GXT

First, we should take a look at the source. Lutz shoots from the hip, and his aim shows it. Very often he's been overly optimistic. One of his tricks is to only talk about what he hopes the result will be in the most optimistic case. For the Volt that would be city driving, no AC/heat, no passenger, no cargo, nice weather, etc. If there is some truth in this (and I suspect there is), Lutz is hoping for 40+ MPG city under those circumstances. I haven't seen the clip, but I suspect the engineer that dropped the 32MPG+ hint was dealing with things that Lutz doesn't generally bother with... realities such as EPA methedology, highway, etc. To put Lutz's example in context: Lutz said: 40 miles electric + 20 miles ICE = 120 to 150 MPG Total (40 - 50 MPG ICE) More realistic City Numbers: 32 miles electric (as per epa) + 28 miles ICE = 64 - 86 MPG Total (30-40 MPG ICE) Highway: 25 miles electric + 35 miles ICE = 43 - 60 MPG Total (25-35 MPG ICE) Note that 30-40 City and 25-35 highway still fits in the range indicated by the engineer.

I think the major difference was that Honda was showing cars they intended to build. GM was showing a car for PR (as per Lutz) that they didn't intend to build (as per the PR at that time). It is very funny in retrospect, now that we know how GM pretty much knew NOTHING about the Volt and how they inflated pretty much every number that mattered, that that the detergent powered brick concept was assumed a working moonshot that leap-frogged Toyota.

Except that the press release for the Volt concept contained this heading in regard to the exterior, "Environmentally conscious vehicles can be aesthetically appealing". It also contained this, "The Volt’s athletic design challenges the notion that an environmentally conscious vehicle can’t be beautiful and possess an aesthetic spirit that matches its driving characteristics." and, "“First and foremost, this is an advanced technology vehicle that uses little to no fuel at all. But we didn’t see any reason why that should compromise its design,” said Anne Asensio, executive director, GM Design. Asensio led the design team that created the Volt concept, with designs solicited from GM’s studios around the world." Finally, "“Our job was to design a vehicle people could easily imagine,” said Asensio. “It couldn’t be a ‘science project,’ because that’s not what this car is all about. It had to be realistic, executable and carry the essence of the Chevrolet brand.”" Can you believe that was in the PR and they actually had no idea if the Volt was or wasn't aerodynamic? At least I assume they were being incompetent and not deceitful. For me, it is just more evidence about how very little actual work/research had been done on the Volt when they started making all their claims that have proven so inaccurate.

To the best of my understanding (which isn't much in this area) White Star didn't take out insurance. They also didn't avoid sailing when ice bergs were present. They also didn't slow down or go out of their way to avoid the ice field. And they certainly didn't pay people $500 to bring a inflatable raft with them As I wrote, "Don't get me wrong... I think it would have been silly for GM not to get the insurance or to try to disuade people from returning", I think it is a smart move for a company to cover themselves when they are clearly unsure of something. But then don't be surprised when people call you for explicitly stating that you are "putting your money where your mouth is" when you are hedging your position in multiple ways.

But in a way that is still paying people not to return the car. I think what would have been even better would be for them to NOT have taken out the insurance policy to cover potential losses. This is kind of like bragging how confident you are that you have built a fire proof house and then buying fire insurance. Don't get me wrong... I think it would have been silly for GM not to get the insurance or to try to disuade people from returning because in the end this is a silly gimick and I am sure GM knows that. But just don't pretend that you are taking some big stand of confidence when you are doing all this hedging.

Justify it how you want, in the end there is no question that they are paying people to wave their right to return. And that flies in the face of "putting our money where our mouth is". This return policy is for PR. What kind of fool buys based on a gimmick like this? If anything GM is preaching to the choir. This isn't going to sway Honda buyers for several reasons: 1) The problems with GM cars that drive people to Honda (safety, reliability, and resale) are either apparent up front or don't manifest in 30-60 days. 2) Honda buyers do research. I'm guessing they understand the purpose of a test drive as well as extended test drives. Since I am already generalizing, I would also say that Honda buyers don't tend to fall for gimmicks (they bought a Honda even though Honda has very low incentives) and put a value on their time that would generally preclude the hassle of this plan (they will pay more up front for the expectation of less hassle in the long run). I've said before that I could consider a CTS. But this kind of offer would do nothing to sway me. I will do the research and test drive. I will also expect a deal that will cover the extra cost of ownerhip of the CTS including my Saturday's wasted running it to the dealership for repairs and the dismal 29% 5yr residual. The ability to return the CTS doesn't even factor.

I feel the same way. Buying a car is a huge hassle... I can't imagine having to buy, return, and then buy again.

I did think that, because that is what the commercial implies. Even with the fine print, I'm still under the impression that ""nah, don't like it" and take it back" is pretty much the deal.

I think the fine print is fine. This is what suprised me: "Customers who waive the return policy receive a $500 rebate toward the purchase of their vehicle." So much for "GM putting their money where their mouth is".

