Deja Vu.
Those were Bob Lutz’ words back in 2007 when he first stated GMs intention to sell the Chevy Volt comfortably below $30,000.
In the ensuing months and years we’ve been through a see-saw of predictions about how much people would eventually be able to buy the car for.
GM has not officially, and will not officially release a price until closer to launch.
Back in March of last year, GM VP Jon Lauckner stated “we won’t set the price of the Volt until 6 months prior to start of production.”
Although announcing the purchase process, Nissan has not announced the LEAF EV pricing either though claims it should cost around as much as a comparable gas sedan.
In the most recent twist of the Chevy Volt Price tale, volt vehicle line director Tony Posawatz responded to the question when pressed by Globe and Mail reporter Jeremy Cato.
“We have not priced it yet,” Posawatz said initially.
After being asked again he finally said that the real or effective cost to consumers “is easily less than $30,000.”
The figure used was US, not Canadian dollars.
Posawatz was not talking purely about MSRP but net effective cost including the $7500 US tax credit given to consumers who will purchase a Volt.
“The reference was accounting for the US tax credits and effective savings in electricity and other benefits,” Posawatz told GM-Volt. ”It was a comparative statistic, not an exact number, to position the VOLT as a bit more expensive than an equivalent compact car.”
Source (Globe and Mail)
+7
Feb 25th, 2010 (10:59 am)sounds like someone else that I know:
“Yes, that’s after the $7500 rebate. It also takes off the reduced maintenance. You can drive the $60,000 Model-S for the same price as a $30,000 car.”
+1
Feb 25th, 2010 (11:00 am)That is great news! That will ensure the Volt is accessible to many more people than if is was closer to $40k.
+1
Feb 25th, 2010 (11:06 am)At least the projected price is lower now than was originally predicted. It’s better than the other way around with the final more than the original.
Feb 25th, 2010 (11:11 am)Sounds great to me, since Canadian dollars are nearly at par with USA$.
Where do I (officially) sign up?
Feb 25th, 2010 (11:16 am)I think we need to start a pool as to the base msrp of the volt. I’ll start my guess is $36,400
Feb 25th, 2010 (11:21 am)I’d have thought it would be cheaper than a LEAF as the battery pack is going to be much smaller… hope it’ll be nearer $30k than $40k…
+5
Feb 25th, 2010 (11:22 am)It would be better if the word ‘effective’ was removed from the headline statement…
use of this term induces the feeling that ‘fuzzy math’ is at play…
even still they are not going the other way —so its good news
(I’m a simple man)
+3
Feb 25th, 2010 (11:23 am)I dont think this is new, he is probably talking about total cost of ownership.. with reduced gas usage and hopefully less maintenance.
What is new is that Volt will be a compact, not classified as a midsize.
+4
Feb 25th, 2010 (11:27 am)WOW! Under $30K, that’s great news. On a side note related to who will want to buy a Volt, my daughter who I promised a new car upon graduating college has requested a Volt. My 21 year old son who drives a Civic Hybrid wants to trade it in for a Volt. I will be donating my current 2004 car and buying a Volt.
NPNS!
+2
Feb 25th, 2010 (11:31 am)#8
Good, IMHO. Given the current state of the art, small is beautiful in the wonderful world of electric cars.
+16
Feb 25th, 2010 (11:31 am)Wow, I’m seeing an MSRP at $73,999. Look at his statement:
“The reference was accounting for the US tax credits and effective savings in electricity and other benefits,” Posawatz told GM-Volt. ”It was a comparative statistic, not an exact number, to position the VOLT as a bit more expensive than an equivalent compact car.”
So lets start at $29,999 which to most executives trying to sell you something “is easily less than $30,000.” and we add $7500 in tax credits, plus we assume you are replacing a 10mpg truck with the Volt and driving exactly 40 miles/day 365 days a year which results in $3650 savings per year, and you are going to keep the Volt for 10 years so total savings in gas are $36,500.
Add it all up and you get a car that cost $73,999. Ridiculous, yes, but he hasn’t really told you anything about price, other that they will try to convince people that the car is affordable using fuzzy math and marketing speak. As we say at my company “It ain’t lying, it’s marketing”
Feb 25th, 2010 (11:32 am)I bet it’s a fun car to drive !
Feb 25th, 2010 (11:35 am)We happened to be talking about the prices of cars last night, prompted in part by statik’s op-ed on the issue. I recalled that there is now a $30K+ model of Hyundai. I have seen dealer loss leader ads recently offering them for $32.5K, or some such. They must sell a few, as I see them around SoCal once in awhile. If people will pay that for a Hyundai, Benz wannabe that it may claim to be notwithstanding, I have to believe that many will pay the same for a Volt. I mean, think about it.
+2
Feb 25th, 2010 (11:39 am)My pool guess is $34,800. Will we know the winner in May?
+1
Feb 25th, 2010 (11:40 am)That $7500 deal won’t last long, so it shouldn’t be used to fraudulently claim a “less than $30K price.”
+2
Feb 25th, 2010 (11:51 am)Sounds too good to be true. I think that I will not get too excited until I see the MSRP on the vehicle at the dealership.
-1
Feb 25th, 2010 (11:56 am)But are Americans ready to pay this kind of money for a compact Chevy?
The advantage of electric power is that it is easier to make efficient mid and large sized cars.. with ICE powered cars you have to keep them small and shave every ounce of weight off. A large sedan with a moderate 0-60 time of 10 seconds could be made with existing Voltec hardware, probably very similar range and mpg.
As long as the frontal area remains the same, you can stretch out a car with very little penalty.. finally have some nice legroom for the rear passengers. The Volt itself could easily be stretched 5 inches (if the platform allowed it) and perhaps improve the range.
+1
Feb 25th, 2010 (11:59 am)Only if it lowers A in CdA, most important at sustained high speeds (see boring). Given that electrics dominate most obviously at low and moderate speeds for low and moderate distances (thus the ER part of ER-EVs and ICEs in parallel hybrids for infrequent highway driving), light is beautiful is more important (see Colin Chapman). Don’t forget to simplicate.
+2
Feb 25th, 2010 (12:08 pm)He is using fuzzy math. He’s in the car business.
The thing I fear most is that they’ll price the thing to try to sell enough of them to meet the new CAFE standards. They’ll lose money on every car. They still won’t meet CAFE, or they won’t sell enough profitable cars to offset the losses on the Volt. Then they will quite sensibly discontinue the Volt.
If they build Converj and price it to make a profit, then perhaps Voltec (or whatever they’re calling it) will live on.
+4
Feb 25th, 2010 (12:11 pm)@11. Normally people don’t add savings + cost to find a MSRP… Not sure where that idea comes from.
+3
Feb 25th, 2010 (12:22 pm)Since we’re playing a round of “The Price Is Right” my MSRP guess is $36,478.
NPNS!
+3
Feb 25th, 2010 (12:26 pm)For the guessing contest, are we talking a fully loaded model, or the base price model?
It makes quite a bit of difference…….
My guess?
Base price – $36,999 less $7,500 = $29,499
Fully loaded model – $42,999 less $7,500 = $35,499
Plus taxes, title, prep, tip, 240V Charger, special license plate fees for E-REVs, warranty, drive off the lot fee, and anything else the bureaucrats can think of to take our money….
And unless there is a star in the east, I don’t expect to see one in Youngstown, Ohio for quite a while, so this is all for fun….
Now, what will Gen-2 cost?????? That is the REAL question!!!
NPNS
+6
Feb 25th, 2010 (12:32 pm)I’m sorry but this article doesn’t tell us anything new. Most people really want to know what their vehicle loan note will be. We understand there is savings with electricity and less maintenance and don’t get me started with the tax credit being deducted from the price. Maybe GM and NISSAN should announce their prices at exactly the same time so this game of “you show me your price first” will be over. I get the same feeling when trying to negotiate a car price at a dealer. I really liked Saturn’s approach with selling vehicles. I really don’t care to hear another thing about price until we can get an actual real bottom line number. Thank you I feel better now.
+2
Feb 25th, 2010 (12:36 pm)I agree with both of you.
