GXT

Yes, it was a very bad month for GM relative to the rest of the industry (up ~30%). I know GM is being intentionally obtuse by just comparing the core brands, but I think I've cracked the code. If the PR prominently mentions 'increases in retail sales' then it was a bad month.

I'd switch sources... or at least get another one to double-check.

Will not? The Volt doesn't have the required AT-PZEV certification. The Prius, Civic Hybrid, etc. have been AT-PZEV for years. Last I checked, they have tail pipes. GM seems to be claiming that in 2007 they decided that they wouldn't go for the AT-PZEV standard as it would have held the Volt up for a couple of years. I think GM is now claiming that they will have it by 2012/2013 (IIRC). But not meeting the AT-PZEV may have already made the Volt less expensive, as one of the requirements of the AT-PZEV standard is a 10 year/150,000 mile warranty on the battery. GM announced only a 8 year 100,000 mile warranty. You might also wonder if that is one of the reasons GM didn't try for the AT-PZEV standard. I also understand that there is legislation in the works to give the Volt access to the lane. Don't worry, just as the $7,500 federal tax credit was custom tailored to the Volt, so too would I expect that the government will make an exception for the Volt and the HOV.

There's some truth to that. But the Volt's mid teen MPG was around a low speed parking lot course. Based on how GM was doing those drives to demonstrate the EV to ICE transition, there is good reason to believe it would even have had some electric miles included. It wasn't really worst case. Certainly not as bad a situation as the Prius you mentioned which was driven as hard as possible on a race course and still returned slightly better fuel economy. For comparison, Top Gear did what would be a similar type of driving around that course in some supercars and they were only getting 1.7 - 5MPG. One more number to add to the mix... this one from Miss Electric. At ~3:04 of the GM PR-esque video on this page they show the fuel economy as 27.9MPG over 9.9 miles... no indication if that was boosted by any electric range. I'm guessing not. http://www.misselectric.com/

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.

Assume? The facts are pretty clear. If GM has a good number they scream it from the roof top (See: 230MPG). If it is bad they delay and spin. Lyle at GM-Volt.com already witnessed the Volt getting (IIRC) 16.5 MPG in the parking lot journalist drives (surely not the easiest situation to get good MPG, but if the Volt was really getting 50MPG I doubt it would have been this low). GM is saying up to 300 miles on the ICE, and CR claims that GM confirmed the tank is 9 gallons so that is ~33.3MPG. The Cruze is set to get high 30's on the highway (I know GM claimes 40, but GM's highway numbers on their recent models have proved a little unrealistic) and the Volt should do worse as it is heavier and has conversion losses. Some months ago GM compared the Volt to existing conventional cars in away that seemed to strongly suggest mid 30's. Even over at GM-Volt.com it is only the looniest of posters that is claiming higher than 30's. No one has managed to report the ICE MPG. But I never imagined that GM actually wouldn't disclose it.

"As for who will release that generator (CS) mode MPG, it “wont be GM,” said Peterson. We won’t then likely get fuel economy in generator mode estimates until the cars is driven for extended periods by early buyers and the media." http://gm-volt.com/2010/07/29/chevy-volt-may-launch-without-official-epa-efficiency-label/ Ruh-oh.

Certainly a big improvement. Honda/Acura still beat it by a fairly significant margin, but it does look to be at Toyota/BMW level. I think GM has to be a little bit careful how much they talk about resale. They've still got a lineup largely dominated by some of the worst resale around (Cobalt 21% @ 60 months, Aveo 20%, Impala 23%, etc.) and even the mightily improved Malibu still trails the Accord by a good margin (was that on GM's short-lived Malibu/Accord comparison list?). And after a year+ of monthly sales releases where GM trumpeted the cuts to fleet sales, in the past several months they have returned to their old ways with a vengeance. They better be careful that they don’t end up informing their bread and butter consumers about residual values just before GM tanks them again.

Volt owners will most likely have a garage, so that shouldn't be an issue. But if plugging in is going to be an issue, might I suggest a Prius? Check? No, but everyone (hopefully) still gets regular oil changes. Except for Leaf owners, that is. Anecdotes aside, with a pure electric like the Leaf there is much less that could go wrong and much less that needs to be bought/maintained to begin with. For example, if you look at GM's recommended maintenance items for the current Malibu, 12 of the 22 items listed wouldn't be required for a pure electric. If I were to purchase the Leaf I would most certainly lease one. The lease rate is an amazing deal. It also means I don't have to worry about the longevity of the battery or worry about my advanced car being an 8-track in a few years. But mostly, anyone who buys a Volt or a Leaf is going to be completely raped by depreciation. The lease saves you from that.

Realistically, I imagine almost all Volt and Leaf drivers will have a garage, so I don't think that will be an issue. Although I can see some people simply forgetting to plug in at times. Beyond just the gas, one of the big pluses for electric cars is the simplicity and lack of maintenance. For example, the Leaf owner doesn't have to pay for or maintain any of the following: gas system (tanks, lines, filters), tune ups, spark plugs, oil (changes + filters), exhaust (manifold, DP, converter, piping, muffler, etc.), air intake (filter, throttle body, etc.), timing belt, head gasket, EGR valve, etc. I'd add the radiator and associated parts to the mix, but I'm not 100% sure the Leaf doesn't still have one. When I try to justify the sacrifice of buying a Volt/Leaf, it is this lack of maintenance that stands out for me as the main benefit of a true electric car.

