GXT

It will help that Volt availability will make the Camaro availability look fast. That 32-36MPG ICE had better be incorrect... although that is what some have predicted and even what GM seems to have been recently hinting.

If some of GM's recent TV adverts are any indication, I'm guessing they are continuing to play on how they believe (and they may be right) that the average person doesn't realize that the total miles per tank is not actually how to calculate a vehicle's fuel efficiency. Looking forward to the "Cruze gets 600 miles/tank commercial, the civic only 400" commercial.

Who me? I never expected they'd have trouble with this aspect of the Volt. One has to wonder what goodies Nissan and other non-EREV manufactureres are coming up after NOT having spent a year (and apparently counting) trying to get an ICE to behave in an "appealing" manner. Personally, I think it is a non-issue. You have to expect ICE noise, gas, oil changes, etc. when you buy the EREV compromise. It isn't a pure EV. Edit: In his continuing series of "Bob Lutz gives you the PR car that GM wants, not the car that you need": "Three years ago, it was Toyota this and Toyota that, everyone thought only good things about them, and it was because of the Prius," Lutz said, adding that GM suffered in consumers' eyes. "I wanted to overcome the incredible reputation Toyota had with the Prius, and we knew we couldn't do it with just another hybrid." http://www.detnews.com/article/20091119/AUTO01/911190374/GM-engineers-sweat-over-getting-Chevy-Volt-just-right

They should put stuff like that at the top of the press release to really drive home the quality of the information you are getting. Talk about intentionally misleading! Escape hybrid gets something like 50% better city fuel economy and 25% better overall fuel economy. Yes, it does do slightly worse on the highway. I'm not saying the Equinox is a slouch, but why can't GM try to be realistic? It really makes it hard to take anything they say seriously.

2010 2WD Hybrid Tahoe: 21 City, 22 highway, 22 combined 2010 4Cyl Camry: 22, 26, 33. I'm not going to rag on the Tahoe Hybrid because I think it does very well, but it isn't the "same". If you don't believe me, buy the GM PR and focus on the fact that the Camry gets 50% better fuel economy (33 MPG vs 22). I think people drive in the city, but what do I know. Carbiz, I bet you don't buy a Volt. Even if you think you are the target market (you will typically only use a 1/4 of the battery, so it is overkill for you... you are actually more of a target for the prius plug-in), I bet you don't put the $50,0000 CDN down to buy one. You can try to make equations about miles travelled and the range of the Volt, but in the end it just doesn't make enough sense when everything else is taken into consideration. And the reality of you trying to hurt Petrocan is that you are in effect sticking it to Alberta and Sask which means they will no longer be able to give transfers to Ontario which means they can't "afford" to go further into debt giving away my money to encourage you to buy the Volt.

I assume you are up to date on the state of the industry and know that Nissan plans to release the all-electric Leaf next year (i.e. before or at about the same time as the Volt). It will have a much lower price of entry than the Volt and apparently more cost effective than a similar sized gas car (which the Volt isn't). PR: Did I mention it was all-electric? I should mention it is all electric. I should also mention the Volt uses gas. The Leaf doesn't use any gas. etc. I imagine the Volt should perform better... but the Prius proves that really isn't the point in this segment. Plus if you really want something that performs well, the Volt, with a price tag of a CTS-V but with a 0-60 time of the hybrid Camry, doesn't really cut it. And now that GM has proclaimed that 40 miles is good enough for near 80% of the population, it will be interesting to watch them argue that 100 miles isn't good enough. What was the point of all your cute emoticons again? Yes. Was there actually something actually wrong with the information? Or is that just your knee-jerk reaction?