Feb 25th, 2010 (12:41 pm)Tony strikes me as intelligent enough to not trot out some fanaggled price that takes into account the gas savings over ten years, in additon to all the other possible fuzzy math permutations. True, those things factor in, but with all the anticipation out there for what the Volt will list for, I hope he realizes that most everyone looks at the final price as MSRP minus the tax credit.
+4
Feb 25th, 2010 (12:45 pm)But, I think he said it very clearly. The price is using some assumptions that are not clear. It does not seem like a real price.
“The reference was accounting for the US tax credits and …
effective savings in electricity and other benefits,”
Posawatz told GM-Volt. ”It was a comparative statistic, not an exact number, to position the VOLT
My guess is $39,975 starting price (low 30’s after tax credit). Typical MSRP in the Mid 40’s with some options.
Feb 25th, 2010 (12:47 pm)I’ll take an unlikely guess, as $32,999 for base, 28,999 for loaded (somebody has to do it).
I do agree that GM does need to come up with a Caddy or Buick Voltec vehicle that they can price the @#$% out of, without criticism.
Feb 25th, 2010 (12:50 pm)Playing around with some numbers, here’s one example of what “effectively under $30,000″ might mean:
39,999
-7,500 Federal Rebate
——–
32,499
- 800 less 4 oil changes/year @ $40 for 5 years
——–
31,699
- 100 less 1 coolant change in 5 years
——–
31,699
-2,000 gas savings*
——–
29,699
UNDER $30,000 COMPARED TO A PRIUS!!!
*Assumes 10,000 miles/year for 5 years at 2-cents/mile for Volt vs. $3.00 gas @ 50 mpg in a Prius.
Feb 25th, 2010 (12:52 pm)I’m betting there will be 3 levels, Base $34,999 LT $36599, and LTZ $38999.
Feb 25th, 2010 (12:57 pm)#15
It’s good for the first 200K cars from each manufacturer. So that’s about 4 years of Volts at the current production forecasts.
-1, and I don’t give out very many.
+3
Feb 25th, 2010 (12:58 pm)Just got the CR April issue:
+1
Feb 25th, 2010 (12:59 pm)#17
I am, as are a few others here, evidently. As to the rest, I guess we’ll just have to see.
Feb 25th, 2010 (1:01 pm)“After being asked again he finally said that the real or effective cost to consumers “is easily less than $30,000.”
Announcing any price minus the federal rebate is just a sneaky slimeball used car dealer tactic way of hiding the real truth/price of the car. Like I said before, does GM give you that rebate off the bat? Do they apply you for the rebate? Do they have the forms for you for the rebate? No, they do nothing but sell you the product.
“The reference was accounting for the US tax credits and effective savings in electricity and other benefits,” Posawatz told GM-Volt. ”It was a comparative statistic, not an exact number, to position the VOLT as a bit more expensive than an equivalent compact car.”
Here’s another un-professional sales tactic. Offer some arbitrary “effective savings” garbage number to everyone but nobody will realize it in the price or payments. Contrary to many of you here, many US auto consumers finance their vehicles. So YOU can outright purchase, big deal, that makes you the niche customers. After a while the niche customers orders get filled and GM has to now try and get the general public fooled.
GM, just tell the truth and quit hiding behind the smokescreen. What are you afraid of?
Oh yeah……The truth.
+1
Feb 25th, 2010 (1:02 pm)Is “LTZ” short for “LuTZ?” (guffaw)
+1
Feb 25th, 2010 (1:03 pm)#18
Well obviously, I have to agree, having quoted these maxims so many times that my fellow bloggers probably groan when they see them. Not to simplicate too much, but light generally follows small, in my humble experience.
+14
Feb 25th, 2010 (1:03 pm)I hope I have enought “effective” dollars in my bank account when the VOLT hits the showroom floors.
Feb 25th, 2010 (1:05 pm)#24
Me too. +1
+3
Feb 25th, 2010 (1:07 pm)It will be a success if someone can go in and write a check for $25,000-$30,000, and drive away in a new Volt. If they are going to rely on gimmicks like amount saved in gas and factor that into the cost, then it will be a failure, and forever be a low volume/low profit greenie niche vehicle.
The size is also a concern, as most people who buy compact cars are kids, because they are inexpensive and cheap to run. I seem to recall from previous posts that it was closer to a mid sized vehicle.
Unless they have a very long commute or gas is $6.00 a gallon, the average adult car buyer prefers a larger vehicle. Hopefully GM can put the Voltec system in larger cars.
+1
Feb 25th, 2010 (1:15 pm)I expect that to change now that more cautious drivers are less likely to buy a Toyota.
+2
Feb 25th, 2010 (1:26 pm)Well, that would be one reason (aside from decreased demand) to lower prices if gas is lower. (And or/the economy stronger.) Since that would increase corvette and CTS sales. It’s an interesting point. Corvettes are not doing well right now.
But there’s no way they’re discontinuing the Volt. Not as long as they’re selling at MSRP. It would be too much of a PR hit. And most of the costs involved are sunk costs. As in, already spent.
And gen 2 will be cheaper…
+3
Feb 25th, 2010 (1:33 pm)Don’t forget reduced maintenance. He is also probably assuming a $3,000 transmission rebuild, $400 brakes every 30,000 miles etc.
Feb 25th, 2010 (1:35 pm)Effectively; or many will effectively pay the same for the Volt as Mr. Posawatz said.
+2
Feb 25th, 2010 (1:35 pm)@Amazed:
>>>Add it all up and you get a car that cost $73,999. Ridiculous, yes, but he hasn’t really told you anything about price, other that they will try to convince people that the car is affordable using fuzzy math and marketing speak. As we say at my company “It ain’t lying, it’s marketing” <<<
No kidding! He didn't say a danged thing.
Feb 25th, 2010 (1:35 pm)I have my money on a $29,999 price after $7,500 tax credit. ($37,499 before)
With the low production numbers for the first couple years, GM should have no problem taking a loss on the first few thousand. If they can advertise a number below 30k, the demand will skyrocket. Its a huge psychological barrier to jump into the 30k-range for most car buyers.
Be smart about this, GM.
+3
Feb 25th, 2010 (1:40 pm)…and I too hope I have enough “effective” dollars in my bank account when the VOLT effectively hits the showroom floors, and that I will be able to get the effective benefits of the tax credit.
+1
Feb 25th, 2010 (1:44 pm)That’s just how economics work. GM is basically trying to look at the market, they are hoping to sell 50-60,000 a year and asking “what’s the most we can charge and still sell that many?” They probably come to the conclusion that $29,000 is about right (depending on gas prices) and when they agree on that, it’s just understood that the next statement will be, “It’s settled, $36,500″. Or in other words, $7,500 more than whatever price they agree on. If there weren’t this incentive, dozens of auto makers wouldn’t bother making these vehicles in the first place, and the prices would never come down. The tax incentives are temporarily in place solve to the chicken and egg problem so that auto makers and their parts suppliers start to build electric power train vehicles and parts in larger economies of scale, and so that electronics companies start competing for the EV battery market. If you don’t like the price, don’t pay it. I’d say a vehicle like this that has so much flexibility and will save my thousands of dollars a year in fuel is a steal for under $30,000. Heck, the Ford Fusion hybrid costs that much or more depending on options and that doesn’t even break 40 mpg combined. I just priced a Ford Fusion with all the options for $32,500 including the tax credit of $1,270.
+2
Feb 25th, 2010 (1:50 pm)Why should anyone pay attention to 10 year old data, pre-Toyota recalls. Hate to sound negative but, does that data include Toyota cars that caused accidents? Probably not, after all Toyota claimed product issues were only related to customers not knowing how to drive and what to expect from their cars.
NPNS!
+2
Feb 25th, 2010 (1:55 pm)I don’t know that it has as much to do with safety as it does with overall perception.
There is a TV commercial out now for Audi which I think illustrates the situation for Toyota:
A series of vignettes, featuring people who are woodenly reciting what kind of car they’ve been told to desire; a teenage boy with a poster on his wall of a Lamborghini, a businessman walking away from his Mercedes, etc. Suddenly, an Audi drives by; heads turn, and (as the announcer says), “The spell has been broken!”