What bothers me about the 'nox is the wildly inflated fuel economy numbers. I'm not sure how GM did it. From C/D: "...it isn’t super slow, but drive prudently, and you’ll think so. We recorded a best 0-to-60-mph time of 8.7 seconds and a quarter-mile in 16.8 seconds at 84 mph. Those figures put it near the back of the mini-SUV pack, as does our observed fuel economy of 18 mpg. " "FUEL ECONOMY: EPA city/highway driving: 22/32 mpg C/D observed: 18 mpg" "Lows: Overeager transmission stymies quickness, thirsty. " Regarding sales, did GM have the worst month of all automakers? GM was down 17.1% y-on-y. I think Chrysler was only down 15%. In comparison: Hyundai up 47% Ford up 17% Honda up 14.2% Toyota up 6.4%

Lookout... Siegen is going to start pulling out GM CEO speeches for the past 30 years saying the exact same thing! But seriously, then what is Cadillac's excuse? When I saw the initial press release I thought about just how incredibly bad next month is bound to be. It is undoubtedly true that the Chevy/Honda/Toyota/etc. numbers overall are inflated because of the clunkers money. It is also likely that the Cadillac/Buick numbers are more indicative of where the market really is (or perhaps a little lower than where it should be due to some sales being siphoned by clunkers).

Ha! Good eye. Did you check the 2007 results by chance?

I agree that the IIHS tests are harder, but it is an interesting argument that VW does poorly on the "easy" tests and well on the "hard" tests. Interestingly, it does seem to be true. Still, the 2-Door Civic is the only Honda/Acura that doesn't get a top pick from the IIHS. And from what I can see every current Honda/Acura model has been tested. For Audi/VW the New Beetle, Routan, and A4 Cabriolet don't get top picks. (I not a VW expert, but if the GTI is the Golf, then it probably won't get a top pick either.) And it looks like they've got a number of models not tested. For the record, the Volvo S40 and S60 don't get top picks. Honda/Acura don't get enough credit for it (perhaps they need to Ford-It-Up and advertise how great they are), but they are most likely the safest brand.

I agree that pretty much all cars score well. Anything less than a 5 is a failure. For example, in the scores listed below there are 5 tests worth 5 stars each. If you got a 4 in all 5 tests you would be so bad you would be off the bottom of the chart. But when you suggest that VW was tops did you perhaps mean "Best at being worst"? Average scores from the NHTSB site for 2009 models: Cars (out of 25): Acura: 25 Ford: 23.25 Honda: 23 Mercedes: 23 Volvo: 23 Hyundai: 22.8 Pontiac: 22.6 (If the solstice had been fully tested they would have dropped down to ~22.) Chevy: 22.5 Toyota: 22.2 BMW: 22 Buick: 22 Kia: 21.8 Caddy: 21.75 VW: 21.3 VW had no car that did better than 22 stars. VW has NO car that gets 5 stars in either front collision. Acura has no car that gets less than a perfect 25 stars. What was interesting to me is how few of these luxury brands test their cars: Audi: 2 of 15 Lexus: 2 of 8 BMW: 4 of 11 Mercedes: 3 of 13

It isn't clear that this will be the EPA standard. It is a near-completely useless number that won't apply to the vast majority of people. Remember all the excitement about how the EPA's old standards were often off by 10-20%. This is much worse. Given that, I would be surprised if the EPA did go with it. But perhaps there is more on th sticker than just this MPG number. I still don't understand why GM chose to do this now... with an unfinalized standard, an unwillingness to give details, and no highway number. Bad news coming? I really don't know why they keep doing this to themselves.

I think it is a horribly misleading way to rate a car. It really doesn't accurately reflect anyone's typical usage EXCEPT the person who does a full charge and then drives ~50 miles. And even then, as you point out, it doesn't include EV efficiency. I really hope that GM hasn't used it to get their 230 number. But it seems that it might be the case.

Regarding the Volt apparently falling short of 40 miles electric: We know that GM has talked about the Volt only using 8KWh of the 16KWh available to go "up to" 40 miles with no AC. We also know that part of the reason for leaving this 8KWh reserve was for battery longevity (the other being the inability of the Volt to drive with full power when it has no reserve). We also know that GM doesn't really know how long the battery will last. We also have heard that GM is pricing two batteries into the cost of each Volt as a hedge. If GM knows that they really are using 25KWh to go 100 miles, or 4 miles / KWh, then they can always dip into the 8KWh reserve to make the 40 mile range. In this case 10KWh might give the 40 miles city. Perhaps 13KWh would give the 40 miles highway. I wouldn't be surprised if GM has known this for quite some time and it was the cause of the second battery price jump. The scary part is that this is the good news. Wait until we hear the bad news.