Wikipedia has a great article on this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_crystal_display_television Funny you should mention Plasma, because I think the Volt is comparable. What you wrote isn't true at all for LCDs. LCD TVs they were very small initially. The first commercial LCD TV was in 1988 and was apparently 14". By 2004, 32" models were widely available, 42" sets were becoming common. Over the past couple of years LCD sizes have been increasing dramatically. The same is true for computer LCDs... they started at 15" or below, not 30 or 40". Plasmas may have started large because there was a market opening, but the cost of entry was high. By 2007 LCDs were outselling CRTs and Plasmas. Now plasma exists only on borrowed time. LCD = Hybrid Plasma = Volt As for your computer analogy, you've spun my point right around. In the 1960's I would not have expected many GB of RAM, but that is exactly what the Volt is. At a time when most hybrids have batteries in the 2KWh or less range, the Volt will have 16KWh (I believe this is some 27 times the size of the Insight battery). The point is that the Volt's design is such that they NEED to carry that much deadweight. It is more than just a "battery life" issue... the ICE is unable to drive the wheels and is insufficient to power the car under heavy load. It is a flaw that drives up the cost and hurts efficiency. It is one of the reasons that some automakers have found this design a non-starter. That GM didn't think this far ahead or didn't want it to interfere with their one-upping of the Prius (as per Lutz) is no reason to commend them. Ah, the "energy independence" argument. It doesn't really hold up. I've given the numbers before, but because of the niche volume of the Volt and the delay in getting it to market Toyota has sold so many Prius that they have saved so much fuel that the Volt will likely never have the same impact as the Prius. I've joked that the person sitting and waiting for his Volt could have saved more fuel by buying a Prius than he ever will with his Volt. When the time comes (and apparently this is soon according to Nissan), people will buy all-electric cars and then the Volt will be the relative gas consumer. It should be no surprise that the Volt isn't the "right" car, as per Lutz that was never the goal of the Volt.

I think you are generally correct, but let's be clear that the Volt's range is "up to 40 miles" and the EPA range quoted by GM is actually 32 miles city, and highway should be less than that. I'm assuming that GM's "just don't use the AC" isn't going to fly with someone who spent $80,000 on a Cadillac. I can imagine that the electric range of such a vehicle would actually be in the 20's. And then what happens after you have gone 20ish miles? Even with that engine upgrade you have a very heavy car with something less than 140HP available. Even with the electric torque this isn't exactly awesome performance... especially compared to other much less expensive vehicles. And since your motor/ICE upgrade results in twice the generator short fall as the Volt, the reserve battery capacity is that much more of an issue. If anything they would need to increase the reserve for a car like this, not decrease it. Given a choice between a Volt and a Converj, I suspect the tree huggers are going to go with the less-excessive Volt. The non-tree-huggers can get real sports car performance from a CTS-V for mid $60K.

You wouldn't. I think buying a 3 or 4 year old GM's and driving it until it was 12 years old would be about the cheapest way to own cars. But some people want a new car more often. Some people like to be able to have a new car every 4 years for the price that others have to wait 6, or pay the same overall cost but get much more car. For some people the cost of time wated on an older car makes it too expensive. For those people depreciation does matter. I'm glad you like your Cobalt. What really struck me about the one I drove was how they had wasted money on a hood strut while at the same time putting the dinkiest little power window/door lock buttons. I should never have to open that hood (and the few times I do I could just use a brace), yet I touch those power window door buttons all the time. It really seemed like misplaced priorities to me. That, and the clunky mechanical HVAC controls and the dot-matrix stereo really turned me off. How much is an LCD panel anyways? We moved on to the Malibu pretty quickly.

Obviously cars depreciate the second they are driven off the lot. Thanks for pointing that out. But I have to assume from your response that you haven't actually looked into the different depreciation rates between say a Honda and a GM. Otherwise I doubt you would have posted quite so many And yes, I did learn this the hard way. My wife really liked the look of the Alero so we went ahead and bought one. We had never bought a new car before so we didn't know what we were getting into. Not only did it have LOTS of problems, the dealership always seemed to take three visits to fix anything. Later we found out how bad the crash test results were. We couldn't wait to get rid of it, but it took us about 2 months to sell it. In the end we took about $15,000 of depreciation in 4 years. Her next car was an Accord. It had a similar purchase price but slightly lower lease payments (in spite of the slightly higher lease rate). Even though we paid slightly less for it over the four years, it depreciated ~$4,000 less than the alero. We also managed to sell it in two weeks, and I suspect we could have done even better had I been willing to take two months selling it. I really don't see what is so funny about throwing away $4,000 for the opportunity to drive a worse car. In fact, you can directly trace that to why I (and I suspect many others like me) don't buy GM products. ?