In the Toyota situation, it is Toyotas that people have been hypnotized into favoring. True, Toyota offered quality for a good value at a time when domestic carmakers were putting out overpriced crap; but the buyers of those cars have since refused to adapt to a changing world. They have effectively frozen this moment of time well past it’s relevance: continuing to buy Toyotas even as the cars became inferior. Toyota has exploited this phenomenon in their advertising, and CR reports, being mainly a documentation of opinion and perception have pretty much borne this out.
It is not a case of some competing product “driving by” which has broken the Toyota spell, it’s a Toyota driving by while failing to stop. At first accepted as a manageable problem (floor mats, wasn’t it?), it later proved to be an endemic one which refused to go away. Then, suddenly, we began to hear of other endemic problems with other Toyotas. Was this a sudden fall-off of quality across the board, or a sudden realization that the Emperor is, in fact, naked?
People had taken steering problems in the Corolla, and the other problems as manageable ones; until there was evidence that the magic car company was just another carmaker: A carmaker which had rested on it’s laurels and become lazy; just as the domestic car companies had done 40 years earlier. I submit that much of the anger we’re seeing has little to do with the actual safety issues, rather it is the result of a feeling of betrayal. A treasured spell has been broken.
Now, GM has an opportunity to assume the role that the Japanese carmakers did, all those years ago; (against great prejudice and mistrust), to rebuild it’s own reputation.
Whether GM succeeds or not, Toyota now faces a perception problem which will be a long time in changing; and I fully expect that to be reflected in Consumer Reports rankings soon; and for years to come.
Feb 25th, 2010 (2:07 pm)Hmmmmm.
Tesla or Volt,
Tesla or Volt,
$73,000 or $109,000
$73k or $109k.
Hmmmmm.
40 miles or 200 miles.
gas tank under the trunk or toll free tow truck number.
beach trip yes, ski trip yes or beach trip yes , ski trip no.
one car garage or two car garage.
Hmmmmm.
The first salesman to get me out the door for $35k gets my money.
Feb 25th, 2010 (2:12 pm)I don’t think this matters much if at all. For starters, it’s not that small. It’s not big but it’s not small either. Plus it’s a hefty guy. Had you asked me to classify it I probably would have said compact but maybe a midsize — the line separating midsize from compact has become blurred as both have gotten larger. Secondly, it’s in a class by itself so it has to be judged accordingly.
As for whether people in NA will buy a car that size, the answer is that they do it all the time.
+2
Feb 25th, 2010 (2:16 pm)Reducing mass increases MPG in conventional cars and increases EV range and 0=60 performance in EVs. It’s the same issue in both cases. Just because a car is an EV doesn’t mean the laws of physics can be suspended. In fact reducing mass is MORE important in EVs because they start with such little energy. As Frank Weber has pointed out, the Volt goes 40 miles on the energy equivalent of a quarter of a gallon of gas.
+3
Feb 25th, 2010 (2:30 pm)I’ve been reading about problems with Toyotas for quite a while. Or for the last year, anyway. And I’ve read comments from people who were upset about various problems with their cars for quite a while. Rusty trucks, etc. It’s just that now that it’s become a media sensation, the mainstream media is starting to pay attention. And more people are hearing about these problems.
Toyota has a lot of fanboys that still won’t admit that things have changed. Especially since it means that they’ll have to take a loss on the resale value of their cars. Personally, I don’t view a car as an investment. But there it is.
I doubt GM (or anyone) will ever again be able to gain the reputation that Toyota did. Times have changed. And there’s just too much competition. That doesn’t mean that GM can’t improve it’s reputation. They need to. Desperately. But, unlike Toyota, once they improve their reputation, they’re going to have to continue to work on it. They won’t be able to coast.
I hope you’re right. Messing up like this should have consequences.
+2
Feb 25th, 2010 (2:33 pm)Finally someone sees this like I did. This is NOT good news people, it’s just news. We still have no clue what GM is going to charge for the Volt. If they take into account the savings over gasoline and roll that into the price, these things won’t be selling nearly as much as we all believe.
+1
Feb 25th, 2010 (2:33 pm)Yes, I think efforts should be made to reduce the weight of Voltec. The recent Opel concept we saw on this site recently gives some idea of the benefits.
However, there is a factor to consider which makes weight reduction less important for an EV than for an equivalent one powered solely by internal combustion: Regenerative Braking. We were told this early on in the Volt’s development via one of Lyle’s excellent reports. Though basically true, the statement from GM might have included the thinnest slice of baloney: you can never recover all (or even a third) of the energy used for acceleration with regenerative braking.
The problem with weight reduction for Voltec is twofold:
1) The Volt is coming out in a era where, with few exceptions “electric car” means an anemic, glorified golf cart. To make the Volt any smaller is to evoke that experience (which is what we’re all hoping to move beyond). Weight reduction through smaller vehicle size is not going to be acceptable until well after this paradigm shift. Look for Voltec sizes to increase as the technology allows, for the next several years.
2) Weight reduction achieved through the use of new, exotic materials (functionally, anything other than steel), is very expensive. GM is fighting a cost battle with the Volt. This is where (they have said), nearly all of their effort will be expended for Gen II. They may use exotic materials to reduce the weight of a Cadillac or Buick Voltec vehicle, but cost will be less of a barrier for such cars.
+1
Feb 25th, 2010 (2:45 pm)Don’t forget SS! Lutz said it wasn’t out of the question.
Feb 25th, 2010 (2:50 pm)What’s a 318i? They look pretty small to me.
+1
Feb 25th, 2010 (2:50 pm)Seems at odds with everything we know about Toyota vehicles over the last few years.
A number of different entities saw a big spike in Toyota accidents. What’s up with CR? Or perhaps CR doesn’t consider failures that cause accidents when determining whether a car is reliable?
Something is seriously wrong here.
Feb 25th, 2010 (2:53 pm)Amen brother! Glad somebody here gets it. It is a waste of time to add up the prices of the components going into the car plus the labor to try and figure out what the car will cost. That’s not how things work, unless perhaps it’s a non-profit organization.
A co-worker has the story of his Dad buying a car years ago in Wayne (Mich), right across the street from the factory where the car was made. The car still had the $500 or whatever “destination fee”, even though all they had to do was drive it across the street (although I suppose that’s against union rules). Reality has almost nothing to do with pricing.
If you can sell every widget you can make for $100, are you going to charge $60 or $80 instead? Whether the cost of building a widget is $2 or $20 or $70 is immaterial, you’re going to charge $100 if you have half a brain. Sorry, econ-101 flashbacks happening again, must take pills…
If they have the $7500 credit + the $4000 on my GM Card + [something else] and no dealer markup then I may go for it. Perhaps the state of Michigan or my employer will provide the [something else]. Hmm, I wonder if they’ll have it in a dark red as often shown on the Cruze? Everybody and their cousin will have silver.
Feb 25th, 2010 (2:55 pm)Maybe a stripped Gen II will. I don’t recall any model from any company being cheaper over time unless they put the same name on a smaller platform (Mustang vs Mustang II).
This is why they have to get the MSRP right the first time. The price needs to go up over time. They also need to start low to place it between Malibu and Impala.
+1
Feb 25th, 2010 (2:57 pm)CR isn’t the storm, it’s the radar. Consumer Reports’ vehicle ratings are largely determined by the results of member questionnaires.
It takes some time for any change as massive as the US public’s Toyota perception to register. Next year’s Car Issue will be very interesting to read.
Feb 25th, 2010 (2:59 pm)I think it’s “New Math” for those of you that went through
that in grade school during the Apollo space program.
Feb 25th, 2010 (2:59 pm)This is different. This is new technology. The Prius has gotten cheaper and better over time. And the Volt will too. GM has said as much numerous times. And that’s not the sort of thing companies usually lie about. (If anything they’re more likely to say it will be more expensive if you wait–so buy now!)
Also, on a macro level we might be entering a deflationary cycle for things like cars.
