Obama touts this as success
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
Isn't the real problem for the Volt, assuming we just have faith that the battery will last in the Phoenix Heat and the Minnesota winter for 100K miles, that the economics don't make any sense when you put the price of electrical energy together with the purchase price, licensing and insurance minus incentives. Won't a new lexus, accura, infinity, camry or prius leave you ahead financially after 100K miles? What is the average gas price per gallon needed here to break even on these options. (I'm paying about 9.5 cents per KW-hr.)
You're the official car guy here. Can you do the math for us? I wouldn't know where to begin, other than to start researching the numbers. But you must have them at your finger tips, or maybe even in your head.
I can see buying a volt if I just don't care about the numbers, but I do care about those numbers, (The CO2 argument doesn't hold for me because my power comes from a coal burning plant, and I know that I only get 30% of the energy released delivered to my home as electrical energy when coal burns to CO2 and water . So unless I am saving money, I'm not buying. )
[If I can do a little GM bashing here, it seems that in the past GM got to the point that they wrongly thought they could sell anything if they spent enough on advertising. The idea seemed to be sell the car at near cost and make your profit on parts and service. But it turned out that once people learned they were selling junk they stopped buying no matter the advertising. Is that the plan here. Advertise the hell out of the Volt, even though it doesn't make financial sense for the buyer? I think GM's first priority ought to be to recognize that there are not quite enough stupid buyers to keep them in business under the old business model,]
I got an email notifying of a post on another forum, so I decided to search and see what other Volt bashing threads have been started. A few more I see.
It may be in the news, but it's certainly not credible. There have been several other articles since released calling into question those figures.
It's OK. The articles came out about the Volt being "Obama's car". It's sales increased. Then the article's about the fires (test vehicles, real life ones dissapointingly have not occurred yet). It's sales increased. Then the articles about the plant closing. It's sales increased. Now, this article. I'm just taking a guess and gonna say that sales are going to increase. You can't keep a good thing down. The average person is realizing this more and more. They aren't ignorant like you and are willing to try new things. Then again you probably just switched your car radio from cassettes to cd's.
The cost figures in question take the high R&D costs and divide it by the relatively few Volt's sold in 18 months. That's not how business numbers are calculated. Other estimates put the actual cost to produce a Volt between $20-30k, which is much more reasonable. As volume increases, this will come down. There are several articles out there now calling into question those figures. Remember, the Volt is not a car, it's a concept. It's technology can easily be implemented into all electric vehicles (upcoming Spark), suv's, trucks, and sports cars.
I don't work for GM and I'm not here to be their spokesperson. I just find it troubling how quickly ignorant people latch on to such a biased article. It reminds me why I'm not voting for Romney. He said, "the Volt is a vehicle who's time has not come." The Volt's timing couldn't have better and it is a real solution to thousands of drivers. If Romney can be so ignorant and uninformed about the Volt, what other decsions of his will be tainted with biased opinions?
Even Forbes thinks the volt stinks.
Whether Reutersâ calculations are on target or not, Voltâs tepid performance is an embarrassment not only for GM, whose executives touted the Volt as the companyâs ticket to recovery, but for the Obama administration, which has used the Volt as an example of the countryâs commitment to building more fuel-efficient cars, Reuters says.
The Volt, which has been on sale for nearly two years, carries an official sticker price of $39,995. Through August, GM has sold a total of 21,500 Volts. Thatâs well short of the figure GM hoped to sell. It originally estimated that by this year, it could be selling as many as 60,000 Volts annually worldwide (a version of the Volt is also sold as the Opel Ampera).
But the sticker price doesnât begin to cover the original investment for Volt, which GM puts at $1 billion, and which some analysts say is probably closer to $1.2 billion. Nor does it reflect production costs for the Volt, which has expensive technology including lithium-polymer batteries, and sophisticated electronics, plus an electric motor as well as its gasoline engine, Reuters says.
Reuters surveyed analysts who estimated the cost of manufacturing each Volt at roughly $80,000, including the cost of materials and the investment GM made in the car. The figure does not include marketing and other expenses, which easily could add thousands more.
Bottom line, itâs unlikely GM can recover the cost of building the Volt in the first generation, or some analysts say, maybe not ever.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/micheli...m-may-be-losing-50000-on-each-chevrolet-volt/
Whether Reutersâ calculations are on target or not, Voltâs tepid performance is an embarrassment not only for GM, whose executives touted the Volt as the companyâs ticket to recovery, but for the Obama administration, which has used the Volt as an example of the countryâs commitment to building more fuel-efficient cars, Reuters says.
The Volt, which has been on sale for nearly two years, carries an official sticker price of $39,995. Through August, GM has sold a total of 21,500 Volts. Thatâs well short of the figure GM hoped to sell. It originally estimated that by this year, it could be selling as many as 60,000 Volts annually worldwide (a version of the Volt is also sold as the Opel Ampera).
But the sticker price doesnât begin to cover the original investment for Volt, which GM puts at $1 billion, and which some analysts say is probably closer to $1.2 billion. Nor does it reflect production costs for the Volt, which has expensive technology including lithium-polymer batteries, and sophisticated electronics, plus an electric motor as well as its gasoline engine, Reuters says.
Reuters surveyed analysts who estimated the cost of manufacturing each Volt at roughly $80,000, including the cost of materials and the investment GM made in the car. The figure does not include marketing and other expenses, which easily could add thousands more.
Bottom line, itâs unlikely GM can recover the cost of building the Volt in the first generation, or some analysts say, maybe not ever.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/micheli...m-may-be-losing-50000-on-each-chevrolet-volt/
Yes, those knowledgeable analyst's hiding behind the cloud of anonymity.
Other estimates range from $76,000 to $88,000, according to four industry consultants contacted by Reuters. The consultants' companies all have performed work for GM and are familiar with the Volt's development and production. They requested anonymity because of the sensitive nature of their auto industry ties.