Yeah, I think I had the same ebrake break twice on my wife's beretta and twice on her alero.... and I think there was 6 ore more years between those cars. I can't comment on the import part situation as I've never had to search out a part for any of my imports... except the button for the fog lights on my 1992 Talon. But I believe that was standard over 4 or 5 years.

You've created a false dilemma. Here's an analogy you might appreciate. Before LCDs were common, do you think the best approach was to sell 15" LCDs? or 120" LCDs? Or 405" LCDs? Because those are roughly equivalent differences when comparing the scope of the battery size difference between the Volt and the Prius and the Volt and the Insight. Do you think the best way to make 120" LCDs mass market is to go from 15" straight to 120"? Or does it make sense to go 17, then 19, etc. until you reach 120? The Volt also has the unenviable position of having the cost of a 120" but only 60" viewable (as half of the battery is not used). GM jumping straight to the 120" may "one-up" Toyota, but that doesn't mean it is smart. Plus what GM is essentially doing is buying a 120" panel from a 3rd party. Nothing but sense stops Toyota from doing the exact same thing, from the exact same company even.

I checked the Canadian website and it tells me there are no deals on the Cobalt in my area. Sorry Biz, I don't have the time to sign up for quotes or go to the GM dealer to find out what amazing deals they have on the Cobalt, or try to figure out what kind of financing rate I could get, or see just how much GM has inflated the MSRP so that they can screw people into thinking they are getting a deal. Do tell: What is your definition of "HALF"? Of course the all-knowing non-ignorant Carbiz KNOWS (as per the GM website) that the Corolla has the following advantages over the Cobalt: 2 more airbags, 2 more speakers, brake assist, auto climate control, cruise control, driver lumbar, etc. In fact, out of the ~180 items compared on the GM website, the GM advantage is indicated only for 12... and several of those are actually ties that GM has given to itself, and the rest mostly have to do with on-star and the engine being larger (which is a wash I think because the fuel economy is worse). I can't see one major feature in favour of the Cobalt besides the Cobalt having a 5AT to the Corolla's 4AT. So when you said, "they don't match up in features by HALF." did you mean that the Cobalt doesn't measure up by half? Because I think you are being a little bit too critical. It isn't that bad. If the GM website is wrong, please tell me all the amazing features of the Cobalt that make it twice the car. The last time we had a similar argument it was about the Cobalt/Civic and as I recall I was the one who pointed out how misinformed and misleading you were. Apparently not much has changed. PS. You never would have been able to sell me car, because, as you can see, I would have actually checked the bull that you were telling me. Apparently you've sold Cobalts and have some inside knowledge of the Corolla. I've never really cared to own either but for some reason apparently I know more than you. But you are right that you need to get off the websites. The Cobalt my wife and test drove had horrible build quality... e.g. the fabric on the door near the tiny power window or door switch didn't reach under the switch. Trying to sell a used GM vs a used Honda is a pain in the butt. And you don't really understand depreciation until you see how little you get for your used GM.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply you were a moron. I just couldn't figure out why anyone who had the grasp of numbers that you seemed to have would put down such a large downpayment or seriously consider a new GM. Gotcha. But I'd suggest that adding a downpayment to the mix only complicates the comparison and hides the differences. That $15,000 could be doing a lot of positive things.

Good call.

Whoops.... I think they put the most controversial spin on any news, regardless of automaker (a fine counter-point to the overly positive Lyle). But that doesn't mean they are "wrong". That we haven't seen the generator in action adds some fuel to this fire. Anyone who has read about Frank and quotes from Frank over the past few years knows that this had to be a VERY hard decision for him.