I don't recall ever seeing a sales press release where the year over year % change per selling day wasn't even mentioned. I can't believe that even with all the negative press, Toyota still managed to post a 35.3% increase to GM's 15.9%.

I don't recall the exact stats, but 40 miles was already past the point of diminishing returns. So any argument against 50 or 60 miles could also be made against 40. Although I suspect the dirty "secret" is that the average driver will get 15-20% less than 40 miles in typical driving. But that is GM's fault for playing up the "up to 40" instead of using the typical or providing a realistic range. That GM is so worried about the volt price shows that they picked the wrong range (if not the wrong architecture entirely). As I've said before, it is silly to pick a range to hit ~80% of commuters if in doing so it forces the price of the Volt to a point where it is only an option for a few percent of the population. It is hard to say since the Volt design is so inefficient (full ICE + full electric components, so much battery capacity never utilized) it makes comparisons difficult. But GM has indicated that weight doesn't have that much of an effect. Since the Volt was supposed to be a Toyota Leapfrog and Nissan has already Leapfrogged the Volt before it even came out, I think GM has no choice but to move to a BEV. However it seems they are moving to two-mode plugins instead.

http://gm-volt.com/2010/03/26/gm-exec-gen-3-voltec-battery-to-have-shortened-lifespan-simpler-shape-and-be-offered-in-smaller-ranges/ Some thoughts: - I'm assuming Gen 3 will be out 2020ish. If GM is planning all these ways to cut costs on the battery in 2020 then they must not be expecting LiIon batteries to drop much in price in the next decade+. - GM's move to smaller ranges makes a lot more sense. I've always argued the smaller the battery the more utilization and the more sense it makes for more people. This is also a little tip of the hat by GM to Toyota that Toyota was on the right track with the plug-in Prius range. - I love the "no point in going from 40 to 80 miles" statement. But what was the point in going from 30 to 40? Or 20 to 40? Especially taken in light of the fact that they plan on offering smaller ranges to make the car affordable. - We are still waiting on the Volt MPG on ICE. But if it is mid to high 30's (as currently appears to be the case), then these low electric range Volts are going to fair very poorly against plug-in Priuses that at 50 MPG ICE get 40% better fuel economy.

"Bloomberg reported that the program has been cancelled specifcally so the company can focus on bringing out lower cost plugin parallel hybrids for the Cadillac brand." http://gm-volt.com/2010/03/02/report-gm-drops-voltec-for-cadillac-kills-converj-program/ I've said before that that makes much more sense. That is also what Toyota is doing. I particularly liked this quote: "According to analyst Eric Noble, president of CarLab, an automotive consultant, GM’s decision to kill the Converj is “a tacit admission from GM that they over-batteried the Volt.”" He sounds like me. This one too: "Apparently GM’s internal research concluded that GM could not produce the Converj with sufficient features and performance to be compelling enough to buyers at the same time producing a profit. This information was obtained from two GM executives who asked not to be identified. To have made the Converj perform as intended, faster and smoother with heavier seats and larger wheels, its range would have been halved to 20 miles, while at the same time increasing its price by $30,000." GM has been telling us that the Volt is so quiet and smooth and drives like a car with 250HP and has amazing handling. That seems sufficient to be sold as a Cadillac with minor-to-no performance enhancements. Certainly nothing in the scope of halving the range of the Volt AND of incurring a cost increase equivalent to 85% of a complete CTS. The Volt's price already includes a navi-screen after all! Looking deeper, there should be nothing so different about the Converj that if GM is able to make a go of the Volt that they shouldn't been able to do the same with the Converj at an even higher profit. It must be a real pain for GM to actually have to produce the Volt after wringing the PR out of it for the past few years without actually having to sell the car (see: Lutz's recent "GM will lose money on hybrids" and the incredibly low production volume for the Volt). I wonder how many GM execs wish they could quit the Volt like they just quit the Converj?

So if my math is right, fleet was 10.9% of GM's sales in Jan 2009 and 29.4% of their sales on Jan 2010. I guess the reduction in fleet sales that they have been trumpeting for the past year or two wasn't actually a strategy to improve resale. That is a shame. At least GM had the good sense not to talk resale. Ford's release was the worst in this regard... within a paragraph or two of proclaiming their much improved resale value they were claiming fleet increases of 154%!

And I should add that the Volt will weigh ~20% more than Cobalt and will suffer conversion losses when creating the electricity.

It doesn't run at a constant RPM. GM has stated that it runs at a variety of RPMs.