Feb 25th, 2010 (3:01 pm)I’m wondering if a “Lease” would really be the way to go on a VOLT. It is Gen-1 after all, and if battery technology is getting better, then leasing the first VOLT might be affordable. Hopefully, in 36 months BUY a Voltec Cruze or Orlando as a keeper.
Feb 25th, 2010 (3:02 pm)My bet in the price pool is $35950 MSRP – before Tax Credit.
+2
Feb 25th, 2010 (3:08 pm)Anyone catch the hearings? Toyota’s president said that the “pedals are DEFINITELY NOT the problem..” so what pray tell are you doing to those 8.5 MILLION cars if its not fixing the issue?
best op ed here
http://www.detnews.com/article/20100225/OPINION03/2250352/1148/rss25
+1
Feb 25th, 2010 (3:39 pm)Good start.
Ya know, it maybe kinda used to be that compact (small), inexpensive, light, underpowered, and lack of amenities sorta were interchangeable memes. That has very much NOT been the case for a long time. They are all different concepts and to muddle them together is to confuse yourself.
Tp put a finer point on Herm’s thinking, brilliant design of interior space can more than offset exterior dimensions. For just one example, a gentle kammback from the roof top and light ceiling color provides a real sense of roomy interior space and provides voluminous tall storage in the rear, critical for hauling ficuses and air travel luggage.
I think that small SUVs, crossovers and hatches (Honda Fit, Subaru offerings, etc.) have started to figure that out, supported by red hot consumer demand. It’s not how big you are, it’s how you set up the space for practical results (see marine architecture, professional no-to-one-step kitchens, etc.).
Feb 25th, 2010 (3:41 pm)I disagree, given the Volt’s unique status as a game-changer.
But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the price doesn’t go down. Let’s also assume that MSRP doesn’t go up, either. Let’s further say that it takes 4 years for GM to sell 200,000 units. Over that time, the difference in cost between Volt and other makes is reduced; as inflation takes it’s toll on the competition. GM goes from losing money on each Volt to making a healthy profit due to a reduction in their own costs. It would hopefully put them on a better financial footing. By the end of the four years, the Volt is a much better car, which costs GM a lot less to make; and there may be a considerable pot of money on hand.
What if, in year 5, they then announce a reduction in price (equivalent to the previous year’s MSRP minus the now-absent $7500 govt credit)? Some would take it cynically, but it would absolutely crush competitors licking their chops at the prospect of suddenly much higher Volt prices. It would be a huge PR boost for GM.
You could say that the four years gradually absorbed the increase in value / lowering of GM’s costs which could then be met with a lowered MSRP. Holding this new price for 4 years more would repeat the cycle.
No, I won’t take bets on this scenario. However, if the new MSRP in year 5 is less than a $7500 increase by any appreciable amount, GM would reap many of the same benefits; particularly if they can use increasing cost reductions from that point forward to absorb the effects of inflation for a further four years.
After that, who cares? It’s close to a decade later, the EV has reached the 10% penetration benchmark (per Lutz), and the road ahead is now much less bumpy.
-1
Feb 25th, 2010 (3:47 pm)Yes, and member questionnaires = “popularity contest”, unfortunately. I don’t think someone in love with their particular car brand can be objective or provide scientifically-meaningful data. In other words, “Oh, I won’t count the wheel falling off last week as a problem, I hit a pothole pretty hard a couple days earlier, so it probably was my fault. So Toyota still=’A’ for me!” Same person gets a rock chip in their Chevy and gives it an ‘F’ as a result.
On the other hand, I used to read CR long ago at the library where they went over their test cars in a presumably-objective manner, and the mistakes they found in American cars were sometimes embarrassing. Missing or loose parts, wheels out of alignment, etc. I hope things have changed for the better since then.
+1
Feb 25th, 2010 (3:52 pm)Actually, if you look at the left side of the chart, it seems that GM is falling further behind in repair history over the last 3-4 years.
+1
Feb 25th, 2010 (3:55 pm)This chart has nothing to do with safety, it has to do with repair history. In other words, a problem on this chart corresponds to something that stopped working and had to be fixed. That doesn’t include normal wear and tear, like oil changes and new tires.
Feb 25th, 2010 (4:01 pm)#50
Thank you. +1
+3
Feb 25th, 2010 (4:08 pm)Huh? I don’t think so. You can’t replace a truck with a compact car. Trucks do work.
Feb 25th, 2010 (4:11 pm)#64
Tough, but well deserved, IMHO. Great link! Thanks. +1
Feb 25th, 2010 (4:12 pm)What you’re suggesting is this: People who drive their cars hard and don’t always do the scheduled maintenance tend to buy GM, Chrysler, Hyundai, and Volkswagen, and people who baby their cars tend to buy Honda and Toyota.
I suppose there could be some truth to this, it doesn’t seem to match what I’ve observed personally.
Note that the data for the chart comes from CR subscribers who own the vehicles they’re reporting on. If a CR subscriber likes GM enough to buy their product, why would they then trash GM on their annual problem report?
Many have claimed CR repair histories are biased, but I still can’t figure a plausible scenario that would cause such a bias.
Despite recent media hype surrounding Toyota safety issues, the data from the last 3-4 model years shows GM far behind in frequency of repairs, and this is something the new GM really needs to deal with head-on.
-1
Feb 25th, 2010 (4:23 pm)#66 follow-up:
The government is going more deeply into debt. All politics aside (please), it’s just a fact. Spikes in national debt have, in the past, caused more money to be printed, resulting in greater inflation (there are also consequences for the dollar’s value vs foreign currency, the saturation of available world credit, etc; but lets keep this as simple as possible).
In my scenario (#66 above), where GM holds the line on Volt MSRP for four years, it’s probably realistic to assume that inflation may increase by something over $4000 per $30,000 (this is the degree to which competitors’ MSRPs get lower with respect to the Volt’s). In year 5, with the government incentive gone, GM will only need to lower MSRP by the $7500 minus this inflation factor ($3500 in this example) to not lose anything. If they can top this, so much the better.
This may make the second scenario, where GM lowers MSRP by less than $7500, much more likely.
Feb 25th, 2010 (4:25 pm)I believe the Volt will eventually sell for under $30,000 without the rebate (as production ramps up and the cars are less costly to produce). I think the rebate of $7500 is a bridging technique for early Volts. It will help counter the buyer mentallity of waiting until next year when prices come down. It’s important for GM to sell these beauties in numbers right from the roll out.
+2
Feb 25th, 2010 (4:31 pm)#65
Which is pretty much what happened with the Prius, IMHO. +1
Which only goes to show that the public policy goals of encouraging the technology were met. A great success story, again IMHO. It’s just too bad that no US company was smart enough to participate.
Feb 25th, 2010 (4:35 pm)Bad GM, good Mr Used Car Salesman: Not much I can agree with in your statement. Too many conspiracy theories for me.
+2
Feb 25th, 2010 (4:36 pm)Those numbers look about right to me, and agree with my past expectations. I’ve been assuming MSRP=$39,995 for the past month, and that’s base price without navigation, OnStar, bluetooth, etc. Yes, it’s steep, and no, I don’t have that kind of money available, but I’m not folding my hand yet. I think this car is going to be worth taking on a big auto loan, even in my current doddering old age.
By the way, I’m making another assumption that no one seems to have stated. I don’t expect to get possession of the car, or pay out the cash, before the end of this year, which means I won’t get the $7500 tax credit (yes, it is a credit, not a rebate) until I file my income tax return in 2012. The best I can do is reduce my withholding $600 a month or so during 2011 in anticipation of the credit.
Feb 25th, 2010 (4:36 pm)Actually, reducing the mass in an EV doesn’t increase the range all that much. Much of the extra energy required to accelerate a heavier car is recovered in regenerative braking. More mass does increase tire resistance, but not as much as you would think, and low resistance tires can compensate for this.
For example, the Volt is actually relatively heavy for it’s size, but the AER is really good.
The real issues surrounding large EVs/EREVs are these:
1) providing adequate acceleration
2) aerodynamics
Remember that smaller batteries are not only limited in terms of their range, but also in term of instantaneous power. In other words, a larger EV will require a larger battery and electric motor just to provide enough power for adequate acceleration, and these tend to make larger EVs cost prohibitive.