I like your dedication to the facts. But why are you putting $15,000 towards a cobalt/cruze instead of your mortgage? Your mortgage will surely be at a higer rate than the car. You are throwing away money. Your numbers are minimizing the cost difference between the Volt and the Cruze. If the Volt is 40,000 in the US it will be 45,000 in Canada and therefore nearly 50,000 with taxes. The Cobalt LT2 1SB is about 25,000 right now with taxes. Even assuming you waste my taxes (Ontario should get their own fiscal situation in order before they decide to so profoundly waste transfer payments) for a $10,000 credit, the Volt will be 15,000 more, and probably at 6% more per year (I wouldn't expect any deals on a niche product like the Volt). $40,000 for 60months @ 7% = ~$9,500/year. $25,000 for 60 months @ 1% = ~$5,130/year. That is an extra $1,200 per year for the Volt over your original numbers. Also, as someone who found this out the hard way, I would encourage you to research depreciation rates if you haven't already done so. I think you will see that buying a new GM is a bad idea. e.g. a $24,859 Corolla LE will cost $445.58/month for 60 months at 2.9%, and a 2005 model is currently worth $9,100 black book. (e.g. It will cost 17,634 over 5 years.). A $25,355 Cobalt LT2 1SB will cost $443.31/month for 60 months at 1.9% (I assume you can get a slightly better rate on the cobalt) and a 2005 model is worth $6,900 black book. (e.g. it will cost $19,698 over 5 years, or $2,000 more than the Corolla.)

As I've pointed out many times, I'm still here and I will be when the Volt comes out, for better or worse. However I think you are viewing GM's actions with rose-coloured glasses. It isn't like they set out with reason and knowledge to build the right vehicle and fell short only because of bad luck or because of facts that are only apparent now. Here is what I believe we know from observation and public statements: 1) From interviews we know Lutz believes the demand for fuel efficient cars is largely media hype. 2) From all sources we know the Volt was Lutz's baby. 3) From interviews we know Lutz wanted to build an all-electric car for the purposes of getting Prius-style PR. 4) From interviews we know Lutz was told that was not practical, and the bastard Volt was created. 5) A Volt concept was shown with impressive claims. We now know that the Volt is falling short on all the important metrics originally claimed. We also now know that GM was claiming things which they could have known one way or another at that time (e.g. aerodynamics), but for which they clearly did not have even the most basic evidence. We don't know if that was deceit or incompetence. GM (correctly, I think) used the "we need a battery breakthrough" disclaimer to cover their butts. 6) PR floods in. Government retooling money was on the table for efficient vehicles. Cash burn was so high that bankruptcy was probable. 7) Ford, Toyota, Honda (and me! ) point out that a car such as the Volt doesn't make sense and there are better avenues to pursue. This is spun by GM and sites like this as evidence that GM has accomplished something that no one else could accomplish... even though we now know the Volt was little more than a box of detergent apparently filled with ignorance and PR-dreams. 9) In spite of all the above, GM decides to proceed with the Volt immediately. 10) That no one else is jumping off the cliff with GM is spun as further evidence that GM is performing some kind of "Moon shot" of which no one else is capable (Chinese company BYD proves this incorrect by selling a car similar to the Volt in 2008. Chrysler also demonstrates a EREV prior to the Volt being demonstrated.) Just to put that in context, let's compare GM's actions with Ford's. GM built some crap hybrids (with 4ATs!!!) and then started their Volt slight-of-hand routine described above. Instead of jumping off the cliff with GM, Ford demonstrated that they could one-up GM, then pointed out that it was a bad idea, and then, while GM was busy building their PR production lines so as to play make-believe, Ford ACTUALLY one-upped Toyota by putting out the most fuel efficient midsize sedan. It was on sale years before the Volt, profitable (I suspect), a reasonable purchase for the consumer, wide availability, no government subsidies, probably cost a lot less than the Volt to develop, and Ford doesn't have to worry about looking like idiots because they made up a bunch of facts they couldn't ultimately back up.

