It is not just Rush who is out to slam the Volt

[hyperv6]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/opinion/30neidermeyer.html?emc=eta1

[Intrepidation]

The False about Cars slams something related to GM? What a surprise!

[siegen]

Instead of following Toyota’s model, G.M. decided to make the Volt more affordable by offering a $350-a-month lease over 36 months. But that offer allows only 12,000 miles per year, or about 33 miles per day. Assuming you charged your Volt every evening, giving you 40 miles of battery power, and wanted to keep below the mileage limit, you would rarely use its expensive range-extending gas engine. No wonder the Volt’s main competition, the Nissan Leaf, forgoes the additional combustion engine — and ends up costing $8,000 less as a result.

This illustrates how statistics can be interpreted to support either side of an argument. A normal consumer would read the above statement and could very easily come to a conclusion that the op-ed wants. I may not be a big Volt fan, but the above statements are very deceiving. First, he is coming up with the 33 mile figure based on someone driving 33 miles every day (including weekends), not just a work commute. Secondly, it assumes that every person will drive 33 miles every single day, which is an absurd statement. Even if that was the average, there are millions of people who are below the average.

Looking at it a different way: The average American drives a 33 mile round trip commute (coincidentally). The average American works 250 days a year (after you remove a 2 week vacation). That is 8,250 miles a year for commuting, covered entirely by the electric motor, and leaves 3,750 miles for weekends and trips per year. Again, that is for the "average" American. I only have a 10 mile round trip commute, and I put roughly 8,000 miles on a car per year total. GM isn't looking to lease the Volt to every single American. Some will buy, some will lease. If you are someone who drives a lot more than 12k per year, the lease option isn't for you (that's what it is, an option, not a requirement).

[hyperv6]

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

GM needs to be clear when they address this car and to the point. That will eliminate the others from confusing the issue.

Marketing this car right will make this work for GM if not others will market against it and kill it.

We or most of us here know GM does not expect this car in every garage. Other wise they would plan on building a lot more. GM needs to address who this car is for and how well it will fit their lifestyle. They need to forgo tying win the guy with the Tahoe.

We already have seen Honda and Toyota market against this car. If they were not concerned that this kind of system was not good and attractive to the public they would have just wanted GM to go in the wrong direction and waste their money. The others have already spent a lot of money in their own systems and worry the go anywhere Volt system will make sense to many who want this kind of car.

The only thing not on GM's side right now is price but that too will change in time.

[GXT]

The only thing not on GM's side right now is price but that too will change in time.

GM's lease seems to disagree with you.

The issue I see is that GM needs to drop the price by $7,500 just to keep the price from going UP when the rebates go away.

This is probably the biggest price advantage that EREV will ever have over EVs. The ICE and related systems in the Volt aren't going to get any less expensive (and if GM goes with the engine that they originally wanted to use in the Volt the costs will go up). It is the batteries and the (I think to a lesser extent) electric motors/generators that will lead to the costs going down. But EV's have more batteries than the Volt, so any decrease there will make the EV's relatively even less expensive.

Here's a thought... if GM had put their effors into parallel hybrids rather than trying to "one up" Toyota, we'd probably be talking about an unsubsidized, mass market Cruze Hybrid which would get perhaps 45MPG and perhaps cost sub $20K.

Edited August 2, 2010 by GXT

[regfootball]

GM should not even focus on MPG figures. This car is unique and ground breaking and that should be the main focus.

The original EV was leased and that was intended for the cars to be returned back to GM for more research. Its a good idea. But in order to make leases work, GM had to boost MSRP and rely on the tax credit.

Since this is technology advanced beyond the Prius, it should command some more money. early adopters always pay.

Production needs to be exclusive enough to hold the price 'up'.

All the leasing does in this case is prevent a POSSIBLE miscue by the pricing folks if they had tried to sell it lower. And it guarantees a fall back that will lease in reasonable volume in case pure sale units tank.

you gotta remember anyone who buys this first volt, its like the iphone, they want to discard the one they have and get a new version as soon as it gets out. Hence the lease, it sets the happy volt owners up to re-lease when the contract it done. it guarantees future next gen business, and it evens out high tide and low tide in terms of non lease sales.

Edited August 2, 2010 by regfootball

[hyperv6]

GM's lease seems to disagree with you.

The issue I see is that GM needs to drop the price by $7,500 just to keep the price from going UP when the rebates go away.

This is probably the biggest price advantage that EREV will ever have over EVs. The ICE and related systems in the Volt aren't going to get any less expensive (and if GM goes with the engine that they originally wanted to use in the Volt the costs will go up). It is the batteries and the (I think to a lesser extent) electric motors/generators that will lead to the costs going down. But EV's have more batteries than the Volt, so any decrease there will make the EV's relatively even less expensive.

Here's a thought... if GM had put their effors into parallel hybrids rather than trying to "one up" Toyota, we'd probably be talking about an unsubsidized, mass market Cruze Hybrid which would get perhaps 45MPG and perhaps cost sub $20K.

[hyperv6]

A Cruze hybrid appeal would have been limited at best and not cost $20K.

What GM has done is only the start. Remember the first calcualtors did not do as much and cost a lot of money back in the 70's. In time what used to be $100 is not $1.

The Volt is not the end of the road but the begining. Also GM if need be can dump the engine and add more batteries into the Volt. But I just do not see a large enough market to prove this would be needed.

The key with the Volt is to sell a system and start companies working on the pieces and parts to make better electric cars. If the Leaf and Volt are all the better GM could do than why bother. The key now is for GM to keep with this and advance this. Too often they are first with new technology and only drop it till someone else advances it.

If someone would advance the Hydrogen filling stations and a way to speed refilling Hydrogen is also very viable. I drove a Hydrogen car not long ago and was very impressed with the performance. The only real issue was like the Leaf and could I get to a place before I run out of energy.

To copy the Prius would not advance technology much in any way. GM would be better off just doing a Cruze diesel.

Edited August 2, 2010 by hyperv6

[hyperv6]

I expect stories like these and critics to attack GM hard as companies like Toyota have a lot invested in the Prius and not much in anything else. They can not afford for the market to shift. I truly think Honda and Toyota will do anything to market against the Volt as to not have to invest money in a new system. There worst fear is the people take to the Volt system as it would undo everything they have.