain that peak power for long uphill grades.
3) If the battery charged to 100% and discharged to near zero, the battery would wear out very fast, so you need some margins for this.
Bottom line: If you want the battery to last 10 years and you want the battery to supply peak power when the ICE is running, then you can only use 1/2 of the battery’s capacity initially.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:16 pm)Gas taxation isn’t financially-sustainable for anyone.
Battery leasing just makes one more “banker” in your lives, one more bill to pay, one more possible set of hassles, one more possible set of battery “scams” it seems to me after reading concerns of some excellent posts above.
#141 is right that the $4.19 a gallon of gas has hurt the poorest of the poor the very most, because when it was time to get them to prevent highly-expensive consequential damages to their vehicles (by fixing relatively less-expensive servicing needs) , they did not have any money to do it. So $4.19 gas cost them even more, to the point where their vehicles were not economically-repairable at all.
Of course, the speculators usually did their “thing” just before presidential election times, but maybe next time, they might be countered by a large release of crude from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and teach them a true lesson in “losses”.
The Volt is just the only way that so many of our transportation problems are going to be solved. (Future BEV’s too).
Hybrids just are not good enough, nor is anything else at all. Non-GM OEM’s really need to get going on closely-comparable technologies to Voltec.
Headline “brand x to have Voltec comparable technologies”, and I’ll read it carefully. But please, no more silly
“Ford-marketer-fabricates-Volt-bs”
types of interviews from other OEM’s. It’ll get shot down just like the last time. Have respectable technicians explain your developments, and they will receive due respect in return.
Dan Petit Austin TX.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:30 pm)#152 The Grump,
I’m not advocating $4/gas minimum. I would set the minimum somewhere between $2.50 and $3 a gallon. That’s what gas was costing before the speculators started driving up prices. That’s also the point at which alternate fuels become competitive.
Most experts are expecting gas prices to rise to those levels anyway, so there would be little, if any, tax collected.
In fact, my real concern is not raising gas prices through taxes, but rather preventing gas prices from falling once they’ve risen naturally. In particular, it was OPEC flooding the market with oil that killed the electric car 10 years ago. Remember 90 cents a gallon? They can do that again with the Volt. We should have some floor price to prevent them from doing that again.
If investors know that OPEC can’t pull the rug out from under them, there will be a lot more money flowing into alternative transportation.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:43 pm)I can kind of see the business case for this. If the price of gas was higher then they can charge a higher price and get better margins (or at least recoup the money they spent on development earlier). However it’s not that good an idea to say it out loud since customers will assume you are trying to squeeze the most money out of them as possible.
On the point of whether BEVs will be cost effective. Right now obviously compared to EREVs they are not. However you have to realize the second part of the EREV pretty much can’t get too much cheaper. You can go with a turbo 3 cylinder, but that’s about as cheap as you can go for a generator without being underpowered. On the other hand, we all know the battery packs are far from cost optimized. As mentioned in some articles, the second gen pack for the Volt is likely to be much cheaper. The same would go for battery packs for BEVs. BEVs might not meet cost parity with EREVs for 300 miles of range until quite a bit farther in the future, but it’s not a stretch to say it might reach cost parity in the near future for 100 miles of range. I think we’ll know fairly soon in 2011 (when Ford plans to release their Focus EV).
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:45 pm)By the way, last summer, when gas was over $4 a gallon, I was advocating setting a minimum price between $2.50 and $3 a gallon. At that time, most people here said gas would never get that low again, so why bother.
Now that gas prices are under $2 a gallon, I’m still advocating setting a minimum price between $2.50 and $3 a gallon, but now I’m a Nazi.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:55 pm)#156 stopcrazypp Says: BEVs might not meet cost parity with EREVs for 300 miles of range until quite a bit farther in the future, but it’s not a stretch to say it might reach cost parity in the near future for 100 miles of range.
————————————————————————————–
Right.
I would guess that by 2014, a BEV-100 and an EREV-40 would cost about the same to build.
Today, I would say a BEV-100 would cost around $3000 more to build than an EREV-40.
Note that this assumes the same size car, so don’t compare a tiny iMiev to a Volt.
(Quote)
Mar 27th, 2009 (11:58 pm)155 Dave G “In fact, my real concern is not raising gas prices through taxes, but rather preventing gas prices from falling once they’ve risen naturally.”
————————————————————————-
So the net result is still 4.00 a gallon gas, no matter if you use taxes to jack up the price, or keep the price from coming down, the difference being purely academic. Nice use of double-talk, but a thief is a thief, no matter how he gets into your wallet.
The falling gas prices in latter 2008 is the ONLY thing that saved us from a far worse economic depression. Here’s the simple version of what happened in 2008
:
1) If you take more of my money, I have less.