Also, most larger vehicles today have horrible aerodynamics, and this kills EV range at highway speeds.
But if cost were not an issue, and a large vehicle had a low Cd, then a large EV/EREV would be doable.
One more thing to note, larger electric motors are often more efficient that smaller electric motors. Since this is the exact opposite of a gas engine, this concept takes some getting used to.
-1
Feb 25th, 2010 (4:36 pm)(Follow up to my #66, above)
The US Government is going more deeply into debt. All politics aside (please), this is just a fact. Whenever this has happened before, it has usually resulted in the printing of more money, and greater inflation (there are also consequences caused by the dollar’s loss in value vs other currencies, the saturation of available world credit, etc; but let’s keep this as simple as possible).
In my scenario where GM holds the line on the Volt’s MSRP for the first four years, it is probably safe to say that over this period, $30,000 in today’s value will be around $4000 higher. This is the degree to which competitors’ MSRPs (keeping up with inflation) would lose value compared to the Volt’s. In year 5, it would only be necessary for GM to lower the Volt’s MSRP by the difference between this value and the lost $7500 credit, $3500 in this example, to match the value of MSRP minus the tax credit in year one.
+1
Feb 25th, 2010 (4:38 pm)Is anyone else having trouble posting?
Feb 25th, 2010 (4:40 pm)Although I agree with you about the use of the word “effective” to include the money saved on fuel use – minus the cost of electricity, I’d think that it would be more “apples to apples” if it was compared to an average compact car’s mileage – not a totally different vehicle. Yes, I know, you were making a point, and that’s a good way to dramatize it. BTW, are you *IN* marketing?
Personally, I think that Tony either had a weak moment when he commented about the effective price, or he was given those marching orders. Either way I think it was a very poor move. IMHO, GM has been pretty honest about the details they have *chosen* to release. Sure, there have been plenty of things they’ve danced around, much to our chagrin, but this feels more like he intentionally muddied the water.
Did anyone else reading the original article get the feeling that Cato had a chip on his shoulder about the Volt? I sure did. And, BTW, Canadians get a $10,000 tax credit!
I haven’t read the comments past the one I’m replying to, so maybe these points have been addressed already.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 25th, 2010 (4:42 pm)I understand they’re measuring different things, but if insurance companies noticed such a spike in claims that they felt they should notify the government because they were alarmed that the quality of the Toyota vehicles had gone down dramatically then you’d think that there would be SOME effect on the CR repair report. I can see how higher repairs might not suggest a higher rate of accidents — a radio going on the fritz may not cause an accident — but I don’t see how the obverse could be true. IOW it would seem impossible for failures so many and so great as to cause a spike in accidents would not move the needle on repairs.
If it is indeed the case that CR can’t measure defects so great as to elevate the accident rate then CR needs to seriously rethink its methodology because at the moment that methodology seems so flawed as to be useless. What you’re claiming is that a company can have the highest recall rate and at the same time have the most reliable vehicles. Hard to fathom.
-3
Feb 25th, 2010 (4:43 pm)Is your moon now in the 7th house with Jupiter aligned with Mars ? Everyone gains from a strong competitive Toyota.
Feb 25th, 2010 (4:45 pm)I feel bad about Toyota’s woes, but Danielle, writes a very objective commentary most of the time. and I agree. If the president says its NOT the pedal..than what is it, he basically ADMITTED we are NOT fixing the problem, just doing the biggest recall to say we are doing SOMETHING..
thsi looks bad, and makes Toyota look worse.
Feb 25th, 2010 (4:47 pm)How long will it take to sell a quarter-million Volts? After *that* point it would be misleading.
Be yourself,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 25th, 2010 (4:48 pm)the math is pretty clear to me, thankyou for explaining it.
Feb 25th, 2010 (4:49 pm)FWIW I didn’t come away with that impression at all. The style is a little cheeky but nothing more than this. I was more pained by the fact that we still keep getting the engine recharging the battery pack!
+2
Feb 25th, 2010 (4:50 pm)That’s uncalled for. -1
This isn’t a case of a strong Toyota, but an accountable one (there is evidence as well of anti-competitiveness); in an arena where fairness often goes in only one direction.
Oh, and that “age of aquarius” stuff isn’t appreciated either.
-2
Feb 25th, 2010 (4:51 pm)tagamet: are you high on catnip again ?
Feb 25th, 2010 (4:54 pm)I thought it was higly poetic and hopefully a little humerous Zach
+2
Feb 25th, 2010 (4:57 pm)Good article.
I only have one thing to say about all of this Toyota mess and it will be the last for me.
When this is all over and everyone get’s their restitution there will be only two winning groups to get the massive Lion’s share of whatever/any is paid out. The Prosecution Atty & The Defending Atty. Whatever happens, they will get the Lion’s share and in the end NOBODY will get anything out of it. Compared to what the Atty’s will get, anything else is chump change.
You can continue to beat this to death but that’s the honest truth, IMHO.
/end rant…..
+1
Feb 25th, 2010 (4:57 pm)I’m glad that you got that out (g). I feel the same way.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
+1
Feb 25th, 2010 (5:03 pm)Humorous? You can’t even spell it.
Not to speak for Tagamet, but:
Be Well, and BEHAVE.
ZT
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
+1
Feb 25th, 2010 (5:06 pm)+1 for ya!
I’ve been sayn that for a loooooong time. It’s what you paid for when you drive off the lot that counts. That person on Post #32 get’s it too, angrily but seems to get it.
lol, dude, go have a beer maaan.
Feb 25th, 2010 (5:06 pm)Either that or “LoTZ” as in bells and whistles (g). I’d rather that it was a reference to Bob though.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 25th, 2010 (5:12 pm)Hey, Lyle should have a contest for guessing the following…
What will the base price be? (Base price meaning something any Joe Schmo can walk in and buy)
What will the CS mode MPG be?
5 bucks a guess and you only get one guess for each contest. Winner(s) take all?!!?
Lyle, sign up to accept PayPal!!!… lol
Feb 25th, 2010 (5:21 pm)Very well-said, ZT. And if CR *doesn’t* recognize both shifts in standards, it’s going to reflect on CR.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 25th, 2010 (5:28 pm)I’ve had a very low opinion of CR for a very long time. Obviously that doesn’t mean I’m correct, but it sure “fits”. JMO.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 25th, 2010 (5:37 pm)I still get the sense that Consumer Reports is a prism through which the data is filtered. Remember all our chats about statistics and their er, “use” (g). Sorry, I must just be a skeptic re CR.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 25th, 2010 (5:51 pm)That’s why on other auto sites they refer to it as “Consumer Distorts”.
I wholeheartedly agree, and have no respect for them whatsoever when it comes to automobiles.
Feb 25th, 2010 (5:55 pm)Looks like Opel has completed its first Ampera prototype, and will drive it 600 km from Rüsselsheim to the Geneva Motor Show.
http://media.opel.com/content/media/intl/en/news/news_detail.brand_opel.html/content/Pages/news/intl/en/2010/geneva/opel/25_02_geneva_ampera_opel
Apparently you will be able to follow its progress online.
Feb 25th, 2010 (5:56 pm)I must be onto the next story, I’m in Modurashun!
Feb 25th, 2010 (5:59 pm)Think Nasaman’s European car, driving 600 km to an auto show in Switzerland.
+1
Feb 25th, 2010 (5:59 pm)MSRP for the Volt will be announced in May 2010. Six months before the start of production. And a month after Nissan announces the MSRP on the Leaf.
Pre tax credit MSRP and dealer mark up price have been kicked around for 2+ years now. We know there will be bells and whistles on the Volt. We also know there will be more items available to buy. An example are the colorful inner door panels within the cabin.
Dealer mark up is expected. This will not go over very well with an economically beat down buying public. One direction for GM to take is no haggle pricing. Unlikely as GM has not announced NH pricing as a consideration for the Volt. Another way to go is to have a charity benefit from the over MSRP price to the consumer cost. Use the high price as a positive rather than generating “you’re sticking it to us” bitterness.