Are you saying that Toyota lost money on the 3rd gen Prius? I've heard people make that argument about the first gen, but you can't seriously be making that argument about the 3rd and 2nd gen too? Now if you had stuck to the first gens then I could have seen your point to an extent. But I believe even the first gen Prius made much more sense to Toyota and the consumer than the first gen Volt. More to the point, one of the causes of the first gen hybrids was government money, and in that regard I guess Toyota and GM aren't so different. Regarding whether they make sense for the consumers, I don't know enough about the 1st gen Prius to say how the volume proposition has changed, but yes, a 2nd and 3rd gen Prius driver could make up the cost premium. But let's assume you are correct and say the Prius doesn't make sense for the consumer. Lets see how the Volt compares. Assumptions: Price premium for Volt ~$18,000 (40K vs 22K). This actually flatters the Volt as depreciation and financing costs will widen this gap significantly. I know there is a tax credit for the Volt, but that the government has to prop it up just proves the point all the more. Let's assume the extra financing, depreciation and taxes equals the tax credit. Prius gets 50MPG. Volt gets 30 miles electric range (as per EPA city of 32 - slightly lower for highway) for $0.80 ($0.10/KWh) and 35MPG on ICE. Assume gas costs $2.50. Volt users get up to one full charge per day. Let's look at someone who drives 5,000 Miles/year, 10,000 miles/year, 15,000 miles/year, and 20,000 miles/year. For simplicity assume that they drive the same number of miles per day (this favors the Volt as it optimizes the number of miles that will be on elecricity). 5,000 miles/year: Prius uses $250 in gas. Volt uses no gas, and $133 in electricity. Volt saves $116/year over Prius. Volt premium over prius after 8 years of driving $17,067. Volt premium over Prius has a 154 year payback. 10,000 miles/year: Prius uses $500 in gas. Volt uses no gas, and $267 in electricity. Volt saves $233/year over Prius. Volt premium over prius after 8 years of driving $16,133. Volt premium over Prius has a 77 year payback. 15,000 miles/year: Prius uses $750 in gas. Volt uses $290 in gas, and $292 in electricity. Volt saves $169/year over Prius. Volt premium over prius after 8 years of driving $16,650. Volt premium over Prius has a 107 year payback. 20,000 miles/year: Prius uses $1000 in gas. Volt uses $646 in gas, and $292 in electricity. Volt saves $61 year over prius. Volt premium over prius after 8 years of driving $17,507. Volt premium over Prius has a 292 year payback. So if the Prius makes no sense for consumers, what does that mean for the Volt if even in one of the most Volt-friendly situations it has a 77 year payback premium? I picked 8 years for the cost comparison because that is apparently when the Volt's battery warranty will expire. Now you are saying, "GXT that price will come down." OK, lets say GM manages to drops the price by $9,000 and for some reason the Prius doesn't manage to realize any of those savings. Now you have a 77, 39, 53, and 146 year payback respectively. Even if you give GM all their original goals (including the $30,000 price, 50 MPG ICE, 40 miles electric) and $4/gallon gas, the Volt payback is still many many times worse.

This is the second big Volt defection in the recent past... but this one is much more significant. As Lyle writes, "He is the German-born engineer with the job of Volt vehicle line executive, making him as the leader of the Volt program, reporting to the VP level.". http://gm-volt.com/2009/10/30/volt-chief-f...-going-to-opel/ Why anyone would leave the Volt program to work at Opel is beyond me. Hopefully he is just trying to get back to be with friends and family. Here is the Turth About Car's update, which is a little less optimistic than Lyle's: "And as a second executive abandons GM’s EREV moonshot, it seems pretty clear that the program has major shortcomings that execs don’t want to be associated with. After all, New Opel is hardly a sure thing itself." http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/volt-birt...71-weber-bails/