2) Having less money, I spend less.
3) The businesses where I used to spend the money you took? It now has to close – they cannot sell to me because you took the money I would have spent there.
4) If I am poor, I have already cut back to the bare necessities. The money you took would have gone to pay my morgage, but you took it. I fall behind on my payments, and receive a forclosure notice.
Now multiply this times millions of people (and there are far more poor ones than rich ones), and you have, basically, what has already happened to our economy. We were saved by falling gas prices this time. Dave G says “Falling gas prices? Never again”, and I say “Get your hand out of my wallet, you (expletive deleted)”. I never liked thieves.
2008 showed us what a short exposure to $4.00 a gallon gas can do to our economy. Dave G and the gas taxers want to lead us there – permanently. I wouldn’t let them, if I was you. Make it quite clear to your Congressperson that any gas tax increase is political suicide.
PS 157 Dave G – About you being a Nazi? Some might call you an Eco-nazi, but to me, you’re just a wannabe thief, who wants to steal my money. If I steal from your wallet, but donate the money to Goodwill, I would still be a thief, no matter how good my intent was.
(Quote)
Mar 28th, 2009 (12:09 am)Also note that by the time a BEV-300 becomes cost competitive (probably around 2025), an EREV-100 will be equally cost competitive. Given that batteries need to be warmed up on cold days before use, an EREV-100 would probably make a lot more sense.
(Quote)
Mar 28th, 2009 (12:15 am)#159 The Grump Says: 2008 showed us what a short exposure to $4.00 a gallon gas can do to our economy. Dave G and the gas taxers want to lead us there – permanently.
————————————————————————————–
At $4 a gallon, there would be no tax. At $3 a gallon there would be no tax. Are you reading my posts?
(Quote)
Mar 28th, 2009 (12:49 am)Perhaps the Tesla Model S is a little further along than some think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvzOdYVw6Pw
(Quote)
Mar 28th, 2009 (1:28 am)The argument for $4 per gallon gas isn’t just to punish the average driver.
Think about it: how can the government with its CAFE standards expect all car manufacturers to increase sales of fuel-efficient cars if few people want to buy them cars when gas is cheap? Since gas prices have fallen in the past 6 months or so, small car sales have slipped, and larger vehicles are growing in popularity again.
Having a set floor price on gas makes it easier for car manufacturers to plan their vehicle line up, rather than trying to hit a moving target.
(Quote)
Mar 28th, 2009 (1:43 am)I prefer to look at the bright side … after President Obama institutes his carbon tax, the price of gasoline will matter less.
————–
“Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost onto consumers.”
Senator Barack Obama
Speaking on his energy policies
San Francisco Chronicle
January 17, 2008
————–
(Quote)
Mar 28th, 2009 (3:01 am)Starman 121 “Why can’t they get it? This is basic business 101. Fail.”
There are a lot of characters operating in the real world of business. There are embezzlers, cheats, looters, goldbricks and slackers. There are regulators with silver lined pockets, lawmakers who don’t care about the American public and executives that enrich themselves at the shareholders expense. They have to survive in this muck, while they are essentially bankrupt, as liars and posers do everything they can to knock down their support.
WarrenPeace 125 / Starman
“Why would anybody want to even support a company with such assnine business practices? ”
You should see how entire sectors collude with companies with the support of the Government in Japan, totally against the benefit of Japanese consumers in comparison. Business as usual by American companies on a global scale will lead to bankruptcy in today’s business environment going forward (Take a look at all of the industries that the US started and are now dominated by foreign firms-can’t say it’s because of lower wages since Japan and Europe have some of the worlds highest wages) .
Business 101 says take your better mousetrap and exercise management controls and you’ll win. In this environment, the real world, you have to finance whatever mousetrap you have on hand and bring in high enough returns to sustain your business.
To get what the vehicle is worth to the people buying cars when gas prices are high, and to compete on even terms against foreign companies that get massive government support, is not an attempt to annoy your personal sensibilities, but to recognize the business environment as it is, and to cut the best deal for GM operations. So far they have announced nothing more, but that doesn’t mean they have announced all that they are trying to get from the Gov’t., whether that will be good bad or ugly, we can only hope the process is transparent enough to find out.
(Quote)
Mar 28th, 2009 (3:14 am)Dave G “Now that gas prices are under $2 a gallon, I’m still advocating setting a minimum price between $2.50 and $3 a gallon, but now I’m a Nazi.”
I’m sorry to hear that, I don’t really like gas tax Nazis! The Europeans have very high gas taxes, did the poor folks there end up extinct or something, how do they handle high gas taxes?
(Quote)
Mar 28th, 2009 (7:33 am)