Is exciting to see the auto manufacturers preparing for the electric car wars of 2012. Will the same people who currently buy Yaris and Fit gravitate to the cheaper foreign offerings? Or will the technology rich Volt and the thorough testing program at GM attract the most down payments?
=D-Volt
Feb 25th, 2010 (6:02 pm)#94 CaptJackSparrow +1 for ya!
I’ve been sayn that for a loooooong time. It’s what you paid for when you drive off the lot that counts. That person on Post #32 get’s it too, angrily
but seems to get it.
lol, dude, go have a beer maaan.
(Quote)
Thanks Capt, bartender 2 Stone IPA’s one for me and one for my friend
Feb 25th, 2010 (6:05 pm)Sentient trucks. Uh, I knew this would happen one day.
Feb 25th, 2010 (6:06 pm)My full response (to Herm, but it also applies to this comment) is “awaiting moderation” (maybe I mistyped my e-mail address?), but perhaps your experience explains why a smaller balloon with less helium weighs less than the same balloon filled with more helium, thus larger. Checking with reality….er, um…..
Materials choices, charactersitics and use and interior space packaging is hugely important in vehicles and work differently with size and weight, which are importantly different concepts. I strongly suspect you already knew all that…
Small (compact), light, inexpensive, lacking amenities and underpowered are just not automatically the same things.
Feb 25th, 2010 (6:21 pm)@mpera sumthing?
Feb 25th, 2010 (6:30 pm)A lot of people bought GM cars not because they liked them better. But because they were cheaper.
But there are other reasons for GM’s (and Ford and Chrysler’s) higher problem rate. They sell a much higher ratio of SUVs and pick-ups to cars. And SUVs and Pick-ups cost more to repair. So people will remember it more. Also, the imports have a much higher market share on the coasts, where, on average, people use their cars a lot less than they do in areas where the domestics have higher market share. And, the more you use your car, the more likely you are to need to repair it.
That said, of course, GM should try to build cars that are going to need as few repairs as possible.
Feb 25th, 2010 (6:35 pm)Exactly. If there are no consequences for these types of cover-ups after all the media attention, then what’s to stop other OEMs from doing the same thing in the future?
Some of them probably will anyway. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t hold them accountable when we find out!
Feb 25th, 2010 (6:35 pm)#92 Tagamet I’m glad that you got that out (g). I feel the same way.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Yeah, when I read the spin on the price in the article I just had to get that off my chest and I really did feel better.
Feb 25th, 2010 (6:43 pm)That picture of the Volt looks good. And the Volt looks better in person than in pictures!
I like Tag’s new “tag line”,
Be well and believe.
Not too long and we won’t have to have faith, we will be able to see with our eyes.
Regards,
John
+1
Feb 25th, 2010 (6:47 pm)This has been true for many sports cars which have only 2 seats (small and light, yes; inexpensive and underpowered no). I think the motoring public will make the paradigm shift for EVs, if the vehicles are good enough.
Where did you take that picture of C3PO’s car?
+2
Feb 25th, 2010 (6:50 pm)First, let me say that you are an asset to this forum. Your comments are thoughtful and logical, a far cry from the emotional drivel on most forums.
One nit I can find is that Ford seems to have a significantly better repair history than GM or Chrysler.
Also, Nissan and Subaru have a significantly worse repair history than Honda and Toyota, even though these are all Japanese companies.
So it seems there are some factors that are specific to the company.
+1
Feb 25th, 2010 (6:51 pm)CR does recommend domestic vehicles much more than they used to. It’s going to take time for the difference in quality to be fully reflected in the ratings.
I think CR does a decent superficial job of comparing products. They’re great for things like toothpaste or laundry detergent. But they can’t compete with enthusiast websites for cameras. Which makes me doubtful about their ability to judge cars.
Feb 25th, 2010 (7:01 pm)I’m trying this post at 7:00 Edit: it came right up.
HTH,
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 25th, 2010 (7:05 pm)Good analogy. (I love the camera sites)(g).
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
+1
Feb 25th, 2010 (7:06 pm)CR is nothing but a opinion poll of it’s own readers. They get the red dots from people filling out a magazine poll. They do not compensate for the amount of vehicles on the road. That is.. if there are a million Chevy Cobalts that get 10 problems and a thousand Hondas that get 5 problems they give the Honda a red dot and say the Chevy is twice as bad. Which is totally wrong and has cost Amercans millions of jobs because of a false perception.
JD Powers does do random sampling and does rate problems per so many vehicles out there and they rate BUICK as the no.1 most reliable brand on the road .. better then Honda Toyota BMW Mercedes .. all other makes… a GM brand is the most reliable vehicle on the road.
The Volt will have no problem selling out the first few years…. the Engineers and all the People of GM deserve a lot more credit than our media gives them. If I get a chance to buy a VOLT … I will.
Feb 25th, 2010 (7:07 pm)Speak for yourself, young lady. Out here on the Left Coast it is quite common for people to live fifty miles or more from their jobs, because they can’t afford to buy a home any closer. And we think nothing of driving 200 miles to find the closest snow.
But I’ll still grant your argument. For one thing, no snow means much less wear and tear on the vehicles.
Feb 25th, 2010 (7:20 pm)The actual price to be revealed 6 months before release would be May. It would be really great to know the price right here in Austin in May at the Austin Area Dealer’s Association Convention which will show the Volt.
Also, it sure would be stunning to be able to drive around the block, then get right on line here and report back to everyone. (The better reasons for really long posts).
That is only 10 weeks away, folks!! It will be here before we know it!
+2
Feb 25th, 2010 (7:21 pm)I really don’t understand why people think that mass doesn’t matter “for EVs”. This ignores the fact that most losses are linear with mass and that you don’t recover the majority of those losses with regen. Just a simple math example should help. Where I live it’s common to go up and down 100 meters. So going even a few miles can result in three or four 100 meter climbs. Moving 2000 kg one meter takes 19600 joules, so a fully loaded vehicle weighing 2000 kg will use 19,600 joules or .0054444 kWh per meter. Over 400 meters that’s 2.18 kWh or, stated differently, OVER ONE FOURTH a battery pack the size of the Volt’s.
So how much of this can you recover when going downhill with regen? To begin with, the 2.1 kWh is what you need at the wheels. To get that you have the chemical–>electrical–>mechanical conversions. Assuming those are 90% efficient, you end up with 80% of what you started with. IOW to get 2.1 kWh at the wheels you need to use 2.72 kWh of your pack. Of that amount you will never recover the conversion losses — they’re simply lost. So how much can you recover of what ends up at the wheels? Well, conversion losses mean you can’t recover any more than 80%, and of course you may break too much or too little and not recover the mechanical energy. Start totaling it up and you’re lucky to get 60% back. That means to climb just a few small hills you’re expending 2.72 kWh and only recovering 1.3 kWh for a net roundtrip loss of almost 1.5 kWh.
Halve the mass and you will only lose .75 kWh of our pack. A much more manageable number.
Do the same thing for acceleration and then start adding in the rolling resistance losses which are directly attributable to mass, and which you will never recover even 1% of, and it becomes clear that mass is a big (sic) deal. There is a reason why Tesla wanted Elise bodies — they are the lightest bodies you can find.
And yes increasing the mass will also adversely affect performance. That’s just another reason why you want to cut mass.
+1
Feb 25th, 2010 (7:26 pm)“That’s why on other auto sites they refer to it as “Consumer Distorts”.
I wholeheartedly agree, and have no respect for them whatsoever when it comes to automobiles.”
re: consumer reports
Did anyone peruse the first CR issue that had an entry for the Volt late last year?
It had a picture of the 2007 concept!
Talk about clooolesss…
Feb 25th, 2010 (7:31 pm)I’m so glad the Austin Area is mostly flat earth, and, what slopes there are up and down are very shallow ones. (smile).
Feb 25th, 2010 (7:45 pm)Another left coaster??? (lol).
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 25th, 2010 (7:55 pm)Battery pack is leased in the Leaf.