I don't think that 230 MPG is for just the first gallon. This whole thing is kind of silly, but that would be sillier yet. And I don't agree with your methodology as it makes cars with larger gas tanks look worse. The best explanation of the 230 MPG came based on a post I saw gm-volt.com prior to the GM announcement: "Mike Duoba from Argonne National Lab devised a method to determine the MPG of an EREV; first the car is driven from a full battery until it reaches charge-sustaining mode, then one more cycle is driven. If we use the highway schedule, the first 40 miles are electric. One more cycle is 11 more miles. If the Volt gets 50 MPG in charge sustaining mode, it will use .22 gallons of gas for that 11 miles. Thus 51 miles/.22 gallons = 231.8 MPG."

It is going to get worse.... GM didn't use the DOE formula that Nissan used. They used a tentative EPA rating scheme. While they aren't giving out the details (which is a bit troubling), the methodology I posted earlier in this thread is likely. IF that is the case Nissan COULD have quoted Infinite MPG to be comparable to the Volt's 230. But what is worse today is that the "up to 40 miles" appears to be 32 miles city according to the EPA. If that is the case it will likely be in the 20's on the highway. http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/volt-birt...d-game-changer/ "In fact, even Lauckner seems to admit that the whole 230 MPG hype campaign is a smokescreen. A comment further into the livechat seems to reveal that actual EPA testing may invalidate GM’s day-one Volt slogan of 40 miles without a drop of gasoline. Surprised? Statik: The EPA rated the Volt at 25 kilowatt hours/100 miles electrical efficiency in city cycle. Does that not now mean with the Volt (which uses approximately 8 kWh of power) the AER in the city is officially 32 miles? Jon Lauckner: We are still confident that we will deliver 40 miles of autonomous electric range (AER) on both the official EPA city and highway tests, so no change there. The EPA draft methodology reduces the laboratory result take into account a number of factors such as the use of air-conditioning, more passengers in the vehicle, cargo, etc. So, that’s the difference between the “up to 40 miles” that we stated for some time (based on EPA city and highway) and the methodology used by EPA. And, nothing is final until we run an official test which won’t happen for several months. And with that, Lauckner sweeps aside the curtain of illusion. Testing is not official, nor does it take passengers or air conditioning into account. And when official testing takes place the Volt’s “up to 40 miles” raison d’être could fall. " Perhaps Toyota should start advertising the Prius fuel economy as "Up to 90 MPG"? This really is looking like the GM Hybrid Buses all over again.

Regarding the 230 number, GM better watch what they are doing. Based on this methodology Mitsu and Nissan will be able to claim Infinity MPG. In comparison, 230 will seem lame. Then GM will be in the unenviable position of being unable to live up to their own lame number.

I agree. I think we need to know: Electric range (to differentiate between vehicles with 10, 40 , or 200 miles). KW used to get that range, measured based on amount pulled out of the charging plug (differentiate between efficient and inefficient electric cars). MPG on ICE. Those should all be given for city and for highway. This is already complicated enough, but I would REALLY like to see (and this is true for ICE vehicles as well) all those factors at a couple of different temperatures (e.g. +80 degrees, 30 degrees and -30 degrees).

I haven't heard anything official, but someone posted that 230 number previously on GM-Volt.com claiming the following methodology: You drive the city loop as many times as you can until your are on gas, then you drive it one more on gas. Take the total miles travelled and divide by the amount of gas used. It is an OK measurement in that it takes into account the electric range of the vehicle. It is a bad measurement in that it doesn't reflect what the vast majority of drivers will experience (i.e. anyone who drives less or more than ~50 miles/day will get a different number). Remember when people complained about the Prius "only" getting 50 MPG when it was rated in the 70s/80s? Wait until people take their Volt for a road trip and end up with their 230MPG/100MPG car getting ~40MPG. Now that they have quoted this big number, GM better hope the EPA goes with this scheme. This may turn into the GM hybrid bus fiasco all over again. Even so, it sounds like they are still quoting numbers with the HVAC off.

Why do you say the tax payer doesn't pay? Because of an expected massive devaluation of the US currency?

Why don't you tell me about how great this deal is: I live in Canada. We paid ~10 Billion. Best-case (by their own admission) GM will have 5,500 jobs here by the end of the year and they are all located within one small area of one province. That is roughly $2,000,000 per job saved. I know people like to talk about spin off jobs, but the reality is that eventually we are going to have to cut services or raise taxes to pay for this and that will just as likely kill as many jobs. More to the point, we could have paid an equivalent number of workers $50,000/year for 40 years to work on infrastructure projects and would have had an even greater economic impact as most of the money would have stayed in Canada rather than having GM shuffle it out. Unlike the US of the past decade plus, in Canada we have been running budget surpluses. We don't have the irrational US knee-jerk reaction to taxes, but at the same time we realize that when the government spends money you do eventually have to pay it back. Just to give you an idea of how relatively-wasteful this is, the GM bailout represents 1/5th of Canada's entire projected deficit this year. I can only hope that we manage to get some return on this.

They should have been giving similar warnings for the past several years! People who are trading the stock now deserve what they are about to get. Feel sorry for us taxpayers who have no choice in the matter.