I also think they should focus on the 40 miles electric, however if they have to advertise the EPA numbers (and I think they do), then 32 miles city and 25(?) highway isn't going to look so good. I suspect that is why they want to talk about the 230MPG number... however I think that will really bother consumers. Look at the outcry about the Prius numbers when it was rated at 80MPG and "only" got 50. 230 to 35 is so many times worse. Under gas it is supposed to perform the same as under electric. Apparently the generator cannot produce enough electricity to keep up with the motors under heavy draw, but that is one of the reasons that the Volt turns on the ICE with 30% of the battery capacity remaining. Theoretically a driver needs significant HP only in spurts, and when the demand exceeds what the generator is able to produce the Volt will dip into that battery reserve to maintain performance.

I do feel kind of repetitive... I'm not sure how many times I have told you that I don't particularly like Toyota, have never owned one, and don't particularly want to own one. I don't want to get in the way of your persecution syndrome, but sometimes it isn't quite that black and white. Toyota was correct when they criticized the Volt... and take note that that was when GM was claiming the Volt's performance was much better and the cost was much lower than what it seems today. It makes even less sense now. Initially GM tried to pretend that what they were doing was some leap-frog moon shot, but now we know that wasn't the reality at all. Lutz has admitted that the Volt was a compromised attempt to one-up the Prius and now it is pretty clear that at the time of the concept they really had very little idea what they were talking about. That also means that they most likely decided to go ahead based on public reaction to their claims (as well as government money) and not based on what actually made sense. So don't blame Toyota for pointing out the obvious. The reality is that Toyota could do what GM is doing if they wanted. And while I suspect they will one day, they will probably wait until it makes sense. Rushing to put out a vehicle that doesn't make much sense for the consumer and loses money for automaker doesn't make sense.

Except that they aren't really delivering. e.g. 1) Price will apparently be $40K+, not under nicely under $30K 2) ICE MPG will likely be in the 30's, not 50. 3) Electric range will be 32 miles (city EPA) and probably less on the highway, not 40 miles. 4) Availability will be niche for quite some time, not the "gotta be a Chevy to show how it is an average person car" mantra. 5) Range is 300 miles, not 600 (not that this really matters as far as I am concerned). 6) Appearance is more Prius/Insight-like and less Camaro-like. I would also argue whether or not the technology existed. I don't think anything particularly new has been created since the time of the concept. On the contrary, I think the battery breakthrough that GM was banking on hasn't happened and that is why they are falling so short on the important metrics.

It should do better in City, but not in Highway. The marketing solution will probably be what they have been doing to date: 1) only talk about city without expressly mentioning you are only talking about city 2) use yearly averages ("230 MPG") 3) use trip averages (40 mile electric + 20 mile ICE) 4) don't use the EPA methodology at all ("up to 40 miles") 5) If really trapped, talk about city/highway combined numbers or send in Lutz to give his "close enough for plausible deniability" answer. Regarding not having the zip of full electric mode... are you suggesting they are going to intentionally limit power use on the ICE? The Volt generator is already only 71 HP so it isn't like it can afford to be de-rated much more. I imagine one thing they are considering is tapping into the 8KWh dead-weight reserve to get the MPG numbers up and then and dealing with all the early battery failures later.

A lot has been said of the Cruz. It will be interesting so see where reality lies. I suspect a lot of expectations are based on the Cobalt XFE, which, from the reviews I have seen, doesn't come close to delivering the EPA numbers. However I wouldn't assume the Volt will do better than the Cruze. The Cruze will likely weigh in around 2900 pounds. The battery + motors/generators + etc. of the Volt will likely weigh 500 pounds (the battery is 400 alone). That is an increase of 15-20%. Plus the Volt will suffer from conversion losses not experienced by the Cruz. On the flip side, the Volt will have the ability to reclaim some energy while stopping... although that won't apply in the "44MPG" highway situation. Plus things like AC, heat, stereo, etc. may have a greater impact on the Volt. I suspect you are right that things are being sorted out. But I also suspect that the relative silence on the matter indicates they are falling well short.