+2
Feb 25th, 2010 (8:06 pm)There seems to be a brewhaha brewing over this graph but it seems like much ado about nothing. Am I reading this wrong or are they showing 1.2 problems per GM vehicle over 10 years vs 0.6 for Toyota. BFD. I’ld be ecStatik with only 1.2 problems in 10 years and would care little if someone else only experiences 0.6.
Feb 25th, 2010 (8:11 pm)Ahhh, the anticipation! 10 weeks is a mere eye-blink. Pictures, lots and lots of pictures!
It’d be ideal if GM gave Lyle an exclusive on the proce announcement, but I know that’s not going to happen. Maybe they’ll fly him to whatever show it’s announced at.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 25th, 2010 (8:19 pm)This car has been positioned in the tradition of other Chevy family vehicles. Just look at the design – it’s essentially vanilla Chevy. So, unsurprisingly the vanilla price will be at the high end of a vanilla Chevy – or about $26, 500. after rebates. GM will sweeten this with 2% financing.
Yeah it’s an EV – but an EV for everyone. Unlike the Tesla roadster or S. The car will function as a loss leader for other GM products and it will do it happily as they are getting yards of totally free PR and advertising. Smart move.
Feb 25th, 2010 (8:24 pm)“Easily under $30,000″
Pulls out wallet and says “Take cash?”
Feb 25th, 2010 (8:51 pm)Don’t you have a GM card??? (lol)
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 25th, 2010 (8:59 pm)But this information does put the cost of owning the car into perspective. Maybe every factor hasn’t been included but it does increase our understanding of the differences in owning an EV.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Feb 25th, 2010 (9:04 pm)Presented with a Voltec vehicle inspired by the Honda Fit, I might possibly wet myself.
Not really.
It would still be plenty exciting, though. +1
Feb 25th, 2010 (9:14 pm)Old information.
A lease (for car + battery) will now be offered in the US, but the Leaf will also be sold here outright, battery included (and yes, for a higher, so-far undisclosed price):
http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2010/02/nissan-says-it-will-sell-or-lease-leaf-ev-with-battery-included-in-us-market.html
Feb 25th, 2010 (10:15 pm)Thank you. I enjoy your comments too.
You might be right. And GM should absolutely do everything in its power to minimize repair costs for their customers. If you buy a car that needs a lot of repairs, you’re much less likely to buy a car from the same manufacturer again.
However, the consumer reports survey is not the final word IMHO. There are a lot of variables that they don’t take into account or control for.
For whatever it’s worth, I believe that Subaru is known for four wheel drive. So they might sell more of their vehicles in cold weather climates, with a lot of snow. And that puts more wear and tear on a vehicle.
Feb 25th, 2010 (10:43 pm)LOL, thanks, ZT. You even got my sig perfect! Your reply was far funnier than EM’s feeble attempt. I try not to reply to those types (sans fee).
Being well and grateful,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 25th, 2010 (10:52 pm)In New York City, people rarely drive. And I have friends in Boston and DC who don’t even own cars. And on the West coast, both San Francisco and Portland are known for their public transportation. On the other hand, Chicago, which is in the middle, also has decent public transportation.
Maybe I should have said cities versus rural areas…Of course, it depends on the individual city. However, since the imports have much higher market shares in both urban areas and the coasts, I’m pretty sure they dominate the don’t-drive-as-often demographic. And the don’t-have-to-drive-as-far demographic.
Feb 25th, 2010 (11:05 pm)I certainly can’t speak to urban driving habits, but I can sure speak about rural areas. We drive a lot and we drive often, but for the most part 40 miles of AER will be great. 60 AER would be perfect for where I reside now (and the last 35 years or so). Don’t those folks on the left coast have those really big, like 4 lane highways? I thought that the only way they GOT around was to drive. Just curious.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
BTW, Did you get the email I sent re London congestion fees?
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 25th, 2010 (11:35 pm)I don’t think there is a simple way to break this out (east/west/ middle, urban/rural, etc.). I’m not really urban or rural. The community acts more like a suburb, but the nearest city, Santa Fe, is 35 miles away, and the nearest reasonable size airport, Albuquerque, is over 100 miles. So, there are alot of people that make that 200+ roundtrip routinely.
We see a lot of larger cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks on the road. Come to think of it, a whole lot of pickups, I guess that’s part of the rural aspect of most of the state. There are a lot of 4X4s out here as well to deal with the significant snow in the southern Rockies high desert. Four wheel drive vehicles have more moving parts, which lead to more repairs.
Isn’t it wonderful what a diverse county we have.
Feb 25th, 2010 (11:43 pm)27 lanes actually but who counts after 20 or so? LOL
Feb 25th, 2010 (11:46 pm)When I lived in Houston the interstates were the strangest rides. You’d go like a bat out of hell and then you’d come to a complete stop. Then bat out of hell again. Then stop again. Rewind and repeat. Rewind and repeat. What is up with you Texans?
Feb 25th, 2010 (11:53 pm)You mean that they line all 4 lanes up end-to-end like 6 or 7 times? They definitely couldn’t be side by side! Once you got on you’d never get *off* again. Yeah, right (lol) 27 lanes – LOL. You’re funny! Next you’ll tell me they stack them up! What a character!
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 25th, 2010 (11:58 pm)Wow, that’s some big county you have!
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 26th, 2010 (12:02 am)Why do you keep stopping? Wouldn’t it be better to just drive normal like? (g).
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 26th, 2010 (12:09 am)There are areas of LA where people don’t have to drive that much. But it is definitely the minority. San Francisco, on the other hand, has great public transportation.
I haven’t checked my email recently. I’ll go do that now. Thanks in advance.
Feb 26th, 2010 (12:20 am)Well folks, I’m going to call it a day earlier than usual. Watched the heath care Kabuki Theater (shrinkery professional interest) and it was exhausting! (g). It’s after midnight here on the Right coast AND having a blizzard. Great to have a nice warm nest.
Tomorrow,er, later today,
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
/ 27 LANES! LOL…..
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 26th, 2010 (12:52 am)People drive to the airport on a regular basis? And here I thought New York dominated the take-a-helicopter to work contingent….
Urban vs. suburban vs. ex-urban vs. rural is basically about population density. According to the US census 1000 people per square mile in the core area and 500 people per square mile in the surrounding areas are both part of an “urban cluster” or “urbanized area.” Places that don’t meet that criteria are considered rural.
Of course, there are rural places where you don’t need a car. And lots of urban places where you do. But, in general, I would argue that people who live in urban areas tend to drive fewer miles than people who live in rural areas.
Feb 26th, 2010 (2:05 am)+1 to you for correctly identifying that small (compact) does not always equal inexpensive or underpowered.
One thing that “C3PO” car ISN’T, however, is light. That’s not a “C3PO” color on it, it’s solid GOLD (79), which is about as heavy as LEAD (82), with silver about half as heavy (47) and aluminum (13) about one sixth as heavy, with carbon fiber a fraction of that. Lithium (3) in power packs is way lighter. You were fooled into thinking the car was light by the car’s compact, small size because you didn’t separate out all the things I listed (and I’m sure I missed a few).
Frankly, I find the mix of carbon fibre, aluminum and actual GOLD on that vehicle a more bizarre nonsensical configuration that any hybird, EV, EREV and alt energy carrier (natural gas, biodisel, etc.) configuration you will ever see. You bet your booties they beefed up the suspension on it to haul that load, although it will hug the pavement better at 160 mph (offset by the very ugly when it destroys itself on a tiny speed bump, drive entrance lip, etc. at 2 mph).
Third time’s the charm?
Small (compact), light, inexpensive, lacking in amenities and underpowered are not automatically the same things. You can have any combination of them, without having any of the others.
The “3CPO” car shown is small (compact), very heavy for its size, very expensive, full of amenities and superpowered,
The tangent battle is getting folks to understand that small does not automatically mean cramped or lacking useful cargo and passenger space. My other posts already shot some flaming arrows towards that misconcenption.
\too long post off
+1
Feb 26th, 2010 (2:32 am)Here’s a good shot of the Volt display showing the economy ball. Will be great to see the long anticipated CS mode number and of course MSRP.
