Thank you for your courtesy.

Just on this site there is a want list for 50,000 Volts. There is a lot of material here to digest. Next to GM’s own Volt website, this website may be the definitive source of info on this vehicle. GM battery pack assembly plant has a capacity to product approximately 75,000 battery packs. That would likely be the first production limit. GM will need to build another battery pack assembly plant or add additional assembly lines for the following year. Although I refer to this “Want List”, it appears many potential buyers are not aware of the coming availability of electric vehicle. I judge from not seeing any post on this blog by you, that you are new to this blog. There is increasing publicity about EV’s and the Volt seems to be gaining in popularity. No one can estimate the total demand for the vehicle at initial opening Just because it hasn’t been produced on a large scale doesn’t mean that it is theoretical.If you look back at the more recent articles, you can see actual Volt cars being displayed: this are production grade vehicles that are being tested in the field to verify laboratory testing and and make final changes to programming of the vehicle before sales to the public.

Obviously, GM does not base its existance on one vehicle. But this is its flagship offering of its first electric vehicle. many on this blog believe it is better technology than its competitor are offering. The pro and cons of this can and are being debated.GM elected to offer an Extended Range Electric Vehicle to address possible road rage while still giving most drivers who travel less than 40 miles an electric vehicles; this technology is named the Voltec drive system. GM is considering employing it in the Converj and possibly other designs.

Provided when the company can become profitable again will determine how fast the loans can be paid back. GM cash flow will determine that when its sales start to pick up again. A separate means of recovering the taxpayers loans would be through sale of the stock owned by the government. Granted the stock would have to reach an unpresidented level for this to happen. But it was never intended for the bail-out money to be recovered only from sale of stock. As recent as August 11, 2009, testimony by Bloom before the Congressional Oversight Plan was made that it “was possible but unlikely that taxpayers would recover ‘all’ of the money they had invested in Chrysler and General Motors. I have enclosed all in parenthesis for emphasis. He acknowledged that “likely scenarios involve a reasonable probability of repayment of substantially all of the government funding for new GM and new Chrysler, and much lower recoveries for the initial loans.” Again note the word all! The report by COP is 221 pages long. I have not read all of it yet but intend on taking sufficient time to understand what points they are making.

Your point about foreign oil used for other products is correct. However, domestic supplies of oil will cover most of these needs. The majority of foreign oil is used for transportation. GM has started the push toward Electric Vehicles with the other OEM’s following in rapid succession with offering about 2011. With huge percentage of people traveling under 40 miles a day, EV propulsion offers us the means to significantly reduce our consumption of foreign oil. The figure I’ve seen is anywhere from 60% to 78% of the driving population. Those people will only need an ICE for longer trips. Most of the time they are transporting by electricity and wont be consuming gasoline. This will save $billions which will be spent in the local economies to develop new businesses instead of throwing the money away to countries who don’t support the U.S. All that money spent in the United States will result in greater taxes being collected without any consideration of raising taxes.

My whole point is that everything so far indicates that GM will survive and that its produce line is one that will sell well. The payback to taxpayers will come from a variety of sources which I have delineated above; i.e., payment of the loans out of profits, sale of stock, reduction in foreign oil usage, and increased taxes from rising wages and profits by new and existing companies.

I hope, I have answered all of your questions.

Happy trails to yo ’til we meet again.

You raise some interesting points:

“From what I hear and see, the demand for the Volt is greater than GM anticipated and hopefully they will respond by producing more in the first year. The Volt as you know it is not more of the usual GM product line but a new and innovative type of vehicle. Many here agree that the Volt is a much better type of EV than many other manufactures are introducing to the market in a few years.”

I suspect you’re right, but I doubt that a single vehicle can justify $50 billion in loans to maintain a company that otherwise would not exist. Also, this vehicle has never been produced on large scale, and is largely theoretical. A company the size of GM cannot base its entire existence on one product, especially one that has not been proven in the market.

“Helmut said, “We’re not getting paid back, it was a gift.”

It was not a gift and time will show that the loans will be paid back. Perhapes as the article stated, not in full. Also, would you consider not paying billions for foreign oil, a payback. What GM is doing will effectively end the $billions of dollars flowing from U.S. to OPEC countries. It will have a tremendous effect on reduction of the national debt.”

You make two interesting points in your paragraph: one, that the loans will be paid back over time (we’ll have to see), and two, that this new vehicle will somehow eliminate imported oil.

With respect to your first point, what the article indicated is that it would take an incredible growth in the value of GM’s stock to make payback a reality. The odds are reasonably strong that the taxpayer is now providing welfare for large corporations that have collapsed under their own largesse.

With respect to imported oil dollars, creating one vehicle that uses comparitively little gasoline will not stop the flow of oil. Oil is used for a vast number of things besides making gasoline, such as vinyl panels covering the exterior of houses, ladders, fire helmets, automobiles, airplanes, buildings, and even bridges. Granted, the Volt is a very small step in this direction, but it IS a small step, and definitely not a pay-off for all the loan money being given to GM.

In all likelihood, the devaluing of our dollar as result of these loans will increase the sum value of imported oil, and possibly far more than the reduction achieved via the Chevy Volt.

I believe that I read somewhere that GM only plans on making about 10,000 of these vehicles per year in the foreseeable future? Is this true?

If my information is correct (???), I percieve no means by which that the reduction in oil achieved by these vehicles will offset the inflation created by $50 billion dollars in loans. Your thoughts?

I look forward to reading your comments on the matter.

Respectfully,

Dr. Ibringdoh

From what I hear and see, the demand for the Volt is greater than GM anticipated and hopefully they will respond by producing more in the first year. The Volt as you know it is not more of the usual GM product line but a new and innovative type of vehicle. Many here agree that the Volt is a much better type of EV than many other manufactures are introducing to the market in a few years.

What exactly was “out of context”?

Helmut said, “We’re not getting paid back, it was a gift.”

It was not a gift and time will show that the loans will be paid back. Perhapes as the article stated, not in full. Also, would you consider not paying billions for foreign oil, a payback. What GM is doing will effectively end the $billions of dollars flowing from U.S. to OPEC countries. It will have a tremendous effect on reduction of the national debt.

Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.

Many factors at work here – lower fuel prices (subsidized or otherwise, gasoline costs less in the U.S.A.); greater emphasis on highway safety (no country has the testing criteria that the U.S. does, nor do other countries focus so much marketing and 3rd party information on safety – which results in the ‘bigger car wins’ theory); social ranking (cars in the U.S. are a means of touting ones social status much more than other countries); the need for speed (U.S. highways are more wide open and expansive than other countries – plus people just like to go faster). It all adds up to a country that likes bigger vehicles.

So, it is not like GM does not know how to build small, fuel-efficient cars. The market here in the U.S. just hasn’t been buying enough of them. When sales volumes are lower, and marketing costs are higher, it is very difficult to make any money. Because of the various safety and emissions requirements of the U.S., GM has not been able to sell the same small cars here as other markets. The past couple of years may have finally tipped the scales in GM’s favor. U.S. consumers have learned that $5/gallon gas is painful – and their buying habits have begun to change. The bigger the small car market becomes in the U.S., the easier it will be for the new GM to begin making money selling them.