As per the numbers here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html#compare and here http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm I've got the Volt and a Prius in pretty much a dead heat. I'm using the EPA numbers... 32 miles of range for the Volt (yes, I think people will use their AC/heat/stereo) and 15,0000 miles/year (that seems high to me, and doesn't favour the Volt). I assumed the transmission and storing of the electricity into the Volt is 100% efficient (probably not true). I'm assuming the Volt's ICE is slightly more efficient than a cobalt, but then I took off 15% for the electric motors and conversion losses (not sure how accurate all this is). That works out to 3.66 tons/year for the Volt (3.7 for the Prius) which is pretty good when taken alone. And of course it will get better as the grid gets better. But I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the design compromises of the Volt require it to have a battery 12x the size of the Prius and a cost 50%+ more to acheive the same results. It just isn't (relatively speaking) a very efficient design. But I don't think CO2 emission reductions have ever been put forward as a goal of the Volt.

Someone once posted a link of all the fleet rates of the various models. I wish I could find that again. Anyways, as I recall, Honda's fleet rate was in the 1-2% range. Other than that, I agree with your points. It certainly seems like Ford is taking GM and Chrysler share.

Funny, GM-Volt.com seemed to have the exact opposite reaction. You have seen/heard the crap they are doing insteady, right? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvwTMZNWGuk I think Bob's choice is a better song and it is from TMBG, who have some credibility. The GM version comes off as a poser rip-off. But at least the actual Volt song is about the Volt. I'm pretty sure the TMBG song is actually about a car that doesn't burn gas... perhaps the Nissan Leaf

I'm pretty sure this is just PR for the benefit of people who don't have time to understand the details. "GM said last month that it would repay the government loans back from a $13 billion escrow account containing cash left over from the government bankruptcy financing that established a new company in June." As I understand it, GM is just paying back the government by taking out more debt from the government. And while I haven't seen the tally sheet lately, that 8 billion is only a small % of the money that was given to them. If I could draw an analogy: I wouldn't consider it too responsible of myself if I was taking out a loan to pay my mortgage all while spending thousands more than I was making... just after my grandparents died and left me thousands and I stiffed my parents of all the money I owed them.

And that might explain part of the reason why the ICE MPG is apparently uncompetitive? The problem with the Volt, nicely highlighted by this engine choice, is how incredibly poorly thought out it is. That makes sense, given that Lutz has already admitted that the Volt is a compromised attempt at one-upping Toyota, not an attempt at building the "right" car. I've said it before and I will say it again... they started with an inefficient design, then they picked a battery size to accommodate ~78% of the average US citizen's daily commute (why???), and in doing so made the price so high and their volume so low that there is virtually no market. It clearly made no sense. And now we have Lutz giving "bombshell" speeches about how high cost is a barrier to entry. As long as Toyota doesn't try to gouge the consumer on the price of the plug-in Prius, the Volt is probably going to end up being 40-50% more expensive than the plug-in Prius, require a battery 300% the size, and yet save less than 70 gallons/year over the plug-in Prius (assuming GM's 230MPG and Toyota's 100MPG numbers are correct and 12,000miles/year). I know blasting me is fun, and probably better than being a Volt-apologist, but do numbers like those at least help you to understand why I don't think casting the car with the detergent box and the standard batteries under the hood as a moonshot-leap-frog of Toyota was anything but PR? I said I wasn't a "Volt basher"? That doesn't sound like me.

GM-Volt.com is now reporting that the Volt doesn't have an atkinson cycle ICE: http://gm-volt.com/2009/12/15/chevy-volt-generator-does-not-use-the-atkinson-cycle/

Lyle has posted the video of the drive. http://gm-volt.com/2009/12/08/chevy-volt-test-drive-the-video/ This shows that he wasn't exactly being accurate about the MPG situation. When he first got into the car, Lyle started trying to talk about the "Efficiency Gauge". The GM engineer showed him how to get to the car's tutorials. In doing so, Lyle saw how to get to the efficiency numbers. It showed 89.5 miles on 5.3 gallons of gas for an avg of 16.5mpg. GM Engineer (talking over Lyle who is giving his commentary): "All of those numbers... All of those... All of those numbers... have not been reset since all of these press drives started so I wouldn't put any credence in any of them." Lyle: "Yeah but its 16.5 MPG." GM Engineer: "As I said I wouldn't put any credence in any of those numbers." Lyle: "I don't know what it means... why it would ever(?) say that." That's the founder of GM-Volt, having his mind blown. Most of the driving seemed to be in the 15-25MPH range with some jumps to 40. It is hard to tell from the clip, but it looks like there is a fair amount of either sitting still or staying in that 20-25MPH range around a windy course.

I know somepeople think I am just piling on GM or being a Ford/Honda/Toyota fanboi, but the large battery is the biggest problem with the Volt and the competitors REALLY are better off without such a large battery. Because they don't have the limitations of the Volt design they don't need a large battery. And because they don't need a large battery they get all the advantages that come with that: 1) Lower cost 2) Lower weight (more efficient) 3) More efficient use of the battery (more of the battery used more often). Disadvantage: 1) Less electric range (200 ish gallons of fuel used per year instead of 3,000ish KWh of electricity (@ 12,000 miles/year)) This is going to be the reality of the Volt until GM gets that battery breakthrough that they originally said they needed.