=D-Volt
Feb 26th, 2010 (3:40 am)Whoa! Even traditional vehicle frequency isn’t that often. That value is 4 times too much.
The oil-change interval for Prius is every 10,000 miles.
Feb 26th, 2010 (3:43 am)Combining conversion loss, the Otto pumping cycle difference, and being 850 pounds heavier than Prius, the estimate of 40 MPG still looks realistic.
+1
Feb 26th, 2010 (3:54 am)More Volt display shots.
=D-Volt
Feb 26th, 2010 (5:01 am)Actually, I had two thoughts in mind. You have to drive 100 miles one way to get to the airport to fly almost anywhere (Santa Fe has a few flights). And, since Albuquerque is the “big city,” people go there routinely to shop.
Thanks for the info from the census definitions. So we’re mostly rural here, but we have a few clusters.
+1
Feb 26th, 2010 (7:00 am)We need better batteries.
Feb 26th, 2010 (7:37 am)OT: (but *could* be relevant to adoption of EV’s) I got to thinking about the pop density categories and wondered if there is a category “below” rural (fewer people/sq mi) – thinking it might be something like “deserted” or “people?, what, people???” or something similar (g).
Was very surprised by the ranking of *states* by pop density, that I stumbled upon. Which state is the most densely populated? What’s the average pop density of the US states? Where does YOUR state rank? (Not surprised that Alaska is the least populated/sq mile).
Since some posts containing links can get “stuck”, I’ll post the answers in a separate comment right after this one. If the link doesn’t show up, I can post your state’s rank if asked (or you can Google it, if you’re in a hurry).
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 26th, 2010 (7:39 am)Census chart link
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 26th, 2010 (9:38 am)Most cars can pile on options to easily gain $10-15,000 over base MSRP. So Volts with stickers north of $50K can’t be ruled out. I did a workup of what the Volt might cost, with options and came to a max of a little over $53K (the zip file is posted over at http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4246 ).
My vote in the price guess pool is MSRP on a base (cloth seats) Volt LS of $39,825 and Volt LTZ (leather seats and a lot of other stuff) of $44,995.
Feb 26th, 2010 (9:42 am)Exactly how many Volts (or other qualifying vehicles) get sold before the $7,500 tax credit is no longer available? Is that per calendar year?
Feb 26th, 2010 (9:51 am)250,000 vehicles. No, it’s not per calendar year, but I believe it is per manufacturer.
Feb 26th, 2010 (11:33 am)Be Careful if you are in Canada. Are our friendly neighbors to the North offering a $7500 USD tax break? I am guessing by this announcement that GM price will be $35,999 USD so with US tax break, it falls “easily” below $30K. I have not heard Canada’s proposal for BEV & EREV, Maybe it is even higher?
+1
Feb 26th, 2010 (11:34 am)You aren’t kiddin.’ That thing is ridiculous.
We’ll get them.
Feb 26th, 2010 (11:36 am)#155
You get the “A For The Day” for that one, as my Mom always used to say. Says it all in 4 words. LOL. +1
+1
Feb 26th, 2010 (11:45 am)I believe the Nissan Leaf will have a 24 KWH battery as compared to Volt’s 16 KWH battery so 1/3 more battery or an additional 3 K, remember the Leaf does not have the sophisticated battery management system as the Volts, so should cost less / KWH. Also Leaf does not have a generator. It won’t matter if they sell the Volt for 20K if you can’t get your hands on one. I will be holding off on pre ordering a Leaf until both reveal their price and warranty info & I would suggest anyone else considering the Leaf do the same. The Leaf with battery included had better be several K less expensive than the Volt to be considered, due to range anxiety alone. But it does carry 5 unlike the Volt, good around town car for Wife.
Feb 26th, 2010 (1:07 pm)“#11 Amazed” is wrong, you can’t compare switching from a gas guzzling pick up truck. It does make sense in gas but then you can switch right now for any small sedan and make a huge saving too. It does not make sense at all comparing the volt with a RAM1500.
The volt will be a very cool car but economically will not be a logical purchase until the price per gallon is at least over $6.
Here’s why:
I would compare this car in size with the Honda Insight, cost (msrp base model not negotiated $19.800 in base trim).
Assuming a cost per gallon at $3 these days
I drive 10,000 miles/year like most people.
The insight gets 40 mpg which amounts to 250 gal/year
At $3/gal that’s $750/year
The price difference (msrp does not include negotiated prices and taxes) is $10,200 (between both base trim models)
Without factoring in some maintenance, it will take 13.6 years to make up the cost difference in gas savings.
If you factor some maintenance in both cars you are still around 10+ years to break even.
As gas price increases over these 10+ years it will reduce the gap by a few years but you still end up with a car that does not make economical sense. Even at $6/gal, it barely makes sense as it’s like paying 5+ years of gas in advance, and you only start saving after 5 years or more, assuming you keep the car this long.
The only way GM can make economical sense out of this car is if they offer leasing options below $250/month all included. Of course if one drives 30,000 miles a year then it may work for them but this is not the majority of buyers and the buyers need to be able to afford a 30G’s car in the first place (less and less these days). 30G’s is a lot of money considering you can get a great (new) car for less than 20G’s or lease a similar size car for less than $200/month, not to mention buying used cars (even more savings).
You may argue and say the insight is too small, then compare it to the larger and more expensive Prius that gets 50 mpg, it won’t make sense either.
The cool factor is there but the price would have to be around $25,000 equipped to take serious market shares.
Feb 26th, 2010 (1:25 pm)hi Baltimore17 #158 …
Volt options mentioned so far are: 18″ wheels, back looking camera, high power charge cord, choice of inner door panel theme and color, OnStar (after one year), choice of at least 5 exterior body colors. Others hinted on are: Photo darkening glass, more smart phone connectivity apps, E85 capability in 2012, solar recharge devices (blanket), and 110v converter outlet.
=D-Volt
Off Topic: Check this out. It works.
If you have ever locked your keys in the car and left your spare keys at home, you know how annoying it is to have someone bring the keys to you. Here is a different way to solve this problem quickly.
Feb 26th, 2010 (2:42 pm)A BMW is a luxury/sport vehicle which is small but not your typical Chevy ilk inexpensive compact. Different type of vehicle. The Volt is basically a Cobalt which has a msrp that starts at $14,990. Kids buy those types of vehicles.
I hope your daughter likes her 318i.
Feb 26th, 2010 (3:41 pm)I have already placed a $1000 deposit with my local Chevy Dealer. I am the first on their list for a new Volt when it arrives and I will be trading my 2008 Prius. The Volt will be the most tested GM vehicle to go into production. It will be perfect for my daily commute of 36 miles round trip.
Feb 26th, 2010 (6:37 pm)[...] Tony Posawitz of GM told the Toronto Globe And Mail and the website GM-Volt.com that although the figure isn’t set in stone yet, the automaker’s expectations are for it to be [...]
Feb 26th, 2010 (7:44 pm)I beg to differ. An ICE car has no regenerative capability so all energy expended accelerating is lost, furthermore in an ICE hard acceleration greatly reduces milage, whereas an electric motor can be very efficient in all modes and speeds so there is little penalty for rapid acceleration. The energy losses in an EV are mostly speed related.
Feb 26th, 2010 (11:34 pm)The Canadian tax break is $10,000.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay
Feb 26th, 2010 (11:53 pm)Sorry, but I don’t think that this works – at least Snopes says it’s false.
http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/keyless.asp
Be well and believe (but verify),
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 26th, 2010 (11:57 pm)CONGRATS! May I ask what State you’re in?
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Mar 1st, 2010 (12:27 pm)me: > If they have the $7500 credit + the $4000 on my GM Card + [something else] and no dealer markup then I may go for it.
This is probably old news but I noticed in my GM Card bill this month that the maximum you can use on a purchase is $1000 for most cars. When I signed up I believe it was $7000. I am not a happy camper! I’ve spent many years building it up to $4000 and keeping it there, apparently for (almost) nothing…
I realize that GM sold off the GM Card program a few years back, but it’s still not right to screw over people who have used the card for nearly 20 years. The [something else] mentioned above had better be pretty good to make up for this…
Gripe mode off.