Comments on: Op-Ed: Cash for Clunkers Ends in August and GM’s Monthly Woes Continue Unabated

By: grat

grat — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:52:21 +0000

Wow.

First off, the secondary power plant in the Volt *is* a gas engine. Second, you can’t complain about the $40k price tag, then claim that the non-existent 6th generation fuel cell makes financial sense– even the recently announced 5th gen isn’t quite there, nor is the fueling infrastructure.

As for the battery taking up space, apparently you aren’t aware that it occupies the space between the seats and under the two rear seats– You might be able to argue that the Volt could seat 5 (although I’ve always felt calling compact cars “5 passenger” is silly), but I can’t see how it’s reducing the trunk space.

Your argument about straining the power grid is invalidated twice– once because you claim that plug-in electric hybrids won’t sell, and secondly because there are numerous studies that debunk that particular claim– it’s even more ridiculous that you think hydrogen fuel-cells are the answer, when you say that PHEV’s are doomed because of the lack of infrastructure.

At the moment, if you want 300 miles, you’re looking at petroleum. Even the vaunted Clarity FCX only gets 240 miles.

By: John

John — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 18:50:43 +0000

“Saving” GM is all about a controlled collapse allowing its market share to deflate over the next few years rather than a collapse that would spill over into parts manufacturer’s etc. This is all going according to “plan” and while it may be awful the government is willing to write it off as a necessary loss, just like AIG, FM &FM etc. They just can’t spin it like that to the public.

By: kdawg

kdawg — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:47:37 +0000

When you were a child you must have been the 0.2

By: LauraM

LauraM — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 16:00:38 +0000

Yes. Pontiac sales are included in GM’s 17.6%.

And I think that was Statik’s point. Mark LaNeve sounds optimistic about GM’s future market share, and claims that they’re well positioned to do well with their core brands. Meanwhile GM’s planned future production numbers are anything but optimistic.

By: LauraM

LauraM — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:54:34 +0000

Sorry, I misread your question–my original point was that it seems strange to me that every article says the cfc was a winner for Ford, and a loser for GM, when the market share figures said the exact opposite.

To me, that says I’m missing part of the story. Maybe profit per vehicle? Maybe Ford didn’t have to use as many incentives? Statik’s point about Pontiac makes me thing that’s probably the case. But, according to GM’s own figures, their “core brand” sales were also up. Basically, I want numbers, and I can’t find a source that goes into the details.